WHY THIS WRITER COULD NEVER BE ELECTED AS U.S. PRESIDENT

It's not that we're actually entertaining the thought of even wanting to hold the U.S. presidential position -- or any other political one whatsoever -- but this piece is simply devoted to the changes we'd strongly propose if ever so elected.  As the reader will quickly note from the following list of our campaign issues, they would accomplish little more than cause this fellow to be blackballed from consideration as being labeled a radical, a  socialist, an anti-semitist, an unpatriotic villain, and a downright traitor, to suggest just a few epithetical titles.


Nevertheless, we intend to go ahead with what we deem to be essential to the ultimate survival of this supposedly great nation throughout the not-too-distant future. So, without further ado, here are the changes considered vital to ongoing success, presented by category:


1.  CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
     A.  Legislative Branch
           1.  A single parliamentary body only, presided over by a duly   
                elected Speaker, with the majority party in control.
           2.  The similarly elected Prime Minister required to be present at 
                 each parliamentary session.
     B.  Executive Branch
           -- Essentially an administrative body, carrying out the laws, 
               regulations, and policies established by Parliament.
     C.  Judicial Branch
           -- The same 9-member body as at present, but with each Justice 
               subject to periodic popular re-election.
     D.  Election Process
           -- Replacing the electoral college completely, to be replaced by
               straight popular vote.
II . LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
      A.  Income Tax
            -- Drastic revamping and simplification, eliminating virtually all
                existing loopholes. 
      B.  Political
            1. Compulsory voting by all citizens age 18 or over, subject to a
                heavy fine for non-compliance. 
            2. Lobbying to be completely outlawed, under threat of prison
                sentence.
      C.  Health
            1.  National health care for all citizens and legal immigrants,
                 covering everything except:
                 a) Abortion
                 b) Cosmetic surgery
                 c) Dental work for beautification purposes only
            2.  Heavy taxes on the following products:
                  a) Alcohol and tobacco
                  b) Soft carbonated drinks
                  c) Candy and chewing gum
                  d) High glucose, sodium, and cholesterol foods
            3.  High import tariff on coffee, tea, and cocoa beans.
            4.  Posting of public signs virtually everywhere, stating simply that
                 "cigarettes kill".
            5.  Government takeover of full control over narcotics under the
                 following conditions:
                 a) Resale to registered users at nominal prices.
                 b) Compulsory use cessation for registered users, covered by
                      national health.  
      D.  Education
            1.  Free education to level sought for all duly qualified citizens and
                 legal immigrants.  
            2.  Spanish treated as official second language, and required to be
                 taught along with English from starting age. 
      E.  Welfare
            -- Ongoing state-sponsored job creation programs.
      F.  Crime Prevention
             -- Hand guns only for police, with unlawful possession -- including
                 in the home -- subject to imprisonment.
      G.  Criminal Punishment
             -- Elimination of death penalty, except for conviction due to
                 corruption.
      H.  Immigration
            -- Available to all who can prove capability of earning a normal
                living.
       J.  Marriage
            1.  License subject to renewal by written consent of both parties at
                 consecutive 5-year anniversary dates.
            2.  Automatic divorce if no renewal executed on time.


By way of conclusion, the reader is invited to think about what we solemnly view as highly-needed social improvements illustrated above.  Granted, they'd never get this fellow elected, but we're confident of their value in seeking solutions to countless hitherto insurmountable impracticalities, injustices, inequities, inconsistencies, and unnecessary dangers to health.                                                     

THE CLASSIC AMERICAN FALSEHOOD

Time and time again, dating back to childhood days, we’ve been hearing politicians and other superpatriot types loudly proclaiming the United States to be the greatest country in the world, often to tumultuous applause from bands of naïve, shortsighted listeners.

 But is it really that?  If so, why have we always had so many inhabitants who are:

     Hungry,
     Homeless,
     Inadequately educated,
     Unemployed,
     Chronically ill,
In most cases though no fault of their own?

Yes, it’s unfortunately true that we can’t avoid having:
     The lazy,
     The listless,
     The careless (e.g. improper eaters, smokers, heavy drinkers, drug abusers).

Even so, how many of these supposedly hopeless people might revert if once given a chance for a better shake in life – rather than continually beyond reach due to social and economic imbalance?

No indeed, Folks, we have no right to call ourselves the greatest, chiefly because of the mess our government and our less-than-sufficient human rights  system have been  building up for generations.

We allow ourselves to be inspired by Thomas Jefferson’s classic words about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness …..

