Tag Archives: vote

Agenda

Words from Dic(tionary)

dictionary with letter AAgenda: (n) 1. a list of items or subjects to be considered at a meeting 2. determination of a program of action

  • Republicans want less government.
  • Democrats want more government.
  • Conservatives want to conserve.
  • Liberals want to be more liberal in their choices.
  • Baptists want to baptize.
  • Catholics want to take care of their religious obligation.
  • Buddhists want to meditate.
  • Bankers want to make money.
  • Wall Street wants to make money and also take it away from others.
  • Women want equal rights.
  • Men want sex rights.
  • Children want to play.
  • Drug dealers want to sell their product.
  • Politicians want your vote.
  • Actors want a job and praise.
  • Singers want applause and to sing.
  • Old people want more health care.
  • Young people want more fun.
  • Sailors want a boat.
  • Pilots want a plane.
  • Soldiers want action and their pay.
  • Hippies want peace.
  • Jews want Jerusalem.
  • Muslims want Jerusalem–without Jews.
  • Terrorists want their demands.
  • Dogs want a bone.
  • Cats want to do whatever they want to do.
  • Football players want a touchdown.
  • Baseball players want a homer.
  • A hockey player wants his teeth.

In a world where everybody has an agenda, we must understand that we are at the mercy of the ploys of society–UNLESS we are aware of the aspirations of others and try our best to arrive on the scene without too many pre-conceived ideas.

Is it possible to have an agenda to not have an agenda?

Doesn’t that just make you a contradiction in terms?

Adjourn

Words from Dic(tionary)

dictionary with letter A

Adjourn: (v.) to break off a meeting, legal case or game with the intention of resuming it later. e.g. the meeting was adjourned until December 4th.

The key to organization, which by the way, is the breath of successful life, is to get your ducks in a row without making everybody around you go “quackers.”

In other words, be efficient without being a jerk.

This is my problem with Parliamentary procedure. For when I think of the word “adjourn,” I recall all the meetings I have attended, which have basically consisted of children trying to act grown-up by following some archaic procedure of rules and regulations which end up being the conversation of the room instead of working on the topics themselves.

Quite bluntly, in that atmosphere, the person who seconds the motion and whether they have seconded a motion before instead of waiting in line, or whether the vote was taken before discussion, becomes much more important to the committee than whether they pass resolutions.

Thus, Congress.

The thing that upsets me about our form of government is that we’re much more concerned about maintaining the traditions of our system, tipping our hats to old-fashioned methods, than we are about whether progress is being made and we’re actually addressing situations before they slap us in the face.

I usually don’t pontificate on this issue because I don’t have an alternative.

I do understand if we don’t have SOME sort of order while considering options in a meeting place, that chaos can quickly become the ruler of the day. But I am not convinced that following the rules of Parliament (which by the way, isn’t even American) has anything to do with the general welfare or the common good.

What should come out of a meeting?

  1. All ideas expressed within a time limit.
  2. Those who are uncertain of facts should be able to question them.
  3. A vote–up or down.

That’s it. The quickest, easiest, friendliest and most human way to achieve that should be pursued with great passion.

I’m just not sure that all of the rules and regulations that we follow like a herd of sheep is doing anything but fleecing us of possibility.

So for me, I’d like to adjourn Parliamentary procedure.

Can I get a second on that?

Abuse

by J. R. Practix

dictionary with letter A

Abuse: (n.) 1. to use something to bad effect or for a bad purpose. 2. to treat a person or an animal with cruelty or violence.

It was that second definition that stalled me–the words “cruelty” and “violence.”

It is so easy to go on a tirade against abuse and proclaim that such actions are dangerous, evil and dark. I have just learned over the years the futility of stumping against bad attitudes and horrible actions without looking for the specter of that same vice in myself.

Even though I would never put on a pair of army boots and stomp baby ducks for pleasure, nor would I strike a woman because she failed to fulfill my expectations, the seeds of cruelty and the hint of violence can still slip into my behavior and be justified by me just as easily as the wife-beater explains how he needed to slap her because she was being so stupid.

What is abuse?

You want my definition? Abuse is when we fail to deliver to people what they truly need, but insist that they accept what we have anyway.

There you go.

