Three strikes and you are out

There is a lot of talk about term limits for politicians. I can understand the argument. Pro sports coaches, CEOs, even news anchors don't remain in their position forever. Each of these jobs have to stay at the top of their field. If they fail eventually they are removed or fired and someone new is brought in. Take NFL teams, how often does a head couch get to stick around after back to back losing seasons? Sometimes a second or third chance may be given while the team is rebuilt and a new quarter back is found and developed, or a star linebacker is brought on, but after a sufficient amount of time, if the record does not improve then the leadership is removed.

CEOs step down or are fired when companies start to loose money or market position so that a new leader can be brought in and take the company in a new direction, when ideas get stale a fresh perspective is needed.

Why is government not held to the same standards? You can argue that it is. The President is limited to two terms. The President has to only run for re-election once, after that he is done. With a four year term this allows enough time for some longer term planning, prioritization of what policies the President think he was elected to enact but not so much time that he gets complacent and even worn down. Often if a President is reelected much of the staff is shuffled. Many of the cabinet members resign to allow for someone else to come in and take the helm providing the administration with some fresh perspective.

What about the legislative branch? Why is there no term limit? If there was term limits what would be fair? A term in the Senate is six years in the house two years. Each two years the entire house is up for election and a third of the Senate. In the House and Senate there are at least 15 members (out of 535) that have served for over 35 years. The longest in the House being John Dingell for almost 58 years. Just take a second. That means ol Johnny boy has had to make promises to get reelected 29 times.

However, this is not an honest off the cuff rant. I did check somethings before I sat down to write this. The average number of years that the members of the House and Senate have served has actually increased over the past five decades (so we must be even happier with their work than ever before). The median tenure for a House member has been around five-two-year terms and for a Senator has been about two-six year terms.


Prior to reading those facts I had a conversation in my head while walking the dog earlier, and I came to the totally unscientific conclusion that two terms for a Senator should be enough and somewhere between four to six terms the limit for a House member would be equally sufficient (corresponding to the eight year term limit of the President and my suggested 12 year term limit of the Senate). I figure that we want some experience otherwise if we limited terms too much on the House then we could actually see too much turnover and there would be no seniority, that is not conducive to getting some things done. You do need experience. But having 20 or 30 terms might be too much. Also there is some merit to having to run for reelection. So allowing at least one reelection in the Senate can help motivate a little. BUT LETS NOT STOP THERE! Since it is a longer term, and there are some serious responsibilities for the Senate, not the least of which is confirmation of all Court and Cabinet appointees, each Senator should have served at least One term in the House or have served in one of the state legislators, or as a state governor. This may seem to contradict what I am trying to eliminate, which would be cronyism and career politicians. What I am really suggesting is that the House should be more of a peoples house, where non-career positions thrive, keeping a good turnover either from outside contenders or strong term limits and for those that have more to offer can move up to the Senate but if they make it that far the are limited to two terms.

A lot of people say that Congress makes too much money. That may be true, but consider they do not have their own jobs, that it take a lot of money and sacrifice to be elected, and that we actually want these people to NOT be tempted by others with deep pockets. What I do not understand is the lifetime checks they get once they are out of office and many of the other benefits. I think that they should have a retirement system much like government employees - since that is what they are. Do it like the military, if they serve out their entire time (max out their terms) then they are eligible for 50% of their base pay (does not include benefits). Just like in the current military even if someone wants to stick around and are only doing mediocre work (or in some cases are doing outstanding work but the position they fill is overmanned) they are not allowed to re-enlist. Consider a reelection much like this reenlistment. If they do not get the go ahead from the voters to go one more term, then they are out of their pension.

I have a lot of respect for those sitting up on Capitol Hill in DC. But I don't understand how some of them, well actually most of them, have this sense of entitlement. There are much smarter people out there that would do well if they could get elected, but why should they? Blow your family savings, make a bunch of back room promises, and finally make it to the hill and have to wait out senior members that have been there since the great depression since they have the seniority.

George Washington and all his immediate successors informally set term limits for the presidency, few Presidents even attempted to run for a third term, although a few tried. FDR was the first and only president to succeed and soon after he won his fourth term (and then died shortly after), it was Republican Governor to New York Thomas Dewy that suggested a constitutional amendment to limit terms of the President. So even after only ONE president took the liberty to stay around further than any other, the country made sure it could not happen again. We have been sitting too long waiting for someone to do the same for Congress. Even though the median tenure is about what I am suggesting for term limits, there are those that have gone on far too long and gotten too comfortable.

Star Wars has a date before I do - WTF?

Today, only a few hours ago, I got hit up by Text, FB post, and email all within a few minutes of each other with the news. Star Wars is going to be released on 18 December 2015.

