JACK'S BLOG
|
|
2/15/2014 2 Comments Which term is offensive: Incumbent or Veteran? Now, guess which is prohibited on California ballotsElection 2014For minorities, the road to hell is a freeway liberally paved with the worst of unintended consequences. For example, nothing has entrenched poverty more than the War on Poverty and the poor are threatening to become a new majority. However, some consequences are not unintended. One minority, veterans – less than seven percent of living Americans have served – are targeted. As with all minorities, some hold veterans in high esteem, some revile and vilify them, but most seem not to think of veterans much one way or the other except for Memorial and Veterans Days. Politicians appear to fear veterans. Under their direction, Homeland Security conceives of scenarios wherein veterans lead armed TEA Party insurgents against the government and train for this eventuality. (See Training Facility Resembles American City) Strange, but aren't coups generally restricted to nations suffering a tyrant? Most recently I learned that career politicians fear election challenges from veterans. California legislators have crafted election laws barring veterans from announcing their service on ballots as though this might give veterans an unfair advantage in challenging their incumbency. Witness the following letter to California's Orange County Register from a veteran who is a candidate for US Congress. “Last year I filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for California's 45th Congressional District, and this week I turned in all the required signatures to the Orange County Office of the Registrar for inclusion on the June ballot. Like other non-incumbent candidates, I am limited to three self-descriptive words below my name on the ballot, while incumbents and elected officials may use a larger amount of space to puff up their credentials. Here is yet another law that handicaps non-incumbents and entrenches the current governing elite. Nevertheless, within these constraints I chose the three words 'USMC Combat Veteran', which describes my life and personal history best. However, the California Secretary of State handbook disallowed me from using those words, and I was forced to pick three other words to describe me. I am saddened, as I am sure other proud veterans would be, that I was prohibited to use the word 'Veteran' to describe myself to voters. It's a shame to forbid patriotic veterans to describe themselves as such. Those who served our country with honor and distinction and whom want to run for public office should be allowed to represent themselves honestly and without artificial limitations.” Colonel Raths appears to be reading the law correctly. 20716. Unacceptable Ballot Designations. Statuses: A status is a state, condition, social position or legal relation of the candidate to another person, persons or the community as a whole. A status is generic in nature and generally fails to identify with any particular specificity the manner by which the candidate earns his or her livelihood or spends the substantial majority of his or her time. Examples of a status include, but are not limited to, veteran, proponent, reformer, scholar, founder, philosopher, philanthropist, activist, patriot, taxpayer, concerned citizen, husband, wife, and the like. Forgive me if I digress to my children's youth. I can't help myself. The prohibited terms hardly seem to belong together. "One of these things is not like the other One of these things just doesn't belong Can you tell me which thing is not like the others By the time I finish my song?" Sure, “Patriot” and “Philosopher” are “P” words, but “Veteran” is easy to distinguish without looking at its initial letter. It is an official designation. The other two are not. So how do you suppose that “Veteran” found itself among such offensive company? Could it be that “Veteran”, unlike the other designations, could influence voters as much as “Incumbent”. Obviously, “Incumbent” is a magical word. Look at how many incumbents use it on their ballot and are reelected.
We must keep in mind the purpose of these regulations and prohibitions. 20710. General Provisions.
To be honest, I sympathize with the politicians in this case. It must be truly frightening to oppose someone who has obviously placed duty, honor, and country above all else while they, politicians, are an especially reviled class.
2 Comments
2/16/2014 08:38:19 pm
That's what you get for living in California. In Texas, you'e not allowed to use the word "incumbent" on your election signs and ads, which makes it difficult when your sold purpose of voting is to vote somebody out of office.
Reply
Jack Durish
2/16/2014 10:05:40 pm
We pay a lot to live in California, but have you seen the weather this winter? I'll pay it
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
More than 500 postings have accumulated since 2011. Some categories (listed below) are self explanatory, others require some explanation (see below):
CategoriesAll America Army Life Blogging Cuba Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 2016 Entrepreneurs Food Good Reads History Humor Infantry School In The News Korea Middle East Oh Dark Thirty Opinion Sea Scouts Short Story Sponsored Survey Technology Television Terrorism Today's Chuckle Veterans Vietnam Writing Explanations |
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 Jack Durish All rights reserved
|
Web Hosting by iPage
|