Modernizing One Of My Old Adages
September 14, 2008
I have lost count of how many times I have used the old (to me) adage about making ridiculous excuses in order to just be able to say “NO”! It’s very old and so I thought I would take a few minutes and modernize it so that readers could better understand and how this neo-adage relates more precisely to the present election campaign. First, here’s the modern version of the borrowing axe story.
Barry O. and Johnny M. lived next door. Barry O. was always knocking on Johnny M.’s door wanting to borrow something. It started out first as borrowing a ladder, a lawn mower, etc. but of late has turned into more taking than borrowing. Johnny M. was getting sick and tired of it but just couldn’t seem to bring himself to be honest with Barry O. and tell him no.
One day Barry O. showed up at Johnny M.’s doorstep asking to borrow a copy of his U.S. Constitution, as it seems Barry O. has never seen one or perhaps he has and disregarded it as anything meaningful. Johnny M. didn’t know how to tell Barry O. no, so he said, “I can’t let you borrow my copy of the U.S. Constitution because if you put lipstick on a chicken, you still got a chicken with no lipstick because chickens don’t have lips!”
Confused, Barry O. stuttered and stammered, he “errrred” and “ummmmed” and finally asked, “What’s with the lipstick stuff, Johnny? That’s cool. I can dig trying to put lipstick on a chicken. But I still have to ask what’s putting lipstick on a chicken got to do with me borrowing a copy of your U.S. Constitution?”
“Nothing, really!” explained Johnny M. “But if I don’t want you to have my copy of the U.S. Constitution one excuse is as good as another!”
We are in the midst of an absolutely ridiculous political campaign that seems to be making as much sense as putting lipstick on a chicken. And much of what makes it ridiculous are the incredible things, in this case known as excuses, that are being said about the candidates.
The truth is that most of us have already made up our minds who we want to vote for. Why can’t we just say, “I’m voting for candidate “X” and nothing you can say will sway my decision?”
Maybe this election has turned out a bit different than past ones because we have one candidate who is half a white man and half Arabic, one that is a female, one that is old and partially disabled and one that is…..well, that is………um, undecided as to who should have been picked to be the democratic v.p. candidate. Let’s leave it at that.
Ever watched a Tom turkey? When they are all by themselves they don’t look all that much different than any of the other turkeys but when others show up, he spreads his feathers and struts and carries on like some crazy fool. Much the same way many of us have been doing during this campaign thus far.
I still think that all of us, if we should so choose and can find a couple minutes out of the day to be quiet and calm, could be honest with ourselves. Should we dare go where few men go anymore, we would soon realize that we are going to vote for the candidate of our choice regardless of whether or not you can put lipstick on a pig, a goat, an elephant or a chicken.
Suppose for a moment that there was no campaign, or at least the way it is now. Suppose each candidate was introduced and announced who their running mate was going to be. During the course of the campaign, which would last one week, each candidate got to appear on television with no “expert” commentary, no “expert” introductions and by far, no “expert” waiting in the wings to tell me what I just heard.
During this one week nobody could talk about the candidates on the news. There would be no advertising, no bumper stickers, no YouTube videos, no blogging, and nothing that would “influence” the voters about a candidate.
This is the real difficult part because right now while you’re reading this, you are incapable of being honest with yourself. So, don’t try to answer this question now.
Do you think much would be different for you when you go to the polls to vote if the campaign were held similar to this?
Particularly this season, it appears that the winner is going to be the one with the least amount of dirt and lies told about them. Wasn’t there a time when a candidate won because they were what the majority of people wanted based on their political ideals, character and appeal? Then it became who could raise the most money and now what do we get? Millions of dollars must be raised in order to pay those out gathering crud on the other guy.
But none of us know when to stop going to the neighbors to borrow something. This translates into opening our mouths to make excuses for or against a candidate. Think of the foolish things that have already been around that people are talking about.
Just today I was reading one woman who said that her governor was more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin. After reading the story, I discovered that the statement wasn’t true and could in no way be substantiated by anything. For some reason we feel this need to put the other candidate down. Is this some form of justifying our own reasoning?
We have forgotten history. No,no! Let me take that back. We haven’t forgotten history. We don’t care about history anymore. Before we talk about any candidates “qualifications” to be president or vice president, shouldn’t we first look back at all previous ones and see what qualified them to be there? Too sensible. That doesn’t work anymore. Rather let’s say ridiculous things like, “you can’t put lipstick on a chicken!” By God, they got my vote!
If we all would just shut up, then those we call “swing voters” or the “undecideds” will have to find out for themselves who they should vote for without all of us having to be subjected to the next round of sleaze to be bestowed upon the masses.
But, if I were to be totally honest with you, I would have to tell you without flinching, without hesitation and with all certainty that when I step into the booth on November 4, 2008 to vote, I’m going to vote for the candidate who has the best lipstick story.
Tom Remington
Check Out Related Articles
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
I don’t approve of political jokes. I’ve seen too many of them get elected.
Tom you said:
Who is the “half Arabic?” And if that man were half white and half Arabic, he would be all white, since the Arabian people are white — not brown, black, yellow, or red. (Using the old designations.)
How do you know the “racial” or ethnic origins of the other candidates? Ask any genealogist and they will tell you that most people cannot be certain of their own makeup more than a few generations back. An interesting PBS show had the DNA of some US “black” celebrities tested, only to find that some of them had 25% or less DNA directly from Africa. (Of course, all of our DNA is ultimately from a very small pool of early people in Africa. We are all related.)
Reed’
Does that include Native Americans?
Jim,
I don’t understand your question. Does what include Native Americans?
Also, by Native American do you mean anyone born in the United States (my definition) or First Nation people (Canadian term that seems apt) along with the Inuit? I think the scientific community has determined that some peoples migrated from the west (Asia) to North America - then Central and South America - before any explorers came from the east (Europe and Scandinavia). But, again, I don’t understand your question.
Plain enough What’s all this melting pot stuff?
Reed,
Maybe I misunderstood you. You said we are all from a small amount of early people from Africa.
My ? was does that include the Native american Indian?
Here we go if you want to look:
http://www.geneababble.com/african-american/barack-obamas-ancestors-were-slave-owners/
Noah built an Ark, Only Eight people were left on earth. Didn’t we come from there?
George,
Yes of course your right.
Thanks
You can look it up if you want to Genesis 9:18;19 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham,and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth. NIV
Got some science here on MITOCHONDRIAL EVE ?:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html
Jim,
Yes, the Amerinds came from the same ancestry. Whether you wish to take Noah literally or allegorically, the premise is still the same, all of the people we know today are descendants of a small group of humans in the distant past. This means that we are all related — one family, as it were. No, I don’t intend to buy Birthday presents for everyone, but I can certainly treat them as relations despite their color or origin.
If you want to examine a recent study of the human migration to N. America see — Migration.
Native American Indian = Indigenous people of the land,before the mass holocaust of European intervention(read published historical account(s) of “White Supremacy” movements) It’s a shame that the U.S. has a holiday for a man, who helped in erradicating a massive population,of that era.