The “Law of Abundance” expressed in today’s graphic is open to discussion, and some macro-economists would probably question the veracity of it.  But it is a philosophical (and theological) concept that has been debated and embraced by many for centuries.  Clearly, it is an idealism.  But I am inclined to come down on the side of those who believe it.   I don’t believe we are without the resources to have a world in which all people have sufficient stability in their lives.  I believe, however, that the resources of the world are not equitably distributed.  To even approach the ideal of fulfillment for all humans on this earth, there would have to be a massive redistribution of wealth, and that gets into sticky ideologies which are not entirely popular globally.

The question of abundance has been raised in a book by Peter Diamandis with the tricky name of Abundance.   I haven’t read the book yet, but I heard his interview on MSNBC and found the premise compelling.   Diamandis indicates that there are recognized people (Steven Hawkings, for instance) who are serious about the need for the redistribution of such factors as water, food, and clean air in order to assure the future of the population of the planet.   These people are not “doomsday” prophets; they are realists who take seriously the data that is available to us about the extent of the necessary resources in this world and the inequality of distribution of those resources.

Diamandis and his co-author, Steven Kotler, are optimistic about the efforts already underway in global redistribution of the abundance of such resources.

“Since the dawn of humanity, a privileged few have lived in stark contrast to the hardscrabble majority. Conventional wisdom says this gap cannot be closed. But it is closing—fast. In Abundance, space entrepreneur turned innovation pioneer Peter H. Diamandis and award-winning science writer Steven Kotler document how progress in artificial intelligence, robotics, infinite computing, ubiquitous broadband networks, digital manufacturing, nanomaterials, synthetic biology, and many other exponentially growing technologies will enable us to make greater gains in the next two decades than we have in the previous two hundred years. We will soon have the ability to meet and exceed the basic needs of every man, woman, and child on the planet. Abundance for all is within our grasp.”

The key word in this comment from the authors is “…the ability to meet and exceed….”  Just because we have the ability to undertake such a massive re-allocation of necessary resources does not mean that we have the resolve to do it.  Greed and power are elements of human existence which stand in the way of fulfilling the ideal.     It should be no surprise to anyone that there are individuals, corporations, and nations that would dig in their heels before participating in such humanitarian re-distribution.   It may not be within their realm of influence to make that determination in the future, and the prospects of that battle aren’t exactly pretty.

The increasingly shared intelligence of humankind through the expansive technology of information-sharing is a key factor in the growing awareness in all corners of the world, including places that have been ignored because the people who live there  were deemed primitive or unaware of other norms.  The computer, cell phones, I-pads, and other tools of the growing technology of social media are being used in these same places, and standards for living are being affected by them.

Our growing tension with industrialization of previously-deemed “backwards” nations is a sign of the impact that global information-sharing is having on macro-economics.  Industry in nations that have a different standard of what is necessary for more than survival means that compensation of employees is lower.  The standard of living in many places around the globe is not, and does not seek to be, at the level of five televisions in a house, three cars in the driveway, and vacation trips to Aruba.  The re-distribution of wealth and resources is not necessarily imposed by a government as much as it is absorbed by a people who have a new awareness of needs and the ability to meet th0se needs.   Sacrificing of excessive wealth need not be because some government requires it.  It may be more related to the onset of realities that are far beyond anything we may have dreamed about in previous generations.  Those dreams may have been pleasant dreams, or they may have been nightmares for some.

* (Definition from Dictionary.com)

Illustration Credit: Wanitha

I’m of  the generation that remembers when jeans were called dungarees.  In those days the word implied that the coarse, denim pants were designed for, and purchased for, something called “work.”   Because they were relatively inexpensive and easily cared for, they could be worn to muck out horse stalls, dig ditches, tame a horse, mow lawns, or repair cars.  Kids (mostly boys in that age) began to wear them because they could be worn in rough and tumble situations and only required washing every few times they were worn.  And if something got spilled on them, even paint, it was okay.  They were just dungarees.

With the advent of the more stylish jeans, however (the term originally being “blue jeans,” the fashion industry began to apply new standards to them.  They became expensive.  They began to be cut in a tighter, more stylish manner, the fabric softened to be more comfortable, and they began to show up in the work place.   I will never forget the first time I saw an elementary school teacher wearing jeans in the classroom!  Heresy!

