Tuesday, December 25, 2007

and what did YOU do...

during YOUR Christmas dinner?

By the end of ours, we had the US leadership team for the next four years sorted out.

The premise was this... get rid of the whole election process that threatens to eat away at our sanity for the next 11 months, and just put 'em all in. Somewhere. Anywhere. Kinda like the interim government in Iraq. And why not? It's not any crazier than our current method!

So without further ado, here is the culminating consensus (yes, sister-in-law Sarah actually wrote the final list on a napkin!) of the lively discussion of nine adults, ranging in age from 19-81, with a little input from red wine and champagne----

President: Ron Paul
Vice-President: Ralph Nader

The Cabinet Secretaries:
Secretary of State: Joe Biden
Attorney General: Rudy Giuliani
Defense: John McCain
The Interior: Cynthia McKinney
Housing and Urban Development: Barack Obama
Health and Human Services: Hillary Clinton
Commerce: Mitt Romney
Education: Fred Thompson
Labor: John Edwards
Energy: Bill Richardson
The Treasury: Chris Dodd
Transportation: Mike Gravel
Veterans Affairs: Duncan Hunter
Agriculture: Mike Huckabee
Homeland Security: Dennis Kucinich

Haven't spent such an enjoyable time over roast beast and mashed potatoes (and with family, no less!) in a long, long time.

If your knowledge or opinion deems a different outcome for one or more of these posts, please, by all means, let me know.


Kate said...

What? No role for Tom Tancredo? Bummer. LOL

Swiss Miss said...

Ron Paul as president would render many of these agencies defunct, but I still think it's a cool game to play. I think I favor the old Greek way of choosing government officials....by general lottery! That would make it very hard for the powerful elites to have an influence.

Terroni said...

Can't we put someone a little brighter in charge of education?

And, while I agree with Mr. Paul when it comes to the Patriot Act, I'm a little disturbed that he's in favor of overturning Roe and withdrawing from the UN.

My family seems to think Edwards is going to win.

Marie Walden said...

I hosted a brunch for three of my siblings, their spouses and children, my parents, my children and Eric. All in all a very sophisticated and well-educated crowd. So what did we do? We sat around and made farting noises with the Flarp my brother gave to each of us. And laughed and laughed. For a really long time.

I think my parents may have left early.

eleKtrofly said...

ron paul's... okay... but i heard him say he would like to see the privatization of education and that, frankly, frightens me.

i mean, public education is one of the hallmarks of industrialization.

but he's certainly better than many candidates. giuliani makes my bones hurt and huckabee is clinically insane...

for my money, i'm voting for OPRAH.

Swiss Miss said...

There is so much misinformation floating around about Ron Paul's policy positions. He doesn't advocate privatization. Here is what the Boston Herald had to say about his position on education and the abolition of the federal Department of Education:

"Paul supports giving educational control back to parents, rather than allowing the federal government to fund the schools. He plans to discontinue the Department of Education and return its functions to the states. His view is that by removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources. To help parents with the costs of schooling, Paul introduced H.R. 1056, the Family Education Freedom Act, in Congress. The bill would allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school, including private, parochial, religious, and home schools. Another bill Paul has sponsored is H.R. 1059, which allows full-time elementary and secondary teachers a $3,000 yearly tax credit. He pledges to ensure that home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families. He plans to advance tax credits through the Family Education Freedom Act, which reduces taxes to make it easier for parents to home school by allowing them to devote more of their own funds to their children’s education."

suesun said...

As a teacher in lower-class public schools for 15 years, I have seen public education's best potential and its worst failings. But a free public education is still the best equalizing hope we have in this country. And public tax dollars to pay for religious education is simply wrong. Not to mention that money would only go to the parents who actually know HOW to get a tax credit, who know how to work the system in their favor, who take the time to research the best options for their kids, who have the income to make up the huge difference between the actual cost of tuition and what they get in a credit. These parents are few. Very few. Are educational opportunities woefully unbalanced in this country? YES! Would tax credits even this out or make the gap wider? I think the latter.

Just thinking about all this makes me want to make farting noises! :-)

T-my money's on Edwards.....

Swiss Miss said...

Sue, I agree that a publicly funded education is a necessity, especially in a democratic society. Paul's position would merely return the responsibility to the states, who could then decide what is the best way to education their young citizens. I always believe that local control is usually the lesser of two evils.

The one-size-fits-all approach mandated by the federal government is leaving many inner-city kids way behind or completely out. These communities need the flexibility to deal with their problem youth in the most effective way possible, and right now, the federal government guidelines aren't allowing them to do that.

Though I am adamantly against "privatization" of schools, I would argue that local control which is publicly-funded is the most humane solution. I realize that many parents just don't give a damn, but are we correct in assuming that government bureaucrats do? My experience is that they are more interested in covering their ass rather than taking chances, and in poverty-stricken, drug-ridden communities, chances need to be taken. That is just my $.02. I am willing to listen to alternative views.

septemberfive said...

oh my gosh! they would tear each other apart. though i suppose if nothing got done... it'd be better than the current method: bad things being done efficiently with people who share the same evil plan to rule the world.