  • So I think politics can be abusive. It doesn’t provide the laws that enrich the lives of people or promote the common good, yet still insists that we go to the polls and vote as our American duty.
  • I think religion can be abusive. It preaches that we should be grateful for a heaven that will come at the end of our lives as we patiently accept the slings and arrows that bruise and beat us in the present.
  • I think corporations are abusive when they know they could make a better product for a few more pennies, but they refuse to sacrifice miniscule percentages points of profit margin.
  • And I think the entertainment industry is abusive when it continues to pound us with more violence and meaningless sexual content because it innocently profiles itself as a reflection of reality.

Abuse is tricky. It’s so easy to see when watching a television show, as a man strikes a woman in anger, but not so easy to see when a joke is told around a game of poker with five friends–to the degrading of the female of our species.

If I can’t help somebody, I shouldn’t make them put up with my inadequacy. If I do, it’s abusive.

My dear God, I need to work on that. How about you?

Abrasive

by J. R. Practix

dictionary with letter A

Abrasive: (adj.): 1. a substance capable of polishing or cleaning a hard surface by rubbing or grinding. 2. rough to the ear; harsh 3. showing little concern for the feelings of others; harsh in mannerism.

“King George is a tyrant.” At one time that would have been an abrasive statement.

“Slaves should be free.”  If you had said that in Congress in 1851, you’d have been dubbed abrasive.

“I love rock and roll.” Try that one in 1961 America.

“The Vietnam War is criminal.” You would certainly have been considered abrasive in 1967.

“Black people should have the right to vote.” There are probably STILL some folks who think that’s abrasive.

“Women should be allowed to be executives in the workplace.” Once again, that one will polish a rough surface or two.

We throw words around like “abrasive” to discourage people from saying things “untoward” in mixed company.” (We say words like “untoward” when we have not yet arrived in this present century.)

Abrasive is a tough one. Often there are many things that need to be shared, pointed out and even shouted from the housetops, which are just NOT in the present mindset of the popular thinking. But if they’re not said, they can’t be heard and if they can’t be heard, the faith to change things for the better is never launched.

So how do I know when I’m abrasive? Honestly, that one’s pretty simple to me. If I’m saying something because I was personally offended or if I have a hankering to offend somebody else just for the hell of it, you can pretty well guarantee–it’s abrasive.

But words that are said to cry out for freedom, purpose and to protect the innocent may not always be received well, but historically, they will never be proclaimed abrasive.

Perhaps it would take an angel to discern all the subtleties in that process.

Perhaps we need a few more angels.

ABM

by J. R. Practix

dictionary with letter A

ABM: abbr. anti-ballistic missile.

I’m in favor of that.

Normally, I wouldn’t call myself an “anti” person. But if we were taking a vote on ballistic missiles, I would have no trouble in joining the camp of those who would be against them.

There’s nothing positive about a ballistic missile. If you fired one at someone else, even the most hard-hearted individual would have to consider that human life was being destroyed–not even to mention tainting the land, which you would soon occupy through your conquering.

On the other hand, if someone’s fired a ballistic missile YOUR way, reasons for regret and dismay may be obvious.

One would think that the natural inclination would be to fall into the category of ant- ballistic missile. Isn’t it interesting, though, that the only way we have found to overcome the stupidity of creating a ballistic missile is by inventing another missile, which is shot into the air to prevent the first missile from hitting its target–by making the missile shot off first a new target?

Wouldn’t it just be easier to get RID of the ballistic missiles, instead of spending millions and millions of dollars to come up with a way to inhibit the dastardly original monster?

So let me get this straight–if someone shoots a ballistic missile at me, I now have a missile which I call an ABM, to shoot at their missile. Doesn’t that just open the door for an AABM? An anti-anti-ballistic missile, which is shot off simultaneously WITH the ballistic missile, to hit the anti-ballistic missile, so that the ballistic missile can pursue its mission of destruction?

And we wonder why politics and governments are constantly in turmoil of meaningless and confusing rhetoric. After all, if you are not willing to admit that the original idea of a ballistic missile needs to be eliminated, then you will spend your time constantly coming up with new “anti” plans to outdo your previous “anti” efforts.

Back to the original thought: if  we’re taking a vote–I’m anti-ballistic missile.