A new word

I coined a new word yesterday. It happened while I was at work. We received a case up the freight elevator that had a broken runner. The runners are what allow the cases to roll smoothly along the conveyors. With a broken runner of course the case would not roll. Some brilliant soul on the dock thought it would be a good idea to keep the freight rolling by simply placing the broken case on a folded up case of a slightly larger size, While this did keep the case rolling it also lead to many safety risks. The broken case could easily have shifted or slipped causing harm to the parts in side, or any person who may have been around. Or if it had shift while on the freight elevator, it could have jammed the elevator and damaged equipment. Anyway, the word I coined was "idjitnuity". My definition for "idjitnuity" is "a bit of utter lunacy that some idjit thought was a great idea" And other than the example I just cited, the prime example is Obamacare. Comment with your own examples.

Religion and politics

"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." -- U.S. Constitution Article VI

It seems to me, as I look at the Republican primaries that the race has, to many voters, become a religious struggle rather than a political one. We have Rick Santorum, the right wing conservative Christian against the Mormon Mitt Romney. And it would appear that in many places it is the candidates religious beliefs that are the only thing guiding the voters. In the south and other areas generally considered "Christian" the ultra conservative Christians can't imagine a "Cult member Mormon" representing them.

At the same time many of the moderates and independent voters can't bare the thought of a conservative Christian candidate. So what I am seeing is a race that is focusing on the religious beliefs of the candidates rather than on what they might stand for politically, or if they have a chance of winning in November.

I think as voters, especially if you are a Republican, or a conservative independent, you must look at the constitution (quoted above) and put aside the religious test, and ask yourself if the candidate you choose has a chance of winning in the fall, and does his politics reflect what you want from a leader.

While I feel a leader should have a strong moral background, we need to see that it is not the Presidents job to dictate the Morals of the nation. The President should lead the nation morally, but not lead the nations morality. Hopefully that makes sense to you. I think we need to find a candidate who lives his life by his moral convictions, but realize that we need to live our lives by our own convictions.

So basically what I'm saying if you are torn between Romney and Santorum, do not make the decision based on the candidates religious affiliation. Vote for the candidate who you feel best represents your political goals, and the candidate you feel can win in November. Doing otherwise is a vote for Obama. And if you are saying, "oh. I don't like either of them" you are giving a vote to Obama.

And finally a message to my more liberal friends. I am asking you, as you approach the November election to ask yourself honestly if Obama has turned out to be all you hoped for, or just another political disappointment. Ask yourself if you are happier now, and better off now than you were 10 years ago, or if you are old enough to remember, than you were in the 80's. Do you get the "change" you "hoped" for. If you answer these questions with a "no" then it might be time to say "Nobama in 2012" ...just a thought.

Things that make you say "Well, DUH!!"

So I was listening to some talk radio station on Super Tuesday and one of the lady commentators said, in a very authoritative voice, "What the Republicans seem to be looking for is someone who can beat Obama in the fall." I looked over at Rob, who I car pool with, and he looked at me at the same time. He asked, "did she just...?" and I said, "Yeah, she just..." and then we both said, "Well...DUH."

Of course the republicans are lookoing for someone who can beat Obama...isn't that the point of the elections....beat the other side. Maybe, just maybe, talk radio stations should hire commentators who think before making blaringly obvious statements. Let's count how often in this election season we here statements that make us go, "Well...DUH!"

Politics, I'll never quite get it

Sorry, this post should have come on Tuesday, but I've been a bit lazy this week. On Tuesday I was watching a few moments of CNN before the primary results for Michigan started. They were talking with democrats voting in the primary. Apparently Michigan has open primaries where you don't have to vote party lines. The democrats they were talking to said they were voting for Santorum, because they thought Obama had a better chance of beating Santorum than Romney. I know this is an old trick, I've seen it in California in Governor races etc. Vote for the weaker opponent in the primary, so you can beat them easily in the fall.

Now call me naive, but to me that is like a vote of no confidence in your own candidate. It's like saying, "We aren't sure our guy is the best, so let's make sure we get the weakest opponent." This then ties into the election ads where you point out all the bad things about the other guy rather than saying anything good about what your guy is going to do. I don't quite get politics, I'm sorry, but tell me why your the best guy for the job, not why the other guy is worst.

Well, a few more months of this....okay over half a year really. I'll try to survive...thank God Tivo will let me skip most of the ads!!