Wednesday, April 17, 2013


And what to do about ‘em 

I expect my representative to vote his or her conscience.  And sometimes, I won’t agree with the vote cast.  I accept that. 

Not acceptable is when my elected representative’s conscience is for sale to the highest bidder. 

The test?  If in explaining his or her position, I am offered a rational argument, grounded in constitutional principle, historic perspective (if we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it), scientific precept, or the plain and simple common good, I’ll believe we simply differ.

If however, the explanation is non-existent or is laced with platitudes, faulty data, sound bites from moneyed sources, false patriotism, or is based upon fear mongering and half-truths, then it’s pretty clear someone sold their conscience as a commodity.  That, or they're just plain stupid.

Inarticulate, corrupted or ignorant, that individual has lost my confidence and trust and I will look elsewhere when casting my vote.

The country deserves better than what we are witnessing.

© 2013
Church of the Open Road Press


  1. And what the hell? When did fifty-plus out of a total of 100 votes equal failure to pass?

  2. I can find no reason to call you naive.
    I do believe that we are on a similar page.

    Thank you for your witness.

  3. From the opposite side of the spectrum that you speak from. I couldn't be happier about how some of the representatives voted. Although, they weren't my representatives as I live in California.
    All the things you say about the other side, they say the same about yours.
    I read a quote sometime ago, which seems very appropriate - "As a general rule, if a person disparages something, which someone-else thinks is important, they are marking themselves as a rude narrow-minded snob."
    Let's not be that person.

  4. I appreciate your comment, Puppychow, but will deny disparaging anything other than some of the process participants. A careful reading of the post will indicate that I did not take sides on any particular issue.

    As for the follow-up comment, the fact that it takes 60 votes to pass a bill out of the Senate is something neither Democrats nor Republicans want to rid themselves of because each party sees circumstances when it works to their advantage.

    Currently, our Congress appears dysfunctional: subscribing to a what's-likely-to-not-offend-big-contributors more frequently than what's good for the general populous. They too frequently cover their tracks with indefensible platitudes and repetition of guff they know many people have bought into originating from a fairly mindless popular media.

    I return to this: Congresspeople should ground their votes in a combination of Constitutional principle, historic perspective, scientific precept and/or the simple common good. If they can't do that, the voters need to find folks who will.

    By the way, whether you or I agree or disagree with Dianne Feinstein, it must be said that she voted with her conscience in this most recent go-round. Given her personal and political history, her feelings seem justified.

    My Congressperson, Mr. McClintock, had the bill advanced to the House, would have voted the opposite. He, too would have voted his conscience and would have so-explained succinctly.

    Mr. Graham (SC) let us down, not because of his vote, but because of his explanation.

    PS: Nice gold country run pictures. We need to hook up sometime!

  5. I didn't mean to insinuate (but I may have) that you were being particularly disparaging, perhaps myself being colored and frankly very tired of the constant back and forth attacks and counter-attacks of our much polarized society these days.

    What I quoted, is a general rule most can benefit from nowadays, including myself, and if I may have offended you albeit inadvertently I do apologize.

    I agree about Congress basing their votes, beliefs and conscience on the supreme law of the land and following the principles of the bill of rights.

    Although, voting their conscience doesn't automatically equate the above. Emotions can be beguiling and any law or mandate which even hints at restricting or infringing the right of the people as set forth in the Bill of Rights should not be approached in an emotional manner or fear mongering, or based on any sort of emotional appeals and melodrama, as heart wrenching as those appeals maybe - guarding the rights and liberty of the people should be paramount to any emotional obligations one may feel.

  6. I so much agree with you: Some seem to get caught up with the "I've got to be right" mentality and others of us succumb to arguments that simply cannot be solved. The constant back and forth attacks and counter-attacks indeed polarize our society. Still, I believe the majority of us look for a middle ground.

    Sometimes I find that middle ground by hopping on the bike and releasing my concerns, worries and aggravations over a rise in the pavement or around a sweeping turn or two.

    I suspect you do the same.

    All the best!

  7. I have been finding people will see they have more in common, if they just try just a little harder to find those things. No one is one dimensional and we all have values and beliefs several layers deep. If we don't do anything more than scratch the surface - we will never know what else we may find.

    BTW I loved your report on the Lupine fields of Folsom Lake. I have guests coming in this weekend, so if they feel like they are up for some mild hiking, I will be sure to take them where you were. I think that would be awesome, I hope so do they! :)

    Best wishes!

  8. Were I not tied up this weekend with the Access to Care Fair, I'd hook up with you and see if those Lupine fields are still as profuse as last week. Take your camera and let all know what you see. :)