Today’s wearing of them includes weddings, formal events, graduations, and even high end receptions.  Who from my generation would have expected that an Oscar winner would be wearing jeans to receive the award?  It’s enough to make a mother shudder!

So it’s a matter of interest to note that the wearing of jeans in the context of a political campaign carries a not-so-hidden message.  It says to the voter that “this candidate is a real person, a down-to-earth casual person.”   When the candidate is at a coffee shop or on a farm, or at a ski resort, that really works.

But when candidates like Mitt Romney began to wear jeans for photo-shoots, interviews, and crowd-gathering speeches, the message became a mixed one.   I keep wanting to look down to see if he has on wing-tipped shoes with them.   I have no doubt that Mr. Romney owns several pairs of jeans and that he wears them in the yards and fields of his numerous homes.  I’m clear that, like me, he probably welcomes the opportunity to “dress down” around the house or on vacation.

But the idea that Mitt Romney (or any of the other candidates) would have worn jeans to a public event, for a photo shoot, or on a stage prior to the campaign is ludicrous.   The collars of the well-laundered white shirts he wears with the jeans are fitted for neckties.  And there is little likelihood that Mr. Romney’s jeans have needed washing from changing the oil on his car, mowing his lawn, or painting a shed on the back acres.

The jeans  he is wearing are props for a message.  They are meant to shout out to the public:  Mitt Romney is a regular guy who lives just like you do.   That’s just not true for the vast number of Americans.  The jeans are meant to signal something that is insincere.   Mitt Romney is not a “regular guy.”  He is a wealthy, powerful, well-tuned, astute business man with better things to do than muck out the barn.

And that’s the sincere Mitt Romney who would send out a different message.  He is comfortable in his business attire, and the public is comfortable seeing him that way.   There is an authenticity about the very, very successful business magnate dressed for the board room.  In fact, that may be the best way to show him off to voters.  That, after all, is the way he wants to be portrayed: as a business man who is capable of doing something about the economy.   His oft-photographed  jeans send me a message that he is uncomfortable about claiming who he is in reality.   That is enough to make me uncomfortable.

Let me be clear… I don’t have any problem with what a candidate wears or doesn’t wear.  There are more serious issues to be addressed.  But when the candidate’s “managers” try to create an image that is a paradox and it doesn’t work, it smacks of phoniness.  Better to leave the jeans for a state fair in September or the Republican barbecues that will begin to spring up in the next few months.   But when the candidate is on stage in a speech, or being introduced to the people of a city he is visiting, I would expect to see the candidate in authentic form.   Then I don’t have to miss the key points to their speech trying to imagine what shoes he is wearing behind the podium.

Photo Credit: Mom Jeans

I waited several days to be sure I wasn’t just reacting emotionally.   But the arrogance of the comment by Rick Santorum, the leading vote-getter (for now) in the Republican Party’s attempt to identify its candidate for the Presidential election, won’t let me delay any longer.  I’ve had to sort out whether I’m responding as a blogger who is attempting to highlight important moments in American politics, or whether I’m just incensed as one of those people on the wrong end of his comments.   I hope I’m both.

In a speech at Ave Maria College in Florida, an ultra-conservative Roman Catholic institution created by Tom Monaghan, the founder of Domino’s Pizza, Santorum declared that President Obama is a spokesperson for mainline Protestantism, and is, therefore, a follower of a “phony theology.”

Just to be clear, “mainline Protestantism” is commonly understood to be inhabited by Presbyterians,  Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ,  members of the Reformed Church in America and members of a number of smaller denominations, including a sizable number of  Black Churches.  That accounts for  far more than 20 million members.   It is commonly recognized as the body of Christians who represented the vast majority of founders of this nation and those who were leaders in establishing (for better or for worse)  many of the economic, political, social, educational,  and other commonly recognized institutions of this country. Regardless of your feelings about the effectiveness of those institutions, it is clear that this body of people played (and continue to play) a vital role in the creation of this nation.

The theology of mainline Protestantism is based upon belief in Jesus Christ, scholarly biblical principles, compassion for those in need, justice, and a strong belief in God’s desire and ability to forgive those who stray.  Mainline Protestant congregations tend to be diverse in their racial, ethnic, gender and social makeup, including leadership in the form of ordained clergy.  They also represent a spectrum of belief, ranging from conservative to liberal. The honoring of difference in interpretation and understanding of faith stances is a primary principle of mainline Protestant thinking.

