Sunday, July 3, 2011

Post No. 166d: The Impure Need Not Apply

© 2009 and 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Our goal here at the Institute is to assist people in ultimately formulating innovative solutions to societal problems. We do not care what the solution is, as long as it is reasoned, and advances the long-term goals of our collective society, and not just the interests of certain groups.

We're in that season again, when some amongst us sign up to be beaten and abused, so that they can abuse others. No, it's not Golden Gloves boxing, and it's too early for football.

Someone once suggested that elected officials, and those seeking appointment to public service positions, be required to generate, for public dissemination, a detailed historical resume, and provide all tax returns and documentation BEFORE filing to run for elected office, or accepting a nomination or an appointment.

Obviously, an extension of this thought process would suggest that all details of their lives and finances, as politicians or government officials, be similarly disclosed on a periodic basis.

Here's another thought. Our nation has obviously reached the point where our elected officials are expected to be without flaws, and to be pristine and pure in those areas which we consider to be “of importance,” such as the avoidance of pubic photo exchanges on Facebook, and tapping shoes under public restroom stalls.

It doesn't matter on which side of the aisle they intend to travel. This should be applied uniformly without regard to political party or ideology.

Why not have all applicants for public office execute an affidavit to the effect that they have never broken the law (with the types of offenses enumerated), and have done nothing, of which they are aware, which might be regarded as "inappropriate" for a public official.

To address the concerns of the due process extremists, we could have a bi-partisan commission generate a list of indiscretions, based on years of experience with past scofflaws, including utilizing the services of illegal aliens and the improper utilization of cigars and other contrivances.

In conjunction with the execution of the affidavit, we could also require the applicant to put up as collateral, all of his or her assets, to be forfeited, and the social service placement of any minors within their custody, if it is later determined that there has been some failing in their conduct.

That's one approach which we could employ to weed out all of these pretenders, don't you think? We, as a nation, appear to have no interest in people with flaws or who have failed, so let's deal with that on the front end.

And it also appears, as reflected in the manner in which America responded to Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps, and Tom Daschle shortly thereafter, that admitting that you were wrong, and accepting responsibility for your conduct is viewed as a “little too late,” and of little consequence.

(Perhaps the approach of the former governor of Illinois is the way to go.)

Why not be proactive and do the Barney Fife by “nipping this in the bud” by disqualifying folks BEFORE they run for office or seek an appointment.

It would make admissions of fault and acceptance of responsibility purely gratuitous.

Doesn’t this seem like the proper and efficient thing to do?

Forget talent! Forget experience! Forget other qualifications!

What we really need to lead us back, to the mountaintop of international moral and economic prominence, is to only have the pristine and the pure lead us there. Hallelujah!

Why waste our time with the impure? Simply toss them aside, and use not their services.

Step forward, all of you who are without sin, to lead us!

The impure need not apply.

© 2009 and 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense


  1. Uh-oh.

    Does this mean that I can't run for President after all . . ?

    The Indepenent Cuss

  2. Independent Cuss:

    What about the candidates, if any, you support?

  3. Yes, I can see where this is needed today. It was once a function of the press (back when it was primarily the print media... before we had much more than TV 15 minute news shows and talk radio had not yet been invented) but they have dumped that responsibility to return to the earlier days of our republic when they openly took sides and repeated the charges against their party's candidates.

    I recall how deeply the media dug into our current president's background, unearthing all of his flaws and foibles, don't you? And then back in 2000 when they met with the candidate of one party so they could find out how he wanted to be treated.

    Yes, we've come a long way.

  4. This is a good idea, but so is communism, and that hasn't ever worked. The problem with this idea is that you will not find one elected official who doesn't have "skeletons in their closet", And that whole idea of collateral, is absurd, you cannot simply take away all one has because he failed a test to be a politician.

    But I agree this would be a good idea, if this were a perfect world.

    check my blog out!

  5. 'Spector,

    Not a damned one of 'em. Rapscallions and scalawags, all.

    I will vote for whomever has the intellect and perceptivity to run an entire campaign from the internet, neither seeking nor accepting campaign contributions. Too many times we have paid liars to do no more than lie, and now we are fresh out of trust as well as money. No more money for scoundrels until they prove themselves to be trustworthy (and then, if they do so, they won’t NEED money)!

    I will vote for the man or woman who comprehends that basic dynamic, and who exhibits the resourcefulness to run a visible (and hopefully successful) electronic campaign from the wide-open blogosphere, where very little money is needed to do so – at least, until the creeps on the left figure out how to censor most it . . . and the creeps on the right figure out how to overcharge us all to look at what little remains . . .

    Ahh, sweet catharsis . . .