But what do we actually do, as a democratic society, to maximize or even optimize its universal attainment, except in restrictive half-way legislative measures, unduly compromised by special interest groups galore? 

In the simplest of terms, we’ve failed out citizenry miserably.

Meanwhile, however:

     The rich continue to get richer, as always;
     And our esteemed government is galloping toward total fiscal insolvency,
     As it keeps dumping money down the drain in a never-ending quest for absolute military 
          supremacy;
     And making countless arch enemies by meddling needlessly in the Middle East and elsewhere ,
     On the supposed premise of national security,
     When we aren’t the least bit stable or secure, in a far too many respects. 

What, then, would be so wrong with spending such vast sums instead for:

     Public welfare,
     Full national health care for every citizen,
     Enhanced educational opportunities, and
     State-sponsored public job creation ?

Most certainly, we could manage all this, and still retain the individual human right to reject any and all such benefits, strictly on a voluntary – rather than an unjustly imposed – basis.

 

 

 

 

OBESITY, BY GEORGE

According to recent news reports, our esteemed medical profession, in all its wisdom, has now declared obesity (aka overweightedness, fatness, lardbuttedness, and so forth) to be a disease.  And, by George, they’re right!

However, in our not always so humbly expressed manner, and adopting thesimulated title of honorary medicinis doctoris, we hereby opine that said malady should be added to the already lengthy list of mental  setbacks, along with paranoia, schizophrenia, manic depressiveness and so many others.  We say this in all earnestness.  As far as this writer is concerned, except in certain out-of-sync glandular cases, obesity stems from a person’s mind being too weak to pursue careful dietary habits, and to know when to  push one’s way back from the table.  

By way of evidence, we offer that endless daily parade we see of men looking as though they might be six months pregnant, and women who  should make pretty fair middle linebackers.

A STUDY IN CANINE ACTION PRIORITIES

One morning several years ago, having left the house  enroute to work, we found our forward path temporarily  blocked by two dogs of varying breed – a male and a female.  Considering what action was about be undertaken, we could readily discern that the little lady was “in heat”, as the standard expression goes.

Just after the masculine party had put himself into the appropriate position, the idea struck us that an interesting  experiment might be in order.  Quickly then, we opened a briefcase and extracted about a half slice of bread from a planned lunchtime sandwich, and tossed it on the ground a few feet to the pair’s right, in the male’s peripheral view.  Which, we were endeavoring to determine, takes precedence?

The answer came without the slightest hesitation, as our canine Casanova abandoned his intended action long enough to go scoop up the food in his teeth and gulp it down.  Then, of course, he proceeded to take up where he’ d  left off.

Consequently, we were able to surmise that in the wonderful world of man’s best friend, the underlying philosophy must be “you can always find a convenient girl friend, but a meal is much harder to come by”.

WARNING

When U.S. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the Supreme Court ruling in the 1819 case of McCullough vs. Maryland, he declared that no state could hold the right to tax the federal government.  The logic applied, which remains on our laws to this day, was quite succinctly expressed by his words:   “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

Jumping to the present day, we find people blithely choosing to register often manifold credit card numbers with internet vendors galore.  Accordingly, such  persons are leaving themselves wide open to charges,  whether authorized or otherwise.  We sincerely urge that heed be taken of Mr. Justice Marshall’s sound advice, duly rephrased in 21^st century fashion, by stating that:  “The power to debit is the power to bankrupt.”

IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU

In a great many long past conversations with fellow members of the male species, this writer can readily  recall at least  a dozen different cases, wherein the other chap openly admitted to having once acquired “a dose”.  Although such term should be fully explanatory unto itself, any reader failing to grasp the meaning right off might simply ask the nearest person over age seven.

Taking this theme just a step further, it stands to reason that, statistically speaking, if some twelve lads have brought such fact to light, perhaps we’ve also carried on acquaintanceships over the years with roughly twice that many who’ve been similarly smitten, but would never admit it in a thousand years.

This feeling  on our part stems from having observed two highly divergent male philosophies in this respect  ever since  boyhood days.  In the frank admission instances, the underlying motivation is to portray  optimum achievement vis-a-vis the fair sex from the masculinity standpoint.  Meanwhile,  the supposed majority maintains a never faltering silence,  since confession would undoubtedly smack of excess promiscuity in one’s femininity conquests.  In other words, it’s preferable to perpetuate an atmosphere of association with only the most high-class glamorous mates.