Santorum’s identification of mainline Protestant theology as being “phony” is an arrogant, biased, and politically convenient slur, one not commonly heard these days.   It stems from his ultra-conservative understanding of what is meant by Roman Catholic theology, a view not shared by most thinking Roman Catholics.   Even those who might take issue with some of the tenets of mainline Protestant thought would stop short of calling it “phony.”   I’m trying to picture what it would be like if a Presbyterian candidate were to label Roman Catholicism as “phony theology” simply because she rejected the basic beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.  Or if a Lutheran candidate were to describe Judaism as being “phony theology“.  Would those comments be passed off as “slips of the tongue” or “insignificant political rhetoric?”

But mainline Protestant theology respects a variety of opinions, even those which are diametrically opposed to its own.  Therefore, the outcry has been muted for the most part.  But Mr. Santorum’s comment cannot be ignored for long.   It is disrespectful and arrogant, undeserving of a man in his position.  I’m sure it titillated the ears of the ultra-conservative faculty and student body at Ave Maria.  And it fed into the emerging ultra-conservative base of the Republican Party.   But I can’t believe that Independents, moderate Republicans  and faltering Democrats could be embracing of such a blatantly prejudiced and arrogant pronouncement.  If this is not a nail in his political coffin, it should be.  If we fail to reject his comment, shame on us.

Photo Credit: AP

Moribund is a word which, in its literal sense, means “dying.”   It is used in the medical field to describe a patient whose systems are closing down and there is nothing that care givers can provide to stop the process.

But there is a more figurative use of the word moribund which applies to systems, organizations, or plans.   We hear the word used occasionally in this political season to apply to a potential candidate’s hopes for success.   When it appears that the person’s campaign is faltering to the point of being incapable of recovering, the campaign can be said to be moribund.

In assessing the health   of a campaign the term is used by commentators who reflect upon the wasted efforts of a potential candidate to breathe life into what appears to be a dying effort.  The candidate’s attempts to show energy or feigned feistiness in the face  of diminishing support may call for the comment that “the candidate is flailing an already moribund campaign.“   The point being made is that it is a wasted effort.

As we have seen in the revolving door of the Republican Presidential Primary campaign, the characterization of moribund can be premature, just as the assignment of “certain winner” can be an unfortunate, early assessment.  Who would have thought that Rick Santorum would be the leading candidate going into the Michigan primary?   His campaign faltered to a point of near-death several months ago, and it was a pretty good bet that he was out of the race.

Similarly, it would be an error to determine the campaigns of Romney, Gingrich, or even Paul to be at the point of death.  Super Tuesday is coming up, and it involves voting in several very, very conservative states where a Gingrich could be popular.  Romney’s campaign, in all probability, will  have more support  in the more moderate states ahead.  And Ron Paul has maintained a steady beat that doesn’t seem to be waning.  It is clear to those watching closely that unless something dramatic happens this selection process could go all the way to Tampa, the site of the Republican Presidential Convention.

As Mark Twain said when his obituary appeared prematurely in the New York Journal, “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”  He didn’t even exhibit signs of moribund behavior.

Photo Credit: cwahi

Charles Krauthammer is a skilled writer, although I seldom come down on the same side of an issue with him.   Today is one of those days when his column in the Washington Post really agitates me.   I had to read it a couple of times before I was sure about what I was feeling about it.  But then it was clear to me that the conservative columnist had, indeed, struck a nerve with me.  His column, entitled “Overreach: Obamacare vs. the Constitution,” stresses that President Obama has stepped into the realm of a dictator by requiring the health care insurers to provide contraceptive coverage to employees of religious institutions  where the use of contraceptives is an abridgement of moral tenets.

In the context of the well-written column he uses the term moral calculus, a phrase which has popped up numerous times in the debate over the “accommodation” which the President announced last Friday.  It was a response to the criticism of some religious leaders that the requirement for such institutions (which receive federal funding)  to provide contraceptive was an invasion of religious principles.

There is no question that Krauthammer’s point is valid: the original imperative and the accommodation expose a conflict between some religious communities and the government’s imperative that institutions that receive federal funding must abide by the provision of legally-acceptable benefits for all those employees who request it.   That is not my issue with Krauthammer’s assertions that the President has overreached his authority.

