la politiciens folles

Well Hello Dummy [continue chorus]!
I am (law) Bender, pleaes insert lobbyist-padding. With wiretaps and "unethical" congressional raiding, "How dare you raid my home after accepting bribes", it will be interesting, perhaps, this fall with election 2006, leading to hullabaloo 2007 for 2008.

In reflecting on my political angst, I know that MR and I are different in many different ways. If we were on a FOX network -- "if only" MR might remark, the FOX team would sit behind MR jotting notes while he tried to push on my idiogenic*1 apathy. Certainly MR keeps up on politics more than I, leaving me more like his perspective on 'dumocrats' who bitch without thinking or (in his thinking) without reason. Whether justified or spiteful obstructions, those feeling disempowered will always let you know it.

On the subject of criminal justice, however, we concure almost perfectly.

On persons, which I favor over any groups or parties, some tend to seek their ability to act out the part or be good democrats or good republicans, that is following an agenda for that sect. To me, that's like being a good Baptist or good company man. I'd much rather have a good surgeon, a good doctor than a good "medicine man". I am interested, sadly ill and poorly informed on the actions of persons on all bills. Even the bills and laws themselves are so lengthy that the average person would favor a two sentence synopsis of it, rather than a better abstract be it six or twelve paragraphs long.
In voting for persons, there are offices for which I don't always vote. The job, government obviously, but doesn't pay exceedingly well. How much do I know about the job, let alone the persons who don't have the cash to wage political war for a $20K job?
Opportunites arise in voting to answer questions to "assist" lawmakers. Too often voters believe that in answering these five questions ("three questions, sir"), that they are actually passing that law. I would like, however, for a greater interest in input by the general populace. Granted, most can't write, let alone type, but beyond that, legislators ("mount up") should be interested in the goals of their so-called constituants. In this repbulic (not direct democray -- impractical for millions), the governing body acting independant leads directly to corruption.
Be it real or perceived by many, working irrespective of those governed puts a gulf so wide between the governed and those who govern that languages and cultures are different.
In defense of the government, some populations are, well, stupid. Communicating with them would be difficult. Say, like the idiots who wouldn't flee New Orleans or those Florida dead who "ride out another one no greater than the one before", who can't be that bright. Writing about Florida, Dade County, how many voters does it take to understnad a voting machine? Also ... if you have a fill-in-the-blank card anywhere, voting won't take place. Would I want suggestions from people who don't read English who have lived here for thirty years? Would I want suggestions from people who can't push buttons? Hmmm to that, I'd have to say no.

End run of criping, I think that an analysis or background check for each person running should be mandatory. If the person has a felony -- no guns allowed and MAY NEVER RUN FOR OFFICE. If the person has 2 misdemeanors, other than traffic offenses, that person MAY NEVER RUN FOR OFFICE. Upon violation of this, the person is immediately taken into custody, those responsible for hidden those facts also taken into custody, all priviledges, salaries be retroactively stripped. I wouldn't elect a bank robber and I shouldn't have a felon (of any kind) or convict on the ballot.

To this last degree, I think MR and I will ... well, not mesh ideas.

*1 of unknown origin