EVERYONE WHO SEEKS PUBLIC OFFICE PURPORTS TO DO SO seeking the “public good.”  Whether they wish to right an injustice, Improve the lot of the poor, hungry and homeless, or stand up to oppression, they take to the stage with pronouncements of good intent.

Sure, there are some who simply want the trappings of power and control, but not all politicians start that way.  But they all wind up that way.  Why?  How?  When?

Lord Acton once observed

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

This explains the “why,” and perhaps the “how,” but not the when.  Are some politicians more corruptible than others?  Reversing the question, are there some politicians who are less corruptible?  Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), is known to vote against nearly every form of government spending.  This draws the ire of many from both sides of the aisle, but he stands resolute.  On his website, he shows the Nation Debt “clock” in real time, a stark reminder that with every passing second, the nation’s debt climbs astronomically.  Paul’s resistance to spending is based on his wish to not add more to the debt.  Is he incorruptible?  He may be the only one.

Or perhaps he hasn’t yet reached the “when” stage.  Newer members of Congress have displayed almost no resistance to the siren call of power and corruption.  The latest darling of the Democrats is Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) who has quickly transformed herself from a middle-class educated attorney to a trash-talking guttersnipe.  Buoyed by her constituents’ acclaim, she has now chosen to turn her attention from the House of Representatives (whose district was gerrymandered out of existence) to the Senate.  Crockett has tasted the ambrosia of power and the wealth that comes with being a member of Congress, and has thus succumbed to its blandishments early in her career.

Once the domain of higher elected office, the trickle-down effect has now reached local levels, most notably at the school board levels.  Making national headlines seemingly on a weekly  basis, the Loudoun County, Virginia, school board has inserted itself into local affairs encompassing transgenderism, Title IX, and at times the misappropriation of funds.  Housed in an impressive building with modern electronics, wood paneling, and a host of advanced features, one might understand why someone might want to run for school board.

The LCPS Administration building at 21000 Education Ct, Ashburn, VA 20148

Completed in 2005 at an estimated cost of $26 million, the 200,000 square foot building was partially renovated in 2023 at an additional cost of $4.12 million.  Taxpayer money, let’s not forget!  So, is the attraction the position on the board, or the building in where one holds court?  Er, office?  And while the average school board member earns only about $20k per year for a part-time job, the superintendent makes about $425k a year, plus a $20k yearly bonus.

A new breed of office-seekers has arisen mostly due to the rise of the Internet and social media:  The “attention whores.”  The same Jasmine Crockett mentioned above, has been seen as wanting the attention public office brings more than the responsibility.  Podcaster Matt Walsh has opined that if she were given a choice between two buttons, the first being “President of the United States” and the second of having 50 million followers on Instagram, she’d opt for the second button without hesitation.  Given that when some elected officials open their mouths they reveal their room temperature IQs, that they continue to do so rather than slink away suggests they enjoy the publicity more than the public embarrassment.

It may be too early to tell, but even Donald J. Trump may not be immune.  A billionaire, Trump does not need the salary of the president (which is less than the Superintendent of Loudoun County’s School Board!) and in fact, donates it to veterans causes.  A CEO several times over, one might assume he doesn’t lust for power.  However, being in command of the world’s greatest military and having world leaders look to him for advice and guidance (as well as support), could be swinging the pendulum.  In the sense of this discussion, Trump is a cypher.

Cigar smoking, painted-on-mustache comedian, Groucho Marx

Groucho Marx once said he didn’t care to belong to any club that would have him as a member.  It’s no wonder he never ran for office.

Not since 1991, when the team was still known as the Washington Redskins*, has the professional football team now called the Commanders had a 12-win season.  That team went on to win Super Bowl XXVI.

Washington’s Football Team Logos, past-to-present

Not since Jack Kent Cooke (under who the team won three Super Bowls) sold the team to Daniel Snyder has the energy in Washington, D. C. toward its team been this high.  Snyder’s legacy will likely have him listed among the worst owners in NFL franchise history due to his management mistakes and choices.  Forced by other team owners to sell the team, Snyder eventually sold the team to a group headed by Josh Harris in 2023.  Members of that group include Basketball great Earvin “Magic” Johnson.

