Counting the silly

It is census time again. And with the census comes the silliness from both sides.

Before I venture further into the largest and most obvious symbol of government run looney-tunes, it is important to recognize that the census itself is mandated in Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution. And it is even more important to recognize that the Constitution only requires a simple enumeration of the people.

That said, I am still laughing and grimacing about the letter I received yesterday telling me that I would be receiving the census form in about a week. So the federal government in its infinite insanity has decided that I need a piece of mail to let me know that I will be receiving a piece of mail. Setting aside the cost, one cannot help but wonder what the point of this is.

Add in the somewhat pathetic and genuinely bad TV commercials for the census and you have government at its absolute least effective. Taking a simple process - counting people - and turning it into a complex, expensive and relatively ineffective process.

I have yet to see the census form, but I am told that it again asks a lot more than how many people live in your home. This is the only legitimate question. All the rest are intrusive and not needed.

For me, this is a simple one - only answer the one question. How many people live in your home. That is what the Constitution requires. Leave the rest blank or write in "Not Applicable." Let them count those.

Back and laughing

I took a couple of weeks off to catch my breath and take care of some personal and family stuff. The good news is I got that done.

The better news is that the "Health Care Summit" managed to prove my point for me. Not only were the spitballs flying, but they were on TV and in the same room. Some favored highlights:

During one of the few productive exchanges between the 2 sides on cost containment, Senate Minority Leader McConnell pops us to gripe about time being unevenly divided. What makes this a favorite? Well, this is what the top Republican in the US Senate is doing during an informal debate on public policy? Looking at stopwatches? And people want to know why the Senate is broken.

After Lamar Alexander gave an interesting mini-speech on suggestions and issues with the legislation, Nancy Pelosi replied with a soppy letter from a constituent. Then Harry Reid did the same thing. No facts, no response to Alexander. Just weepy letters. And people want to know where the leadership in Congress is. Easy answer. They are looking through weepy letters hoping to find one that deflects from their own incompetence.

Eric Cantor being called out on the unneeded and unused mountain of paper he had an aide lug over a a prop.

Chris Dodd explaining why the insurance companies are also victims.

John McCain railing on after he was agreed with on a rather important and accurate point.

Overall, it was a great - although nonproductive - show. And it makes the point of this blog perfectly. Neither side had any intention of yielding one inch. Both sides came prepared to embarrass the other and nobody in that room gave a rat's tail about the actual people. Best of all, it was on television and is still available at cspan.org.

See, everybody in that room was playing a game. The object is to win points for their side. Not one of them actually engaged in governance or negotiation. All of them claim to represent "the American People." Well, only one person in that room won a national election. One. All of the others represent states or districts - not all of the people as they constantly claim.

Our job come November is to fire the whole lot of them for incompetence and malfeasance. If it is a game they want to play, then I think we should give them plenty of time to play.

Word Games and Empty Apologies

The use of an unfortunate term to describe the developmentally challenged by Rahm Emanuel has now become a full blown food fight. Palin (rightfully, I might add) calls out a 3 month old incident on her Facebook page and that becomes a cause celebre for the right. Emanuel apologizes. And then apologizes again. And again. Apologies not accepted. The storm rolls on, pushing actual issues to the wayside.

But wait, it seems many on the right also use the same unfortunate and inappropriate term. Are they called out? Nope. Except by the left, that feels compelled to engage in a schoolyard game of "My dad is bigger than your Dad."

And while this battle over words roils on, the issues that real, actual Americans without personal assistants and such continue to watch in growing disgust with the inability of their government to get anything meaningful done.

To make it worse, demanded apologies are now rejected as insincere. Somehow, the apology has become more important in Washington than actions, deeds or intentions. Apparently, "I'm sorry," now absolves everything from adultery to slurs to corruption to stealing. Those 2 abused and overused words outweigh the actual deeds of the people speaking them.

let's take a look at some of them. Bill Clinton is probably most to blame for the apology circus. Clinton, Sanford, Edwards, Ensign, Craig. All assumed "I'm sorry I hurt my family," would take care of the little matter of adultery. And, oddly, the same folks that would not countenance this most egregious of all misdeeds in their own lives, accept this falsehood as long as it is politically expedient.

Same for breaking the law. How many elected officials apologize for getting caught? Whether it is drunk driving, stealing, corruption, tax evasion, shooting someone (yes, I mean Cheney) or any other violation of the law, apparently, "I'm sorry," now counts more than actual penalty under law.

Well, in my opinion, it does not. Words are meaningless without deeds to match. Case in point is John Edwards vs Mark Sanford. Edwards has apologized over and over, assuming that would take care of it. Apparently not. The revelations continue as does the disgrace. Which is as it should be. Edwards is reprehensible man who apparently has no shame and no actual measurable ethics.

Yet, at the same time, Governor Sanford, who used public money to help his little tryst, and lied to his staff and constituents is granted a pass on all of that by means of a weak and insincere apology. How do I know it to be insincere? Because on the same day, he defended his actions, refused to step down and actually had the audacity to call the thing a partisan attack.

Which brings us back to Emanuel. Yes, he used an unfortunate word. Yes, he used it as an insult. But should he resign? Over that? Should this 3 month old incident be the political firestorm that it is? No. However, it does provide excellent cover for both sides to conceal their ongoing incompetence and unwillingness to do their jobs.

How totally convenient for the Congress to be able to pontificate on this ludicrous matter instead of explaining why they got a pay raise when most Americans lost pay and pension value. How absolutely wonderful for the spitballers on both sides to have this to yell about rather than being forced to deal with substance.

And that is the reality behind almost every side issue and apology demand. Distraction. Diversion. Better to hide behind the endless apology game than step up and take a stand on any real issue. that might actually take courage and courage is in amazingly short supply in DC these days.