Moral calculus requires an assessment of all sides of an issue.   Anything less than that is a misuse of the term.   To focus solely upon the religious communities problems with the legislation while ignoring other pertinent legal and moral issues is not calculus.  It is selective argumentation.  Making points with some religious leaders and their followers does not constitute moral calculus.

The provision of contraceptive benefits to employees who are not of the religious persuasion of the owners of an institution is also a moral issue.   Those on the lower end of the economic spectrum (minimally compensated hospital employees, for instance) are the same population where soaring figures for reproductive health issues are well-known and the target of the government’s concern.  It is commonly understood in health care institutions that contraception reduces  those figures dramatically.   It is also known that the use of contraception as a form of birth control dramatically reduces the incidence of abortion and its related health care issues.  Insurance companies acknowledge that the provision of contraceptive benefits is far less costly than the costs related to abortion.

President Obama’s concern is that of assuring that persons in all economic strata of American society have an equal shot at such care.  The requirement of insurers to provide that care is a way of assuring fairness and equality of opportunity.  That is a moral question.   Maybe it’s not as emotionally charged, but it is an important and morally significant issue.   Many religious communities and people of religious persuasions consider it to be as morally relevant as do those who embrace anti-contraceptive principles.  This isn’t a game of nose-counting, so numbers on each side of the issue are not the way to judge the “winner” in this conflict.

The important matter is moral calculus, in which all sides of the issue are equally assessed and a way of honoring various perspectives is employed.   The so-called “accommodation” is an attempt to do just that.   The fact that it forces all those affected to make concessions is part of the design of governance.

To label the President as a dictator on this matter is, to use Krauthammer’s own term, an “overreach.”

Photo Credit:  Bob Lederer

I was listening to a clip on NPR this morning announcing the death of New York Times journalist Anthony Shadid who died in Syria yesterday.   The voice clip was from his coverage of the Arab Spring events, and he described what he was observing as a tumult.

What struck me was his pronunciation of the word.  He said [TUM-ult.]   I had always heard the word pronounced [TOO-mult] and it struck me that once, again, I was about to learn that I had been carrying an incorrect pronunciation around in my lexicon, probably embarrassing myself in front of people who really knew how to speak the American English language.

So, after some research this morning, I was gratified (not really “self-satisfied”) to discover that I was right.   That’s not to say that there is no variation on the pronunciation of the word that is accepted elsewhere.  But, at least for the resources available to me this morning, the correct way to pronounce the word is [TOO-mult.]

It’s a very expressive word, almost an onomatopoeia … a word whose sound reflects the meaning.  It is used commonly in poetry, having a quality about it that expresses the confusion and chaos.    I’m struck by Wordsworth’s use of tumult in juxtaposition to the word peace in his poem, The Simplon Pass.   He employs the words in the same way that he contrasts darkness and light.  And, yet, his purpose in the poem is not to create a barrier between two contrasting elements, but to identify the contrasting qualities as being born of the same origin.

That’s a thought that makes me pause.  If one believes that all things are created by the same Creator, then tumult and peace qualify for the paradoxical thought.   Tolstoy certainly binds them together in his classic War and Peace.   One reviewer touches on this paradox in saying:

“…The theme of war, however, is subordinate to the story of family existence, which involves Tolstoy’s optimistic belief in the life-asserting pattern of human existence. The novel also sets forth a theory of history, concluding that there is a minimum of free choice; all is ruled by an inexorable historical determinism…”

Is there, then, a redeeming purpose to tumult?  At first blush it might seem a severe contradiction.   But when the 2011-12 riots in the Arab world are considered, the soaring goals of freedom, democracy and justice for people who have been oppressed for decades or centuries seem a proper justification for rebellion and resistance.   The French revolution, so dramatically depicted in Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, is sparked by a fire in the belly of the French people to seek the justice which escapes them in the tyrannical monarchy’s rule. Even the American Revolution or the American Civil War,  both characterized by battles, skirmishes, death and destruction, are fought for the lofty purposes of independence, freedom, justice and civil rights.

While the horror of war is not to be glorified or sought-after, it is possible to see how the principles which produce armed conflict can be parallel to the principles of  seeking after peace and justice.  Potentially they stream from the same origin.  Tumult, however, is hardly the ideal methodology of attaining peace.  Diplomatic efforts which exist on a level playing field are far more suitable, particularly in a dangerously-fragile nuclear age.