The Harris era has begun.  The last season under the Snyder-led organization yielded a pitiful 4-13 record allowing the most points and having the worst point differential in the league. The upside is that such a dismal record allowed the team to pick second in the 2024 NFL Draft.  With that pick, they chose 2023 Heisman Trophy winner, LSU’s quarterback, Jayden Daniels (the first pick, going to the Chicago Bears was the 2022 Heisman winner, Caleb Williams).

The Redskins/Commanders are now headed into the playoffs.  Their 12-5 record equals that of AFC North leaders the Baltimore Ravens, and surpasses those of the Houston Texans (10-7, AFC South division leaders), the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (10-7, NFC South leaders) and the Los Angeles Rams (10-7, NFC West leaders).  Yet, they are only a wildcard team because division leading Philadelphia Eagles own a better record (14-3).

But no one in Washington could have dreamed the first year under the Harris regime would produce the results it has.  It’s unrealistic to think that the team — whatever you want to call them — could reach, much less win the Super Bowl (only two teams have done so under first-year coaches).  And ultimately, it doesn’t matter.  From having dreadful teams for three decades, just having a twelve-win season is satisfying enough for this fan!

∗ The team name change and the commensurate whitewashing of history came about due to Dan Synder’s bowing to the “woke” trend that permeated the times around the COVID pandemic, despite his statement he would never do so.  The name Redskins has been an issue for a number of years, even before then.  It’s been said Josh Harris considered bringing back the name, but then he publicly closed the door on the possibility.  Sigh.

Still, I can’t for the life of me see using “Hail to the Redskins” as the team fight song, even with lyric changes.

It’s just a little more than a week removed from the victory that saw Donald Trump become only the second person to win the presidency, in non-consecutive terms, and the accompanying “red wave” that resulted in a trifecta for Republicans, winning the presidency and both houses of Congress.  Not content to savor these victories, Trump immediately began naming the people he hopes to surround himself in “Trump 2.0.”

The left and the media (but I repeat myself) have become apoplectic with the announcements.  Their incapacity for self-reflection have yielded hair-on-fire denouements and “Scream 2.0” exhibitions that would embarrass a pre-teen TikToker.

It’s reasonable to think (for those of us who are both reasonable and thinkers) that a president would want as his closest advisors and confidants people who agree with his platform and agenda.  That Donald Trump has named several well-known people to key appointments is causing tremors among the Establishment.  The nomination of Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense was immediately greeted with cries from the antis that he was “too inexperienced” and the unspoken opinion that he wasn’t part of the Elite.

Exactly.

Other names are raising eyebrows for much the same reason.  Kristi Noem, Tulsi Gabbard, Matt Gaetz, Lee Zeldin, John Ratcliffe, and a growing list.  The announcements come at a pace that has raised anxiety levels among Trump’s foes, which makes it difficult for them to formulate a cogent argument against them.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned widely in the snooze media that I think far outweighs the obvious conservative mindset of these appointments is the age factor.

Legally, discrimination based on age is illegal.  Politically, however, the past few decades have been a period of gerontocracy (a Greek word meaning “rule by the eldest”).  The senior leaders in the highest ranks of government have all been in their upper 70s or 80s.  Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) is 90!  The president is 81.  The president-elect is 78.  The general rule has been that one must “grow into the job.”  Often, seniority outweighs capability.

Despite his vigor, Trump knows he is not a young man.  But he’s carefully crafting the future of the Republican Party by naming people mostly in the 40-45 year-old range. The list is not complete, so the number might change, but it appears that the oldest person named to serve in his administration is Trump’s choice for Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, who is 69. His Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles is 65.

