Monday, Monday.

Morality. What is it?  A common thread in most definitions seems to be a set of beliefs establishing what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior.

The definition itself is the foundation of all disputes.  What is right for you may be wrong for another person.

We have developed into a society where everyone seems to believe there is an exception to everything, and that exception most often seems to exist when it applies to the individual claiming it. From an entertainment value perspective, you have to appreciate that reality.

From a community perspective, your appreciation of the same should at best be limited to mild amusement only.

Whether it is a good exception or a bad exception is often nothing more than the perspective of those ruling on the exception. Make enough good ones, and you have rendered the rule inapplicable to the bad ones too. 

Not even dealing with the local exceptions here, although the same is true at any level.

Immigration crisis.  Forgive me for being a bit cold hearted here, but every immigration crisis seemingly can only be solved by rewarding those who have immigrated in violation of the law. 

In using the now incorrect terminology, I do not advocate for the deportation of every illegal immigrant.  Neither however do I advocate for allowing everyone in. What I advocate for is some policy that actually deals with the present crisis that will prevent a future crisis.  

I would like to say I have a solution.  I would like to say I agree with the President's solution or the opposition solution.  I would like to say I have confidence we will see an accepted solution.

What I can say is whatever the solution, it is going to end up be vehemently opposed by 25% of of those who wanted something else.  In showing my streak of optimism, it will be so full of short comings we will in fact continue to work to a better solution out of necessity.

Anyway .. enough on that.

We are closer to the November, 2014 mid-term elections than we have ever been (how is that for an ovious statement).

A fair amount of the pundits advocate the outcome of those elections will have no real effect.  Me, I see that first Tuesday in November as the start of the next revolution in this country.  I don't mean a violent, armed uprising.  I am talking political.

For this one, the political shot fired will not occur in Concord. There will be not battles fought there or in Lexington.  Whether this country's political movement will be shifted with hard momentum will be determined in the political battles to be waged in the eight toss up states for the senate (eight as of right now anyway).

Maybe some more on that. Not all that likely though time is not going to permit it.  Just a rambling thought.

Term limits and a smaller town meeting.  Two more rambling thoughts.

On the local level for a town this size, what terms limits make sense? What positions do we elect? Selectmen, Moderator, BPW under any scenario, Board of Health, Tree Warden, Town Clerk, Commissioners of Trust Funds, School Committee, Planning Board.  Did I miss any?

Explain to me why term limits on the local level make sense?  Somebody?

Leave the new ideas and fresh perspective concepts out please.  If you have those and run, should work for you in an election. If we were talking about Congress, well heck, might agree with you there, based in the present mess, but we aren't.

This keeps being discussed.  Indeed the only percent I have heard from the still unreleased public survey, which won't and hasn't driven any action to date seemingly, is the fact that a majority said they wanted them.

So what is it?

A smaller town meeting?  What does that accomplish?  A better attendance record?  That doesn't equate to better government.

One novel approach to the attendance issue, and not novel, just different for here.

Instead of holding a special within the annual, hold the special on a night before the annual.  Start it at 7:00.  Make it the same day of the week before the annual, and deal with the special matters.  Don't allow anything on as a matter of right.  Don't add to it after the deadline date set for submitting articles.

Yes this would mean one more night out for everyone.  So what. I am sick and tired of hearing how being a town meeting interferes with people's personal lives.  DO NOT RUN.

I absolutely have no problem with the concept that family comes first.  But if your family schedule interferes with your elected office on a regular basis, DO NOT RUN.

The dress rehearsal the night of the precinct meetings, chuck it.  It baffles me to see people tearing open their warrant books to look at on that night, and worse still seeing the same happen the day of town meeting.

Personally, if people want to reduce the size of town meeting, I am all done arguing against it.  I won't fight for it though.  The reasoning behind it isn't going to to accomplish anything in the long run.

More a bit of a rant than anything else I suppose.

Freedoms.

I have a right to be free.  You have a right to be free.

I would actually support a constitutional amendment that bans corporate spending on political advertisement, so long as the ban applied to all groups, associations and organizations. Let's leave it simply to the people to contribute.  Let's go a step further and limit it to an amount of money representing no more than say the average citizen could spend in any one year for such things. Take another step and limit the amount an individual can spend of his or her own money for his or her campaign.

Let's take it the final  step further.  Prohibit contributions from outside any candidate's district. If you don't live on Fairhaven, you can't contribute to a Fairhaven election. Same thing for any county, state district, or state office.  Same thing for a House or Senate election on the federal level.

That folks would be campaign reform.  It would force candidates to actually focus on you and not anyone else.

Never happen.  Why?

Well you have to make exceptions.  Think of all the special interest groups you belong to who could no longer solicit and use your money for political support.  Think of the outcry about how such a rule would actually work against the common person.

Who knows? I could be wrong at how well thought the argument against for profit corporations spending me is. Perhaps all the other groups believe such a thing should not apply to them? Perhaps all the other groups actually feel they too should be prohibited.

Would it be right or wrong to ban say cooperation A from spending money on politics, but allow the union representing its workers to so spend?  Within the PAC laws of course.

The biggest obscenity about the concept is the obscene amounts spent in this country on politics.  Right behind it is the influx of outside money in races which goes to influence elections.  Outside money from any source.

Want a promise from candidates about ads, about campaigning? Make them promise not to accept any outside money.

No one from California sends money to a candidate in Massachusetts, except a real friend or relative, because they think that is the candidate best to represent your interest as a Massachusetts resident.  That level of altruism simply does not exist on the political spectrum. They want a vote in the House or Senate to mirror their political beliefs.

I hate to break it to everyone. Free speech does not apply only to the things you want to hear, or is a right for only those you agree with. You want to limit it, fine with me.  Limit is across the board though.

Enough for today.  Really.

Stay safe.