Art Credit: Pablo Picasso

I wonder who the older Americans are that the Members of Congress keep talking about?  Have they ever really walked through the urban settings where elderly people are warehoused?   Have they really spent more than ten minutes at a setting where street people are being fed on a daily basis?  Have they walked (not driven) through a rural shanty town where poverty-stricken older Americans are waiting to die?

It seems to me that Members of Congress have a vision of their own parents who live in private homes where they have health care providers giving baths, fixing food, cleaning their homes.   Or they have visited nursing homes and assisted living centers where residents are clean, entertained, medically supervised, and guaranteed of heat, air conditioning, and bathrooms that work.  Their sheets are changed regularly; a podiatrist checks them out regularly; their glasses are changed when their prescription calls for it.

Those are not the older Americans I see.  Oh, I’m in and out of the Assisted Living facilities where my wife works, and I, too, celebrate the wonderful care the residents get…for approximately $6,000 a month (and Medicaid is not accepted.)   I drive through “difficult” areas of my city on a regular basis and I see older Americans shuffling through the snow in inadequate clothing and no boots.  I see them riding on buses to get to the nearest supermarket where they can use their food stamps to get the meager supplies they can afford on their limited income.   It would be a gross exaggeration to call it “retirement” income.  These people didn’t retire; they just got too old to work any more.

Many of them are poorly educated, mentally ill, suffering from dementia of one kind or another, and incapable of making decisions about basic life functions.  Somebody at a local church of volunteer agency does the “income tax” for free.  It’s not hard; their income is almost negligible.  Most of them are sick and poorly nourished.  The regular forms of health problems that affect older people don’t get treated.  There isn’t anybody to treat them, and no money to get the right kind of the health care.  Many, if not most, of these older Americans don’t have the intellectual capabilities to know how to find help.  Oh, they’re not ignorant … they have just lost the mental reserve to make important decisions about their lives.  Every day I see them shuffling on the streets in poorer sections of the city with their plastic bag with minimal food supplies.  Sometimes it’s cat food, I’m told by social workers.

When Members of Congress talk about “giving older Americans a choice to select an insurance provider instead of Medicare” I have to wonder who they think these people are?  Making such a choice requires mental capabilities, access to information, the ability to sort through options, and assistance in making application for  the one which they can afford with the subsidy the Member of Congress is going to provide for them.   Many, if not most of these abandoned people would have no capability of maneuvering through that path.

There are people out there in volunteer agencies that try to help older Americans.  But even those agencies are struggling with cutbacks on funding.   The prospects  for the future of these agencies are dim.

I just want my Representatives and Senators (and yours) to get realistic and to at least pretend to care about these people.  They are going to be discarded if Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and related governmental assistance disappears.  It is a moral obligation to care for them.  The problem is not with older Americans abusing the system. It is with pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies who are more concerned with the salary and benefits of their upper echelon of management.   Who’s kidding whom?

Photo Credit: Hannah Gray Home

In the rush to embrace street art as a legitimate form of artistic expression, it seems to me that graffiti has gotten a free pass.    Over the past couple of decades there has been a meaningful inclusion of street art as an emerging genre.   It has been a psychological boon to previously-decaying urban neighborhoods, in many cases displaying a quality of history and culture which has transformed tough urban communities.

I find myself including street art in the same realm as that of the mural artists of the depression era, in which some of the greatest American folk art was created and continues to impress those who study it.  The post office in my hometown, a small,industrial community , was the recipient of one of the murals that depicted the development of the industrial revolution.  It became a teaching tool for children like myself, who went on to develop a pride about American industry through the study of such pieces of visual history.  The very idea that Diego Rivera’s work could be found in a small, middle class  town in Upstate New York is overwhelming when you think about it

But, from my perspective,  there is a need to differentiate street art from graffiti.  In spite of the attempt to glorify graffiti by declaring it an art form, I continue to classify it as defacing.   I’m not negating the artistic qualities that can be harvested from graffiti.  To the contrary, I recognize that some graffiti “artists” have real talent and have morphed their defacing passions into the creation of true murals.  Sometimes these murals are commissioned by individuals or communities to demonstrate a heritage factor in, for instance, a Latino community, or a Black community.   One wall near my neighborhood post office depicts people from the neighborhood who have bettered themselves through education, business ventures, or athletic prowess.  It’s an inspiring mural for the kids of the neighborhood.

In another part of Providence an artist was commissioned to paint murals on three large business building, demonstrating some of the qualities of New England life (fishing, for instance) that set it apart from other cities.  The murals are beautiful and call for good photography and numerous journalistic reports.