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., left, Stephen Miller, middle, and former Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Tom Homan, right. (AP Photos)

From left: Pete Hegseth, Kristi Noem and John Ratcliffe. (AP Photos)

Trump’s re-emergence in the halls of power is having a similar effect beyond his immediate ability to control.  The Senate has just elected 63 year-old John Thune (R-SD) as Senate Majority Leader, replacing 82 year-old Mitch McConnell, who led the Republicans in the Senate for 18 years.  Thune may not be Trump’s choice (he favored Rick Scott) but the message is clear:  Old is out, young is in.

Trump’s choices from this point on suggest his legacy will be the youth movement he’s bringing to government.  A much-needed refresh, based on recent history.

These are remarkable times we live in.

It’s unknown how many assassination attempts against a sitting or former president have been foiled, but we have just witnessed the first known attempt in over forty years.  In 1981, John Hinckley, Jr. shot president Ronald Reagan outside the Washington Hilton hotel in Washington, D. C.  Reagan survived, but the attempt was a close call.  A police officer was killed and Press Secretary James Brady was also severely wounded.

On Saturday, July 13, 2024, just moments into a campaign speech in Butler, Pennsylvania, former president Donald Trump and candidate for the office again, was providentially spared as a rifle shot took a chunk out of his right ear.  Two others were not so fortunate; one was killed and two others were wounded.  A moment earlier, the shot would have struck him right in the head, but he uncharacteristically moved to point to a chart, and the bullet narrowly avoided killing him.  Trump appeared two days later at the Republican National Convention sporting a bandage on his ear, but seemed otherwise unharmed.  Remarkable.

At the same time, despite remarkable efforts to conceal the fact, the incumbent president is revealed to be suffering from some form of mental incapacitation.  Observers of the political arena such as myself have noticed this ever since his 2020 election campaign was one of invisibility; under the cover of the COVID pandemic, Joe Biden huddled in his basement, rarely coming up and out for public appearances.  When he did, he exhibited many signs of encroaching senility.  One of those signs I’ve witnessed is a relaxing of inhibitions relating to self-restraint when it comes to expressing opinions.  From my witness stand, I’ve seen Joe Biden as a lifelong racist and inveterate liar, but most of the public doesn’t see that.  They only see what the image-makers have concocted, and so have believed Joe was a typical “everyman.” Remarkable.

In my youth, the Democrat Party portrayed itself as the party of the working class.  It catered to unions, minorities and the “workers.”  The Republicans on the other hand, were depicted as being the party of the rich, of Wall Street, and international elites.  Today, the Democrats are seen as “limousine liberals” and “Gulfstream Guevaras.”  The Republicans are led by a successful businessman who entered politics late in life.  The businessman, Donald Trump, mingles with construction workers, professional wrestlers, country music artists, and flag-waving Americans who show up en masse at rallies to show that the American Dream isn’t dead.  Yet.  Remarkable.

At this writing, the Democrat Party is maneuvering to remove Biden from the ticket.  Despite a series of non-democratic moves to ensure his place as the nominee, the Democrats are now using undemocratic means to remove the man they pledge will “preserve democracy” in the country.  Remarkable.

By the same token, the Democrats have used a number of non-democratic means to remove any challenges to their party’s candidate; they worked tirelessly to keep Democrat-turned-Independent Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. off the ballot wherever possible.  And the extent to which they leveraged the power of the government using “lawfare” (a term coined to describe persecuting the opposition through the courts) to remove and imprison Donald Trump is nothing short of remarkable.

The legal procedures that Donald Trump is undergoing have all been designed to keep him off the campaign trail.  A law that was enacted but never used was the basis for convicting him of 34 charges.  For paperwork errors. At the same time, a special counsel investigating Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents found him effectively guilty of a felony, but excused him from prosecution due to his status as aged with a poor memory.  The wags would say that this election pits a convicted felon against an un-convicted felon.

The inflammatory rhetoric from the Democrats accusing the Republicans of being like Nazis, and a “threat to democracy,” among other aspersions likely resulted in motivating a young, 20 year-old to attempt to take the life of the threat.  Twenty years after the last assassination attempt on a president’s life. Remarkable.

