Ebony's Pearls

I overhead some political analyst talking about Bush.

This is not an uncommon thing, as I tend to pay attention to politics.

I don't care whether these analysts are pro-Bush or anti-Bush. Listening to both sides allows me to see a more realistic pattern. The truth often lies between the extremes and between the rhetoric.

What annoys me is when an analyst is blatantly wrong.

I don't know the name of the person I overheard on TV, and really, pointing fingers at him isn't going to resolve the greater problem of people lying to support their point of view.

This particular analyst started out by saying "Bush has the absolute right to hire and fire any judge or US attorney he wants to."

Wrong!

Bush does have a Constitutionally given ability to hire and fire certain categories of Federal level employees, among whom are Supreme Court judges and US Attorneys. That Constitutional ability can be modified or taken away by American citizens. There have been presidents in the past who have entered office and made it a priority to make a clean sweep of all the Federal employees over whom he had control and to replace them with those people to whom he owed favors for helping him get elected. I don't much care for this manner of toadyism, and I will never vote twice for a president who did that. But as the Constitution is written, he can do that. He can even change his mind during his tenure as president and fire and hire any of these Federal employees he so chooses.

It doesn't necessarily make it right, and I think it was a short-sighted section of the Constitution, but it's there, and we have to deal with it - either by accepting it or by modifying or deleting it.

He doesn't have the right to hire and fire whom he will, but he does have the ability to do so. And he certainly doesn't have absolute anything, except the absolute right to breathe on his own.

Then, this analyst went on to say Bush was not accountable for his actions, he didn't have to explain himself or justify what he does to Congress.

Wrong!

Bush is not a "supreme ruler" whose word is final and the law and not to be questioned or ignored. He is an elected employee with the entire nation of American citizens as his employer.

Bush happens to currently be the US President. That means he's the elected employee of every single American citizen - whether we individually voted for him or not. In aggregate and through the Electoral College, Bush is currently the president. That means each and every American citizen is his immediate supervisor, whether we want to be or whether we voted for him.

It also means the president's job is to listen to Americans and to respond to our voiced needs.

Because there are so very many American citizens, and he has only 2 ears and a limited amount of time, we have Congress to represent all of us, to distill and speak our words to him so he can hear us. And he does indeed have to explain to Congress what he does and why, so our Congresscritters can come back to us and tell us what he did, why he did it, and what the consequences of those actions are so we can make an informed decision on what to do next.

That's the way a representational republican government works.

The words of the many are funneled through the mouths of the few so the one can hear us all and take appropriate action. Then the one speaks to all of us, either via the few who spoke our words or directly via radio, TV, blogging, websites, letters, etc., to tell us what he did and why and what the follow-through will be.

The president of the United States is accountable to each and every American citizen, from the newest born to the oldest, for everything he does as President of the United States.

I wish the political analysts would at least try to get it right. They're supposed to be more knowledgeable than most Americans about government because their job is to analyze what the politicians do and what those actions mean for the rest of us. I am uncomfortable with political analysts who don't know basic civics and government, and whose sole goal is apparently to make up lies and excuses for the actions of our politicians.

Mindbogglingly clueless quote from our elected employee Bush: "The immediate goal is to make sure there are more people on private insurance plans. I mean, people have access to health care in America," he [president Bush] said. "After all, you just go to an emergency room." - Dan Froomkin, Wasington Post.

Private insurance is ruinous to one's pocketbook and health because the doctor isn't working for the patient, but for the insurance company, and must abide by corporate guidelines rather than what the patient needs. That's part one of Teh Stoopid coming out of Bush's mouth. One would think a person with a supposed college degree (even from a junior college) would be smarter than that.

And then, Teh Killer Stoopid: "just go to an emergency room."

Excuse me? Emergency rooms are for emergencies - you know: broken, bleeding, can't breathe, about to die without immediate intervention and medical support. Heart attacks, gunshots, accidental chainsaw amputations, severe anaphylactic allergy reactions, stabbings, severe asthma attacks, near drownings, auto accident victims - those are emergencies.

Things like strep throat infections, colds, flu, cuts requiring fewer than 3 stitches, bad bruises, sprains, coughs, mild diarrhea or constipation, well-baby check ups, fevers, sunburns - these are not emergencies and shouldn't be seen in an ER. That's what clinics are for, or "granny remedies" until the doctor's office opens. And I know doctors' receptionists don't make it any easier by scheduling acute visits three weeks away - by which time you're either healed of the complaint or dead. (Come to think of it, this may be why the receptionist can't fit you in any sooner than 3 weeks - if you forget to cancel, you still have to pay for the visit and the doctor gets an extra 15 minute paid break in his/her day.)

An emergency room is not a good choice for routine and non-critical health care.

That the president of the United States is encouraging people to use ERs as such is appallingly short-sighted, ill-informed, and just plain stupid.

Honest, I don't go looking for things Bush is doing wrong. Really, I don't. It's just that he does so many things wrong it's really difficult to ignore them, overlook them, or shrug them off as just having a bad moment.

I would like to have a president I can trust.

And Bush proves, on an almost daily basis, that he isn't one of them.