    The Independent Cuss

  6. Thanks much Ryan James for paying us a visit. That our article was so poorly crafted that some thought that our tongue in cheek "suggestions" should be taken seriously suggests that we have not honed the finer points of writing, and for that, we owe you and our other readers an apology.

    Come back soon and we promise that you'll see better written posts.

  7. Out of curiosity, what did you think of H. Ross Perot's campaign some years ago?

  8. You guys are great at writing...a lot better then me. I have to strong of opinions that can cloud my appreciation for tongue and cheek "suggestions". So sorry if I offended you.

  9. Ryan James:

    No apology on your part is necessary. We were not offended in any way by your comment. As a general proposition, we avoid expressing our personal opinions. We try to raise issues in pursuit of our goal of assisting readers in realizing that there are more than 2 or 3 ways to view any issue; there are at least 27.

    We viewed your comment as constructive criticism. If anyone in our audience fails to appreciate our approach and methodology, we consider it to be our failing.

    Thanks, and please visit us often.

  10. 'Spector,

    I contributed my five bucks, supported him and voted for him. Perot's nineteen percent of the vote -- 19%!!! -- was a “wakeup call” to the Republicans to desist in their betrayal of their middle-class voter base. History makes clear that the Stupid Party of refused to heed that warning, which is of course how we ended up where we are today.

    Pat Moynihan was right when he said that all the Republican Party had to offer was “boob bait for the bubbas": the pachyderms indeed turned their backs on the economic well-being of the working/middle classes, then offered them nothing but social “distraction issues” as enticement to vote for their candidates. Not that the donkeys were (or are) offering much beyond We, the People’s perpetual dependence upon state and federal largesse as a reason to pull the donkey lever . . .

    We desperately need another Perot today to do as I outlined in my previous post. I believe that Americans would jump at the chance to vote for an independent who doesn’t condescend to them, but rather tells it like it is while refusing to fleece his/her supporters out of their last dime. The Internet is the tool by which that can be accomplished, and it mystifies me as to why some enterprising independent is not yet utilizing it as such.

    The Independent Cuss

  11. Interesting, very interesting Independent Cuss, regarding H. Ross Perot.

    Is there a possibility that it is the morality factor - that those truly capable of filling the shoes you describe are concerned that they might not be able to measure up to that standard? Apparently some think that they can pull it off despite their "character flaws;" but it takes a certain type of personality to believe that....

    We have sometimes "joked" that perhaps America would be well served by a divorced, cussing, womanizing, hard drinking, former addicted, bankrupt, soldier of fortune who has seen the world, dealt with poor people, and lived a difficult life. That individual would probably be better able to relate to a larger cross-section of our citizens than the recent crop of candidates.

  12. That might have described Andrew Jackson. Well, except for the "former addicted" part.

  13. Earlier today, while organizing some old papers and documents, we came across the following:

    "Republicans tell you what to do with your body and lives. Democrats tell you what to do with your money after they take it."

  14. 'Spector,

    Those roles have effectively reversed.

    These days, Republicans enable their big corporate contributors to take your money in the name of "free enterprise", while Democrats allow their Health Cops to tell you what to do with your body . . . while taking what little money the corporate shark-men missed.

    The Independent Cuss

  15. Independent Cuss:

    As we type this, we are watching MSNBC's "Morning Joe," and Pat Buchanan is a guest commentator this morning. A reporter from the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal just discussed the status of CEO pay at 200 large corporations as compared to 2009. Take a guess as to whether there was an increase or a decrease.

    It was obviously a lively conversation. However, the other panelists started ribbing Buchanan about his comments (in support of regular workers and the decline of the stagnation of the American middle class over a 35 year period) and suggested that he sounded like a democrat.

    How about Pat Buchanan for President?

  16. 'Spector,

    Hell, yes. He was (and is) the prototypical conservative populist.

    But he must be in his eighties by now. Therefore the media, which is ostensibly anti-ageism, would have a field day with his advancing years . . . because they are far more anti-Buchanan.

    Why? Because Buchanan worked for Nixon. Better to have been mentored by anarchists as was Obama than to be tainted by any sort of Nixonian stain. But Buchanan ain’t Nixon – not by a long shot. I would still vote for him – Go Pat, Go!

    Lest fellow readers gain the wrong impression, I couldn't stand Nixon -- though probably not for the then-popular reasons. "Opening up China" and "Exporting capitalism" . . . . J---- C-----. We now know that such treason-disguised-as-compassion leads to economic suicide . . . knowledge which does little good post-mortem. Simultaneously unleashing the Godzilla-esque Economic Paralysis Agency upon our then-prosperous-but-unsuspecting nation served only to further hasten the rapid demise . . .

    The Independent Cuss


"There Are More Than 2 Or 3 Ways To View Any Issue; There Are At Least 27"™

"Experience Isn't Expensive; It's Priceless"™

"Common Sense Should be a Way of Life"™