Every election year, the media and observers anticipate an “October surprise.”  This whole 2024 election process has been nothing short of remarkable surprises.

I only wish everyone would take notice of the current state of affairs.  They are remarkable.

I often resist the urge to post articles about politics, despite the political overtones of this site’s name.  But recently an issue has come up that has me both scratching my head as well as wondering how names change, and who decides?

As I write this, Russia is invading Ukraine.  I will leave the emotional and humanitarian aspects of this aside for the moment, since my topic is about a name:  The name of Ukraine’s capital city, Kiev.  Or, as many now would have it, Kyiv.

Some quick study shows that Kiev (KEE-ev) was the common English spelling and pronunciation up until the Russians invaded, at which point the “formal” Ukrainian spelling and pronunciation of Kyiv (KEEV) was adopted by the western press.  (n.b., the phonetic spellings are taken from Wikipedia or are my own when transliteration is impractical).

Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union since 1922 as one of its “soviet socialist republics.” Ukrainian itself is an ethnic group, and traces its roots back to 32,000 B. C. As with most of Europe, empires have come and gone, and Ukraine has been absorbed and integrated into many of them.  Which brings us back to the name.

Kiev is considered to be the Russian spelling and pronunciation, and for 70+ years was the accepted form.  In 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine declared its independence.  Western usage of the name continued, although Ukrainians quickly adopted their “proper” name, and in 2019 petitioned the United States Board on Geographic Names and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to do the same.  Officially, on maps and other cartographic instruments, Kyiv is now the official name and spelling.

So the question I have is this:  Why does the media, in its “hive mind,” choose to make the distinction now?

(Side note:  As a youth, and after college, I knew the name of the Chinese capital as Peking.  In 1979, the Wade-Giles system for the romanization of written Chinese moved from Cantonese to Mandarin, and thus Peking became Beijing – technically a restoration of the name and not a change.  This was my first exposure to how different cultures apply their conventions to others).

Tossing aside the fact that Kyiv is technically accurate, why does the media now uniformly decide to use it?  There was no such focus prior to the Russian invasion.

Which got me to thinking:  If western media wants to be accurate, why do they not apply the same standard to other capitals?  A few immediate examples I can think of, and their native (albeit phonetic) pronunciations) are:

• Moscow (Moskva)
• Paris (Paree)
• Munich (Muenchen)
• Budapest (Budapesht)

And one of my favorites:  Copenhagen.  The capital of Denmark is pronounced “Koobenhavn.” English speakers typically pronounce it “Copen-hāgen.”  Some, who wish to appear worldly and effete pronounce it “Copen-hoggen” without knowing that to do is an affront to the natives.  Most Danes are too polite to mention it, but the Germanic pronunciation still carries with it the resentment of the German treatment of the Danes during WWII!

And how about Bangkok?  In Thai, the official name of the capital is Krung Thep Maha Nakon, or colloquially as Krung Thep.  According to Wikipedia,

Officially, the town was known as Thonburi Si Mahasamut (ธนบุรีศรีมหาสมุทร, from Pali and Sanskrit, literally ‘city of treasures gracing the ocean’) or Thonburi, according to the Ayutthaya Chronicles.^[15] Bangkok was likely a colloquial name, albeit one widely adopted by foreign visitors, who continued to use it to refer to the city even after the new capital’s establishment.

When King Rama I established his new capital on the river’s eastern bank, the city inherited Ayutthaya’s ceremonial name, of which there were many variants, including Krung Thep Thawarawadi Si Ayutthaya (กรุงเทพทวารวดีศรีอยุธยา) and Krung Thep Maha Nakhon Si Ayutthaya (กรุงเทพมหานครศรีอยุธยา).

As one who has traveled extensively, and who has visited many of the cities listed above, it strikes me as humorous (and perhaps even disingenuous) how the media all of a sudden “discovers” a new name for a place, and then pretend to be intellectually and snobbishly superior by using it.