There are times when I am reminded of a line from the movie, "Rush Hour" with Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker. The story revolves around a Chinese inspector (Chan) who comes to Los Angeles to investigate a kidnapping. The FBI, not wanting the offered help from the Chinese government, assigns an LAPD detective (Tucker) to keep the inspector distracted. Part of the comedy in the movie relies on the interaction between two people, from different backgrounds and cultures, who more than occasionally have a tough time understanding just exactly what the other has said. Their first meeting is a particularly frustrating moment for Tucker's character. Assuming Jackie Chan does not speak any english at all simply because Tucker does not get the reaction he expects, he turns to Chan and says, "Don't you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?".

In the movie, the problem was that sometimes the words used may have two implications which render the ability to be understood difficult (and funny). Language has, as it's only purpose, the intention of conveying one person's thoughts or feelings to another. It is only meaningful within this context. Only then does it have value and utility. Some time ago, I was provided empirical evidence of this very thing. I had gone out to a restaurant and ordered a steak for dinner, something I thought a rather simple thing to handle. After waiting for the meal to be prepared, the waitress returned and placed before me - a waffle. I was left perplexed at how one could possibly be confused for the other. I tried, in the time it took to correct the order, to slur my words while saying "steak". No matter how I tried, I never could get it to sound like "waffle". Really, you try - it can't be done.

A new day dawned in America years ago that created an entirely new linguistic purpose and continues to become more extremely modified with the passing of time. We have broken the bonds of conforming to a definition of words that obligate us to defend our thoughts. Now we are free to use careful sentence structure to obfuscate our actual intentions and even claim that what we clearly stated is not to be understood in it's simplest form (Remember Bill Clinton saying before congress, "It all depends on what the definition of the word "is" is).

This is not an issue involving just Democrats or Republicans. It's not confined to any borders at all. As Neo was told, "it's all around us". Isn't that, in part, what brought you hear? To escape the madness of trying to figure out what the heck the last statement from (insert your favorite politico here) really meant. We are told on an all to regular basis that we will soon be served up the juicy steak we asked for, only to find once again that it's the waffle in front of us.

We no longer have "suspects" in the news, now we have "persons of interest". It's not a global "a war on terror", (which really had a bit of a ring to it), now it's an "Overseas Contingency Operation". I thought that would apply more to keeping troops in Germany than what we are doing in Iran or Afghanistan. During the presidential campaigns, any connection between Obama and muslim heritage was so concealed as not to be in evidence. From his own biography, he described his father as both an atheist, then an agnostic. Rarely did anyone mention the name, "Hussein" (Obama's middle name), for fear that it would hurt his chances. Personally, I don't really care about his father's religious leanings or the given name of any candidate. As an aside, what kind of name is "Mitt" anyway? I don't believe Pres. Obama is a muslim and, in fact, really don't know with any certainty if he is committed to any religious belief. But, let him take a trip to Saudi Arabia and publicly speak to a group of muslims and, all of a sudden, he has a rich muslim heritage and relates to the people there as few others could.

When the republicans held the reigns in both houses with a republican in the oval office, we did not get the smaller government, lower taxes, less waste we thought the party represented. I'm sure they would tell me that:

"I simply don't understand the complexities of the day to day decisions which must be made allowing for the global impact and economic realities of building a consensus among those on both sides of the aisle to reach something even close to an accord between very disparate groups which have to be considered in light of the policies and provisions, both constitutional and otherwise, that prevent the issue from being explained in the simple terms I would form the argument against such inaction to."

Translation: they lied and were not honest with the people that elected them to do what they said they would do. Now, President Obama says he doesn't want to run the automobile and banking industries, but the government has purchased a 60% interest in General Motors (the largest manufacturer in the world) as well as a 33% interest in Citicorp. The government has fired CEO's and determined many of the appointments to the board of directors of several companies. He says the middle class won't get an increase in taxes, but proposes a VAT (Value Added Tax) which he already admitted would affect everyone in the expense they incur for utilities and gas. You'll get more examples from the next article you read - I promise.

We, as a united people, must at some time stand up with one voice and hold our representatives accountable for their words and their actions. Personally, I would endorse a movement to start a campaign which gathers this promise from the voting population:

"I hereby promise and give oath on my word, that in the next election, I will not vote for any incumbent, in any office, aligned with any political organization - even if that politician has done a good job - so that the process of representative government might be returned into the hands of the people and we would, once again, understand that it is not the people that should fear their government, but the government that should fear the people. No authority is given by a democratic act that cannot be taken away, but our rights as a free people are inalienable, conferred by God and promised us by our Constitution."

Vote Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, conservative or liberal - that is not what matters. What does matter, to all of us, is that the free exchange of ideas be preserved and communicated openly and honestly to the people who are to be represented in this republic. Let those who hold office be reminded that they do so at our good pleasure and we have the will as a free people to exercise our option to remove them - every last one of them. That's my suggestion for the day. Stop the lying, stop the deceit, say what you mean and mean what you say. Really, I don't expect any more from my elected representative than I do my 14 year old son. If he can do it, why can't they?

As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts.