Election Time, Again

Well, it's that time o' year again when we folks in the United States of America go out 'n' decide what we want to complain about fer the next one er more years. The day we try to figger out who the smallest liar is 'n' whether er not we want to agree to vote ourselves another tax we can gripe about having to pay. The day we have to make an extra trip, carve a little extra time out of our busy schedules, 'n' put up with long lines full o' folks we normally wouldn't want to be within fifty feet of, just so we can put some marks on a sheet o' paper 'n' hope that enough other people're smart enough to put the same marks down so that our marks will actually count fer something. It's election day.

I was sharpening my tongue up fer a big ol' diatribe 'bout the sorry bunch o' folks we got to choose from this year. I was coming up with 'n' reviewing some, hopefully, witty 'n' scathing remarks 'bout the propositions they's trying to fool us into getting passed, er voting down. I was ready to lament the poor state o' the Arizona constitution, which they seem determined to keep hacking up, tacking on to, 'n' just generally rewriting ever' year. But then I read something last night that made me rethink the whole thing.

It was an article by Peter M. on his blog 'bout New England Folklore. Mr. M. said that, back in the early years o' this country, even 'for it was a country, folks used to vote in the fall fer their local officials even though the officials didn't take office until the next May. The day they took office in May was called "Election Day" 'n' was celebrated like a holiday. He says that, by 'bout the mid 1700's, the celebrations included such things as parades, parties, athletic events, 'n' even special cakes. The best part 'bout it was, it was a celebration 'bout the simple fact o' being able to elect folks. Nowadays, it seems like the only celebrating folks do 'bout elections is to celebrate that their side won er the other side lost.

So I read that. 'N' then I thought 'bout it a bit. 'N' then I thought 'bout it a bit more. 'N' then I thought 'bout all the time that has passed between then 'n' nowadays 'n' all the changes that have happened in this country 'n' the ways folks viewed the whole voting 'n' election processes during all those 250 to 300 years. Then I thought 'bout the way so many folks seem to treat voting these days.

I thought 'bout the stories I've read 'bout how they used to close down the bars 'n' taverns 'n' the pubs 'n' the buying o' liquor on election days 'n' how you couldn't buy a drink 'til after the polls'd closed 'cause going out to cast your vote was a serious, sober responsibility. Do they even still do that these days? I'd be willing to bet real money that I could walk down to the local grocery store 'n' buy a six pack er a fifth o' something er other 'n' wouldn't no one bat an eye. I bet I could walk into any bar in town at any time today 'n' watch folks getting drunker 'n' drunker as they watched the election news. I'd even be willing to bet that there'd be at least one person, already well past the "legal" limit, who'd suddenly stand up 'n' say, "Shoot! I ain't even voted yet," 'fore running out to the polls.

I thought 'bout the stories o' folks who would get dressed up in their Sunday best to go vote 'cause voting was so important 'n' serious as church. Now days it seems like folks just show up in whatever they happen to have on er whatever they can grab 'fore they head out. In the last Presidential election, there was even a few folks in line who hadn't even bothered to change out o' their bed clothes. (Although, I guess I should give 'em credit fer being so eager 'n' dedicated to vote in that one that they was willing to get up at all that early in the morning.)

 I thought 'bout all those folks back 'fore there were cars who had to walk er ride miles 'n' miles to get to where they was supposed to go to vote 'cause it was so important to 'em. So many of 'em today seem to treat it more like some kind o' chore er drudge than the right er privilege that it is. They seem to approach it like it's some sort of odious task, like having to clean the cat box er jury duty er something. The biggest thing these days seem to be all the folks signing up to early vote er vote by mail so they don't have to take that extra time out o' their day to go do it. Personally, I get a big shot o' pride walking up to that desk 'n' taking pen in hand to mark all those little circles. I stand a little taller when I walk out o' the building with my little "I Voted" sticker tacked onto my shirt. I ain't never seen it as a chore ner an imposition. I've always seen it as a solemn something I'm more'n proud 'n' happy 'n' honored to do.

'N' I thought 'bout the idea of a bunch o' dour, humorless Puritans kicking their heels up 'n' having celebrations 'cause the folks they got to pick was stepping into office, instead of a bunch o' folks someone else had lumped 'em with. Now days it seems like so many folks're so busy voting 'gainst something er someone they cain't take no joy in their decisions.  Maybe that's why we ain't having no parades ner parties ner even special cakes to celebrate the fact that the folks we get to pick're stepping into office. Maybe too many folks these days're feeling like they's stuck with a bunch o' folks someone else lumped 'em with 'cause they felt like they couldn't vote fer who they really wanted lest the "wrong" person wound up winning.

