by their fruit you will recognize them…

Our crew has from time to time pulled out the UNO cards and played a game or two. We have done the same with the regular deck of cards – “Rummy?” “Sure.” “Duces wild?” “No, let’s leave them straight.” “Straights, or just books?” “Let’s do both.” Then we sit down and start the game, once all agree on the rules by which we are to play. The game starts after the agreement, so that the center confusing part is eliminated. What is the center confusing part? I have the experience of starting a game to see a fellow player set down cards not anticipated by the assumed rules and had to stop and query their play. Invariably, that player has the assumption that the agreed rules of card association work in fashion D, while I was playing by fashion R. The game has to start over at that point, or we both agree on which rules are used from that point forward. I don’t think there is anything strange here, just the enunciation of experience many have and expect in their interactions at the card table. There is wider application. How many companies would enter into an agreement without considering details? How many would accept changing the association between businesses without consulting the rules of the initial agreement? How many businesses would enter into an agreement with another entity where that entity would be allowed to change the rules on their whim without input? That is what we are supposed to accept with the Republican National Committee. They have decided that participation of all the delegates may be problematic and have offered Rule 12 where anytime between conventions, they may alter the rules and effectively eliminate a minority opinion. Is this acceptable anywhere outside of a totalitarian regime? If this party is supposed to be representative of the history of the Constitution and those voting in that fashion, why are you oh leadership, behaving like president (zero) 0? We, in the country are evaluating your behavior and wondering if the spectacle of Janus has arrived. Depending upon which side of the idol one faces, one sees a different face. We are looking towards the side labeled R and our opponents are looking towards the side labeled D. Both faces belong to the same idol. Once convinced of this existence, can we honestly provide our support for this idol? The idea of eliminating the population’s representative also speaks of an arrogance not befitting this country’s history. “State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.” This occurs because we, out of the beltway, have to live with reality and evaluate behaviors and actions by the results they produce, not the theory that started the cascade. I am pushing for an honest representation of our ideas and behavior demonstrating that our political Janus can remain in mythology.

Advertisements