But graffiti is what I see on store windows, on the backs of stop signs, and on walls of small businesses.  It is on subway cars and on billboards and overpasses leading into town.   Nobody commissioned it.  In some cases, it covers a wall which a small business person spent valuable money painting prior to opening.  It must now be painted again, and the owner has to hope that nobody will return with their foul-language spray can.

In my opinion it is unfortunate and inappropriate to classify all spray paint messages as urban art.  Sometimes it’s just plan irresponsible defacement.  It costs our struggling city tens of thousands of dollars per year to remove graffiti from public buildings and commercial sites where middle-of-the-night visual polluters practice their trade.   I’m not impressed with their work.

Photo Credit: senses lost

There’s a world of difference between the words relegate and delegate.   If someone is delegated they are given the authority to represent a person or an organization.  However, if someone is relegated to the end of the bench, (he) is  assigned the least significant place on the team.

To be relegated is a subtle way of being punished without a big, dramatic fuss.  No television cameras, journalists, or press releases.   One is simply moved to a place of insignificance where they may or may not be identified.   It happens all the time in sports, but it happens in other ways of life as well.

When I was in High School my English teacher maintained a tradition of a “ghost club.“  If you came to class unprepared, no matter what the reason/excuse, you were automatically relegated to the ghost club, where you would sit at the back of the room and be ignored.  Your hand in the air warranted no recognition, you were never called upon, and any work you did, including tests or quizzes, were marked as “absent.”    At first it seemed like a not-half-bad way of spending the hour.  But it became clear to my classmates and me that there were serious ramifications to being  relegated to the ghost club.  It was something to be avoided.

In the pecking order of a firm, the assignment of office space is significant.   A corner office with great windows is a sign of prestige and acceptance.  However, to be relegated to a cubby space or one of those spaces in a big room divided by portable walls and a shared printer is a clear message that you’re on the bottom of the pile.

TV anchormen and anchorwomen are afforded all kinds of privilege, including having their picture splashed around all day on the screen.  But when an anchor is removed from the lead desk and assigned to the 6:00 a.m. news spot, the person has been relegated to the bottom of the barrel.  FBI agents who are relegated to the Anchorage office don’t have to be told that they have screwed up somehow; they can just look around and realize that the Belt Way may be the name of a men’s clothing store, not a location in the home office.

Delegation, on the other hand, is an act of recognition, in which one’s skills and talents are identified and employees are given  prime positions in the organization.  They are capable of speaking for the home office or the CEO and are rewarded for their work in significant ways.

How easy it is for a term to vary so greatly, simply by the use of a single letter.

Photo Credit: Scouting Sweden

You’ve heard the fish stories before about “the one that got away.”  It was always the biggest, fattest fish in the lake.  Just before I was about to net it and draw it into the boat the line broke and the fish swam away, after looking me in the eye as if to say, “Thought you had me, didn’t you?!?”

It is the classic use of the word hyperbolic, which means “exaggerated.”   Over the top, beyond belief,  intentionally bloated.   We’ve all heard them, and most of us have used them in one way or another.

Hyperbole makes use of the technique known as superlatives, those definitions which make something sound like the best, the biggest, the most expensive, the most beautiful, the most difficult … and so on.  It’s a way of making my effort, my accomplishment, my experience better than anyone else’s.  I’m told by psychologists that the tendency to use superlatives exclusively  is a direct result of    someone attempting to overcome their inadequacies.  The hyperbole employed makes me look like a hero.  I overcame the most dramatic odds.  I am powerful.

Similarly, using hyperbole in attacking someone else helps me show you how bad they are.

• He is the worst President we’ve ever had.
• His policies are the most dangerous we’ve ever seen.
• He is the most indecisive member of Congress.
• She is the worst liar I’ve ever met.
• Everyone dislikes him.
• Nobody believes him.
• She tells the most atrocious stories.

It all depends upon your party, your perspective, your purpose as to how much hyperbole you will use and to whom you will address it.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear a member of  the opposition say, “You know, this congressman is really a great person, and he has worked his tail off in Congress.  But we just don’t agree on how to accomplish this purpose?”  I think I could respect that person, and my cynicism about government might be a little more muted.

May the best legislation Congress could come up with would outlaw hyperbole.

Photo Credit: Zazzle