So I thought 'bout all this stuff 'n' I decided I was going to try 'n' learn a lesson from the way they viewed elections back in the olden days. From here on out, I'm going to try 'n' keep my sharp tongue in my pocket on election day. I'm going to try 'n' keep my civil tongue in my mouth on the days I get the privilege o' going to the polls 'n' jotting down my two cents' worth in the form o' little dots on a page. I'm going to try 'n' show the day the respect it rightfully deserves 'n', who knows, maybe next year I'll even make a special cake on the day. 'Sides, I got all the other days o' the year to take my sharp tongue out o' my pocket 'n' use it.

Smoke 'em if you can afford 'em

Here we go again. Big gov'ment is strapping on its size 13 moral-superiority clodhoppers 'n' is getting ready to start trompling all over the rights of a maligned minority 'cause it's the "right thing to do". That's right, they's raising the taxes on tobacco products. Again. When it takes effect on Wednesday, it will be the single largest federal tobacco tax increase ever. The tax on a single pack o' smokes will go from 39 cents to just over a dollar. ($1.01, to be precise.) Taxes on cigars 'n' pipe 'n' smokeless tobacco will be increased, as well. The tax on chewing tobacco, fer example, will increase from 19.5 cents to 50 cents per pound.

Course, the claim it's all fer a good cause. Ain't that always the excuse they trot out when they decide to infringe on the rights o' some minority group er the other - that it's fer the "public good"? This time, they say they're going to use the tobacco taxes to help finance a major expansion o' health insurance fer children. While that may be a good use to put their extorted funds towards, in actual practice the idea is just plain stupid.

Now, I know you're prob'ly thinking, "Stupid? Ain't that rather a harsh word to use, Random?" Well, that's as maybe. But when it's the right word, it's the right word, 'n' I ain't going to shy away from using it. It is a stupid idea. Just look at the thing logically, which, obviously, the gov'ment ain't doing. They's claiming it's a win-win situation. First off, they's raising money to help fund child care. I admit, that's a good thing. Then, they claim that it will provide further incentive fer tobacco users to quit their bad habits, which will improve their health.

Let's just leave the health "benefits" o' less tobacco use aside fer right now 'n' concentrate on the
consequences o' diminished tobacco use among the general population. The first thought that springs to mind is: less tobacco use means less tobacco purchases which means a decrease in the revenues from tobacco taxes which means less money fer child health care. That's a lose-win, the children lose but the tobacco users "win" 'cause they're "healthier". If, on the other hand, there isn't a decrease in the number o' tobacco users, er if it even increases 'cause folks want to raise that money fer the kiddies, then it's a win-lose 'cause the tobacco users get singled out fer an unfairly disproportianate tax increase. On the third hand, we have the most likely scenario, which is a lose-lose fer ever'body. There will be a decrease in the number o' tobacco users, which will mean a decrease in the tax revenue fer the kiddies, which will mean another unfair tax increase on tobacco, which will mean fewer tobacco users, which will mean a decrease in the tax revenue fer the kiddies, which will mean another unfair tax increase on tobacco, which will mean fewer tobacco users... 'n' so on.

If they want to tax someone to raise money fer child health care, tax the deep pockets, not the folks already struggling with their finances. Make the petroleum companies pay fer it. I'd be willing to bet real money that more deaths in this country can be linked, either directly er indirectly, to the manufacturing 'n' use o' petroleum products than the manufacturing 'n' use o' tobacco. Er they could go after the drug companies. They're the ones who are, probably, most responsible fer the skyrocketing cost o' healthcare in this country, anyway. Make 'em put back some o' what they've taken. If they really want to make some money 'n' a tangible differ'nce at the same time, legalize the illegal drugs 'n' tax them.

Now there's a win-win. Maybe even a win-win-win er a win-win-win-win. They'd get more money fer the younguns that way than they could ever dream o' getting from tobacco users. If drugs was legal, they could regulate their manufacture 'n' quality, which means less deaths 'n' health problems from bad drugs. It would also pull the rug out from under the drug cartels 'n' the gangs running drugs in this country. That would mean less violence, less criminals, less folks in jail, safer neighborhoods, 'n' healthier environments fer the children o' drug families.

If they insist on placing the burden on the shoulders o' the tobacco user, then I say the tobacco user's in this country should stand up 'n' make themselves heard. I don't mean standing up in shouting 'bout how unfair it is er writing letters to congressfolks er any o' that, 'cause ain't no one going to listen to 'em if they's just using words. I mean they should speak with their wallets. What I'd like to see happen is fer ever' tobacco user in the country to quit buying tobacco products fer at least six months. Turn off that tax tap 'n' see what the gov'ment does when the tobacco users say, "No, you cain't have my money!" Maybe then they'll see the light 'n' actually try something intelligent fer a change. I know, asking the gov'ment to do something intelligent is like asking a chicken to lay hard boiled eggs. I can still dream, though. Least, until they find a way to tax that, too.