If any reader deems this an extremely oddball subject to dwell upon, please rest assured, we’ve already done worse on previous literary occasions.

SHOCK WAVERS AND ICE BREAKERS

The intent of this piece is to focus briefly on a few modest but notable milestones, wherein we’ve experienced welcome breakthroughs, with what’s come to be known today as excessive permissiveness  gradually winning out over ridiculous ultra-conservatism.   Altogether, a  half-dozen key events are covered.  Each one either involves, or is directly related to, the world of public entertainment.

 AND WEST IS WEST

Back when television was a mere gleam in David Susskind’s eye, the prime means of family home entertainment was listening to the manifold dramatic, comedic, musical, documentary, or news reporting programs presented by the various radio networks.  And believe it or not, even then there were numerous bluenose-incited complaints about excessive violence corrupting the minds of growing children.  Such “frightening” just-home-from-school daily shows as Tom Mix, Jack Armstrong, Little Orphan Annie, and Buck Rogers, for example, featured far too many evil, cutthroat villains.  Even though such nasties would be  eliminated one-by-one as a result of heroic or clever feats by the good guys, these  broadcasts simply had to be damaging  to junior’s or junior miss’ tender psyches.  Tsk!  Tsk!

Nevertheless, our concerned adulthood vigilantes had no need to worry over their kids’ being in danger of learning a little bit extra about (shhh!) s-e-x from listening to the airways.  Well, at least not until Sunday, December 12, 1937.  That’s when Mae West, an established movie actress, whose alleged immorality-driven film performances were deemed unfit for children’s sensitive eyes and ears, did a one-shot radio appearance, which  became the talk of Mrs. Grundy’s universe, shorter than even overnight. 

The Edgar Bergen Sunday afternoon “family” show featured the famed ventriloquist and his dummy sidekick Charlie McCarthy.   Don Ameche was also a regular cast member.  On this fateful  Sabbath, Miss West became the week’s guest star. 

Following an innuendo-tinged exchange with  Charlie, she and Ameche did a skit portraying Adam and Eve’s initial “get-together”.   Although innocuous enough to most listeners,  the lady’s sultry and provocative   tone caused bells to ring and cannons to go off from the halls of Montclair NJ to the shores of Monterey.   It seems that far too much sex had been allowed to drip all over biblical scriptures – and  on Sunday yet.

We can’t really call this incident an ice breaker, but it remains somewhat immortalized in radio annals as its biggest shockeroo.  Even the FCC uttered words of condemnation, echoing those of offended souls throughout radioland.  Should the same bit be redone on television today, using identical phraseology and tones as then, it would likely create more than a few yawns, and/or viewers reaching for their remotes to try another channel.

YON BONNIE BANKS AND BRAES

1937 provided still another stunning occurrence, this time in the realm of popular music.  Long-established acceptable practice, when playing or singing a traditional “old favorite” number, was
for it to be performed note-for-note as originally composed, and at the same customary pace.

It so happened, however, that a young and enterprising pianist named Cllaude Thornhill had prepared a slightly upbeat vocal arrangement of the celebrated Loch Lomond, to be sung by Maxine Sullivan, an up-and-coming chanteuse.  Happily for the lady, the recording became an immediate hit, the principal reason being that it was quire bouncy in execution.

Despite reaping a fair amount of bucks in disk sales, Miss Sullivan became pronounced guilty of having defiled a lovely age-old tune, considered semi-sacred to the more conservative-minded music appreciators.  Oddly enough, as soon thereafter as February  1938, Benny Goodman’s orchestra played Loch Lomond as part of its renowned Carnegie Hall concert program, and the Martha Tilton vocal followed  the same swingy manner as had the Sullivan version – and nobody seemed to be offended.  Perhaps the “new” styling had already sunk in.

LARRY’S REVERIE

Again the subject is popular music.  Larry Clinton, the leader of a prominent dance orchestra, had the “audacity” to record Debussy’s Reverie, with lyrics “manufactured” and sung by lady vocalist Bea Wain.  In this instance, the pace hadn’t been stepped up, but just as written.  What was wrong with that, we hear you asking?  Well, in those days a person simply didn’t corrupt a piece composed by one of the “old masters” with romance-dripping words.  The classics just weren’t to be monkeyed with.  Horrors!

