A FOOLISH NOTION

If the GOP gentry seriously want Jeb Bush to become president, they're beguiling themselves. While he'd be an enormous improvement over the incumbent, that alone says little; most any Republican would be. Two terms of Obama's "left-bent" tumult requires far more of a conservative remedy than will be found in Jeb Bush. Also, cultivating in the minds of voters acceptance of high elected offices becoming routinely rotated within certain families goes counter-wise to our founding concepts. The dynastic Kennedy permeation ought to have taught that lesson. Also, both Bush presidents allowed political opponents --including "left-bent" media--to endlessly slander them with despicably outrageous accusations, without response. Congressman Barney Frank (who once accused G.W. of plotting genocide: "ethnic cleansing by hurricane") once said (September, 2010): "if you blame or accuse someone over and over of something bad and the accusation is never responded to, the accusation becomes believed". Against the Bush presidents, Frank--and his "left-bent" cohorts in government and media--were committed, prolific, practitioners of that doctrine. Jeb Bush would be just as susceptible to likewise attack--as had been his brother and dad--and for the same reason: not responding, believing it beneath the office of president to defend themselves. Regarding President G.W. Bush, he was not our greatest president--but hardly had he been our worst; nothing justifies the cascade of hatred dealt him by the "left-bent". Unfortunately, his choice to not respond, was contributory to the unfairness that victimized him. The GOP nominating Jeb Bush would be terribly bad strategy.

Column Right: A BAD INFLUENCE

Column Right: A BAD INFLUENCE: America has become too celebrity-obsessed. That obsession is reflecting in ways, detrimentally, out-of-whack with what the nation was founde...

A BAD INFLUENCE

America has become too celebrity-obsessed. That obsession is reflecting in ways, detrimentally, out-of-whack with what the nation was founded on; was intended and expected to, become. The entertainment industry has so bedazzled much of the nation, in an influential way it might near be considered a branch of government. The most ill-informed of celebrities are--as a matter of routine--given platforms from which they, publicly, make incredibly ill-reasoned, narrow-minded, and stupid pronouncements. Owing to the broad influence they command, because of popularity, their remarks--no matter how ignorant--are enthusiastically given unquestioned credence by their most ardent, fanatic-like, devotees. This becomes, extraordinarily, dangerous to a society, whose citizens have constitutionally guaranteed them, the right to vote. To a great degree, this explains how it so happens we find many bizarre, nondescript, characters holding local, state, and federal elected offices. It too explains how habits and practices, decades ago thought too outrageous for even consideration, are now commonplace.

THE TRUE AND PHONY ATHEIST

Political pundit George Will is obviously a well-educated intellectual, as was the late Christopher Hitchens; both, able to reason on levels reflective of their education and intellect. Both men made their atheism, publicly, known. Education and intellect, however, do not indemnify from wrong reasoning. In Hitchens' case, he acknowledged it a possibility that God exists; but atheism leaves "no room" for that possibility. Admitting there can be "any chance" that God exists, is to blow the doors off atheistic convictions. For that reason, Hitchens was an enigma. You can't play it from both sides: claiming to be atheist, while acknowledging it possible that God, is. Reckon how many atheists will declare that, if lucid, their dying words will be: "there is no God"? Hitchens came quite close to making that declaration. Even after having acknowledged that God might exist, nonetheless, coming within weeks of the end, Hitchens made clear that, if ever he began to speak of his conversion from atheism, he would not be speaking in his, sane mind; rather, it would be "lunatic" ravings caused by his terminal illness. If, regarding God Almighty, your position is one of ambiguity, it might be more wise to claim agnosticism, rather than declaring atheism. Since George Will made public his atheism, it would be interesting to know whether he, too, concedes there can be "any possibility" that, God exists. I maintain that, no matter how lofty the education, or however haughty the intellect, an atheist...true or phony is, "a fool".

THE CONSTITUTION / THE PRESS

Freedom of opinion is, and has always been, backed-up by law in America since the founding of our republic. That freedom had been placed into state constitutions and, most particularly, into the federal Constitution. Freedom of speech, a free press--and the right of peaceable assembly--are enunciated distinctly in the Constitution. The first ten amendments, especially, addressed personal liberties; it denied the Congress from enacting any law that did abridgment of speech freedom, of press freedom, and the public's right to petition the government through peaceful assembly. The Constitutionally guaranteed right enjoyed by America's press corps was granted in order that a free people could be kept more fully informed by a free press that would, in the aggregate, inform without bias. When the main-media-aggregation combines in connivance to slant news--so as, to disadvantage that free-flow public reception of information--they injure and undermine the spirit of that constitutional protection; thus they, thereby, are practicing defacto censorship by methods of slant, omission, and deception. The American people become inexcusably hindered in making wise determinations, in analyzing competently--such as,in evaluating the merits and qualifications of candidates seeking political office. The people become impeded, or obstructed, in their need to be kept abreast to, and apprised of, the facts of current events. The term: "journalistic malpractice", needs to be more seriously taken by both the public and, members of the "free press".

IRRESPONSIBLE PARENTING

It's seldom that individuals who are upright, self-respecting, and well-mannered adults...became so, after having been raised in disorderly, unkempt, households...under vulgar, violent, and otherwise irresponsible parents. The odds are that, character-wise, people reflect their upbringing. It's uncommon that properly disciplined and well-raised children become undisciplined and ill-mannered adults. So; it makes sense that communities of responsible parents, who raise well-disciplined kids, would be pleasant places to live; just as...communities of irresponsible parents who are raising undisciplined brat-delinquents, would be unpleasant places to reside. It just seems--to me, at least--a commonsense conclusion that an orderly society COMPELS there be RESPONSIBLE PARENTING.