Ok here comes the pessimist in me. First of all before I bring a dark cloud over the subject, I am happy to have a date to look forward to, I am equally happy of any new SW content. However, there are a few external things that make up Star Wars for me and many others.

Each Star Wars movie (all six) have opened in May. Star Wars on 25 May (1977), The Empire Strikes Back 21 May (1980), and back on 25 May (1983) for the Return of the Jedi. The next three: The Phantom Menace, The Attack of the Clones, and The Revenge of the Sith released on May 19th, 16th, and the 19th again, respectively. Also there is May the 4th a recognized holiday in Geekdom - May the 4th as in May the 4th (Force) be with you. So May is the month all Star Wars movies should be released in. I am not saying just because something always was, should continue to be, but I am a believer on what is not broken does not need to be fixed. So already huge hit in my disappointed meter on a December release date. Right now the date seems to be a compromise between Lucasfilm, JJ Abrams, and Disney. Rumor is that Kathleen Kennedy from Lucasfilm (George Lucas' replacement at the helm of all things SW) wanted more time. As producer that would be her key concern. Time and money. The faster they try to push the next movie out the higher the cost. She likely was pushing for a later date than Disney had been advertising. Disney on their part wanted to push it out in Summer 2015. Right now that is a very crowded calendar for big budget movies including Disneys' other super franchise - the Marvel Avengers. Christmas time is still jammed up with a new Bond film, the third installment of the Hobbit series and the next Hunger Games film.

The 20th Centrury Fox opening. You know the one. I get it Disney is the new owner, and well, they are simply not going to let another studio throw up their logo. There is no commercial, financial, or legal reason to do so. But it is a shame that the 20th Century fanfare will not be the opening salvo in the new SW trilogy. I can concede this one since it just makes sense. However i have heard one SW podcaster suggest that maybe Disney and 20th Century Fox could work out some distribution agreement based on the two previous trilogies. There will be a time when Disney wants to repackage and release a monster all inclusive nine movie set including all three trilogies, so to help make that deal and to keep the peace there "could" be a partnership and if so then we could see the fanfare we all know and love.

Currently I am still not satisfied with the casting. What should be a given is still not confirmed. I want to see Billy Dee Williams (Lando), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca) and Anthony Daniels (C3PO) on the casting tab over on IMDB. There is no reason that these three cannot be written into any story that is being worked over, even for a quick cameo. Star Wars is not just the big three, it has to be the so called tier two characters as well.

Ok so what else can I bitch about? Right? This is like someone wining the lotto and complaining that it was only a two million dollar jackpot. Well Lynda Carter is on Two and A Half Men right now, and well she is still HOT so I am done for now

God is causing global warming…

No I am not trying to race bait, nor am I tying to get liberal environmental wackos and bible thumpers to combine together and agree to hate me (for totally opposing reasons). I just connected the dots.

1. God flooded the earth. Whether you believe in the actual flood where Noah filled a titanic-sized wooden boat with two of each kind of animal and his kids (wonder if he only took two of them as well…) and floated around for 40 days (and nights) …so you either believe in the Bible version or the evolutionary version. There is solid scientific fact that the Earth has flooded. The ice caps have grown and retracted through ice ages and periods of warming. There are fossils of sea creatures in the Sahara and evidence of cites under water in the Mediterranean and Caribbean. The point is that Earth has flooded before.

2.  God flooded the earth. God hawked a loogie at the Earth and flooded it to purge the population of their wicked ways….oh speaking of purging. Did you see the movie – “The Purge”? I just watched it last night from Netflix. That is a whole new subject and I won’t go into it now, but I just found out that they are going to make a sequel. Not bad for a movie that was based on a Star Trek episode from the 60s. So the people of earth were up to no good. Worshiping cows (McDonalds anyone?) Into all sorts of debauchery (reality TV??) and doing all sorts of other things that I am too lazy to look up on Google. Again if you don’t believe in the God option, how about that the Earth is one big organism and like all good organisms, if it is sick or some parasite is bothering it, then it takes some Advil or maybe penicillin to chase away the virus. So if we are the Eustrongylides ignotus then maybe the Earth tried a few earth quakes, the plague, AIDS, and said, screw this – “Go Big or Go Home” and is going to melt the caps and drown us all. I bet you non-God believers start praying then, haha…

3. God may have created the Earth in seven days, but God’s days have got to be longer than ours. So maybe God stepped out and turned off the AC to save a few bucks on the next electric bill. So even if it is a short trip for God it could be years, decades or centuries for us. So better invest in some water wings and take sailing lessons because either its God’s will or the Earth is calling the shots, either way who you going to call?