Whether “My Reverie” was a mere shocker to the bluenose (and ears) folk, or merely an ice breaker, we can’t be sure.  In any event, it didn’t take long afterward for the practice of “swinging the classics” to become rather popular.   Prime examples were Woody Herman’s Woodchoppers’ Ball (Quartet from Rigoletto); Les Brown’s Bizet Has His (Day (L’Arlesienne Suite) and Marche Slav;  Alvino Rey’a  William Tell and In the Hall of the Mountain King:  plus Harry James’  Dodger Fan Dancer (Dance of the Hours) and Flight of the Bumblebee.  Still further on, no loud objections arose when Freddie Martin recorded an instrumental version of Tchaikovsky’s  Piano Concerto under the title Tonight We Love.

UPTOWN INDEED!

In the very early 1940s, popular music produced two relative ice breakers, when Gene Krupa’s band recorded Let Me Off Uptown, with Tommy Dorsey’s Yes, Indeed close behind.  And what, one may ask, was so significant about that? It’s just that they were both vocal numbers spiritedly rendered by white girls accompanying black men – a hitherto unheard of situation up until then.  Anita O’Day and Roy Eldridge had teamed up in the first case, with Jo Stafford and Sy Oliver the other.

JOSE DIDN’[T SEE

A real shock wave hit the TV screen on October 7, 1968.  The occasion was a World Series match between the Detroit Tigers and the St. Louis Cardinals.  A young, growing-in-popularity blind singer-guitarist named Jose Feliciano had been invited to perform the customary pregame national anthem.  And history was promptly made.

To the sheer astonishment of the entire viewing nation, and maybe somewhat beyond as well, Mr. Feliciano offered a “soul” rendition of the Star-Spangled  Banner, feeling  in all sincerity that this was justified in his capacity as  a professional entertainer with unique styling.  But despite the artistically melodious phrasing ….. well, gangbusters.  Maybe it had been acceptable in earlier times to jazz up a classical piece, but the National Anthem?  No way, Buster! Never!

Unfortunately for the youthful Jose, the uproarious reaction, which began after no more than the first few bars of his singing, did indeed damage his career for a year or so afterward.   In some circles, he may still be held in contempt to this day.  Super- and even lesser-patriots galore wasted not a minute in putting his name at the top of their private blacklists, maybe never to be erased.

Isn’t it add that, shortly thereafter and up until the present, nearly every pregame sporting program has featured either an individual vocalist or a group belting out the age-old anthem in his, her, or their own note-altered manner.  And nobody complains any longer.

“A” FOR ADULTRESS

December 1949 and February 1950 brought on a pair of back-to-back Nathaniel l Hawthornian events, wherein two silver screen goddesses became adorned with bright scarlet letters, resulting in our modern age’s most lastingly significant ice breaker from the public morality standpoint. 

Although not yet divorced from Orson Welles,  glamour queen  Rita Hayworth had been carrying on a highly publicized globe-hopping affair with the fabulously wealthy Prince Ali Khan since 1948.  Very little backyard fence indignation became noticeable -- that is, until news broke to the effect that the lady was “in a family way”, as the saying goes.  Meanwhile, fellow actress Ingrid Bergman was also married to one man but involved with another, namely film producer Roberto Rossellini.  In due course, the eyebrow-raising world learned that she too had started “eating for two”. 

Even then, a touch of light courting or a  harmless flirtation in far-off Stromboli could easily be tossed aside as  girls will be girls issues.  But giving birth to illegitimate children?  Oh, dear me, that simply won’t do!  Especially for such renowned limelight figures!  So Rita’s past films immediately  became objects for organized boycott, while  Ingrid was actually denounced on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and Ed Sullivan refused to have her appear on his TV show. 

In addition to both ladies’ film careers  suffering major setbacks for quite some time due to universal scorn,  they also became the butt of a few smirking jokes.  The one most remembered dealt with the two of them meeting on the street one afternoon.  “How are you these days?” asked Ingrid.  “Oh, very busy,” Rita replied.  “You see, my sister is getting married next month.”  “Oh,”  Bergman then stated, “ why, I didn’t even know she was pregnant.”

Fortunately, though, for both these maligned ladies and the film industry in general, their indecent interludes were eventually forgotten.    Not only did they bounce back with utmost success, but indignant public outcry over such once unforgiveable sins has long since given way to ho-hum, whenever similar occasions have come to light.  The days of “when is the wedding?”, after an unmarried lass has begun to show a slightly protruding waistline, are far behind us.  In many ways, therefore, our fickle society owes a deep debt of thanks to Dames Hayworth and Bergman for having brought about such a decided and welcome breakthrough.