Tag Archives: rural

If I Were Speaker of the House of Representatives

28 Wednesday Oct 2015

Posted by in Education, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Higher Education, History, Honor, Politics, Religion, Respect, Taxes, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

House of Representatives

This House is Out of Order

It seems that Paul Ryan (R-WI,) has the bid to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives sewn up, but before anyone makes a significant mistake, allow me to offer myself as the alternative choice.

As Speaker, I can guarantee you that the dignity of the United States House of Representatives will be restored. To accomplish this, the following steps will be taken on Day One:

  1. The 38 members of House Freedom Caucus will be declared to be a neo-Republican party, independent of the Republican Party. Anyone joining their caucus will also be declared to be neo-Republicans.
  2. The House will be divided into three parties. The Republicans, the Democrats, and the neo-Republicans. Each will have their own leadership.
  3. Congressional committees will be all be reorganized with the two largest parties determining who will be given a proportional number of members on all committees If a third-party caucus has enough representatives to equal or exceed fifty percent or more of the of the second largest party, the majority leaders of the two largest parties will vote to select one Representative from the third-party to sit on that committee. 
  4. When Congress is in session, the leadership of the two largest parties will meet the first day of the week for breakfast to determine the agenda and issues to be addressed that week. 

That’s it. Four steps to put the House of Representatives in motion again.

The House Freedom Caucus:  The Rotten Apples in the House
The problem in the House is not bad politicians. There have always been bad politicians and always will be in almost every form of government. The problem is that the Republicans have let the worst 38 Representatives to determine what does and does not get done. The have let the House Freedom Caucus bring down everyone to their level because the Republican leadership knows that if they lose the support of these 38 members, they lose their majority.

What the Republicans don’t understand is that they are on the verge of allowing the House Freedom Party destroy the GOP if they don’t rid themselves of these 38 members (36 according to the Pew Research Center.) Here are the members according to Wikipedia and the Pew Research Center:

Rural Districts Running America

Congressional District map for Freedom Caucus membership of the 114th Congress

Congressional District map for Freedom Caucus membership of the 114th Congress (Credit: Wikipedia Commons)

These 38 are Representatives of primarily rural Congressional districts that often feel impotent in the political arena. Residents of rural areas find that their simplistic, socially conservative, sometimes racist, ultra-religious, anti-education view of the United States of America is often ignored because it is contrary to the Constitution and laws of our country. Despite this, residents of rural areas often see themselves as superior to urban residents, even though they lack the knowledge to make informed opinions. This makes them easy targets for unethical politicians to win their vote because rural voters typically listen only to what they wish to hear.  

NEXT:  Paul Ryan’s Legacy of Failure

Why David Brooks Isn’t Qualified to Decide Who Can Be A Gun-Control Spokesperson

30 Sunday Dec 2012

Posted by in Crime, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Opinion, Politics, Recreation, Respect, Traditional Media, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

David Brook, New York Times columnist

David Brook, New York Times columnist

New York Times columnist, political analyst, and all-around smart guy David Brooks rarely says anything that lacks intelligent thought, so when he makes a verbal blunder, as he did on December 16th on NBC’s Meet The Press group think session, it should be considered a national holiday for backwater bloggers like myself who make verbal blunders on a daily basis.

Two days after the murder of 26 people in Newtown, CT, David Brooks was making a point about the need for rural people to be included on the debate regarding the use of guns in our society. He said:

Brooks, defender of the innocent rural gun owner

“…it’s perceived as an attack on the lifestyle of rural people by urban people…”

Mr. Brooks then suggested that it was inappropriate for the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, to be leading the debate. Brooks stated:

“…it’s counterproductive to have him as the spokesperson for the gun law movement.”

As someone who was raised in northwestern Colorado, where blaze orange is always the Fall color, and a gun is put in your hand before a driver’s license, I would strongly disagree with Mr. Brooks and I would dispute that he is the person to choose who can be the spokesperson for laws to restrict gun ownership.

While guns are nearly idols to be worshiped in rural communities, this is not a debate about freedom of religion. Guns tend to have life ending consequences and that consequence is often borne by the person who doesn’t own the gun. Rural people don’t understand the pressures and conflicts (e.g.; road rage, etc.) that occur in more urban environments and therefore they don’t have a place in the debate of an issue that crosses the rural/urban boundaries.

Rural people usually can’t understand why anyone would live in a city and often have built their perception of city living based on news stories of mass killings, drive-by shooting, and murder-suicides. Many rural people see city life as a daily battle ground where the unarmed are targets for the armed bands of criminals who roam the city streets. The fact that millions of people live untouched by violent crime in cities everyday is beyond the belief of people who think Fox News is ‘Fair and Balanced.’

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is exactly the right person to be the spokesperson for the appropriate use and limitations of gun ownership in America. As Mayor of one of the U.S.’s biggest urban areas, Bloomberg’s view of the dynamics of cities and those who live in them is unmatched by few in America.

Brooks remark is akin to saying that only cigarette smokers should have a voice in the control and use of cigarettes, even though they can kill non-smokers. We don’t need to prove guns kill non-gun owners. Guns kill everyone, regardless of his or her gun-ownership status.

Brooks might be correct that this is a rural versus urban issue, but it is the rural citizen that already has the gun in hand and that is the wrong solution in an urban environment. It’s time urban communities were allowed to address the threat that rural values have on our cities.

Who can or cannot be part of this debate should be decided by those who face the threat, not by those who have the gun and David Brooks is not the person to make that decision for us…

….even if he is the smartest person in the room.