Reelect . . .

 I remember Andrew C. Baird.

Make that Sheriff Andrew C. Baird!

Andy Baiard was the Sheriff of Wayne County back in the 1940's and on into the 1950's and he even made it briefly into the 1960's. That was quite an accomplishment back then and it would be an even more remarkable accomplishment in our time.

Back then this executive office was for a two year term.

That meant that every other year was election year and Andy Baird had to run, once again, for office.

And to folks like me and my siblings this was a critical matter, especially in those earliest of years. Our Dad worked for Andy Baird. Dad was, at first, turnkey at the Wayne County Jail and eventually lieutenant. Every day, five days a week for one of the three work shifts, Dad literally ran the county jail.

And in those earliest days, this was a position dependent on the person of the sheriff. If the sheriff got reelected, Dad keep his job. A defeat for the sheriff meant that a whole new staff, (friends and family?) would be brought in by the new officeholder.

For us every other year being election year also meant that we had to get out there and drum up support for Andy. Either he wins and we put food on the table or he looses and we . . . well! Perish the thought.

In these years our campaigns consisted mostly of those red, white and blue tee shirts we wore to all sorts of events, shirts that simply proclaimed "Reelect Andrew C. Baird, Sheriff."

There were signs and posters as well, all with that same message, "Reelect Andrew C. Baird, Sheriff." Those posters also would include a photo of this strong, stately, steely photo of Andrew C.Baird, our virile, vibrant sheriff.

Thing is, in that time I got to know and personally meet on several occasions that sheriff, Andrew C. Baird. 

And we are talking a whole lot of years here, years in office, years when that steely image on the photo never altered.

But the real Andrew C. Baird grow old, and frail and increasingly fragile.

But the campaign images could never show him that way or there might be questions about his ability to truly fulfill the duties of that office. The jobs got done and done quite well because a strong staff stayed on duty and continued through so many years.

And no one seemed inclined to get ugly about a man growing older. There was a job to get done and this man had assembled the right collection of aides to get that job done and done rather well, I might add.

And I am remembering that time in our history as I reflect on today's elective process.

I watch and listen to the ads and all I can see is for the most part ugly, very, very ugly.

And hateful!

And anger inciting!

This candidate is just plain crazy and this one is a drunk and this is only concerned with stuffing her purse or his pocketbook.

And so vote for . . .

Only I am hearing all too very little about the issues that face us and  what sort of possibilities and solutions might be offered to us and how we might grow as a society by choosing this candidate over that.

Instead of campaigns being about what the job entails, what the challenges are and what solutions we might embrace or reject, we are getting a message that seems to say, "Hate my opponent enough to vote for me!"

How does that help us to be a civil society?

Why should we have to think that we have to vote from our points of anger?

Wy can't we vote, instead, for clearly presented possibilities and solutions?

I guess that I am saying that I long for the days when elections consisted of "Vote for . . ." or "Reelect . . " 

And an invitation to look squarely at the jobs needing to be done and the persons best equipped to get them done.

Why can we not have, once again, candidates who talk about how they see the job they seek and what they see as challenges and possibilities and what solutions they can offer to us?

Why can we not once again be given the possibility of voting based on what needs to get done rather than who needs to be hated?

Definitely A Hot Button!

I Know! I know!

It as been a long time . . .  a really long time since my last musing but, truth be told, either the muse has not prompted any worthwhile inspirations or maybe the current climate seems to be making any honest sharing of one's thoughts as dangerous. The air is, truly, toxic!

Anyhow, here I go again, back with another thought to share.

And I will begin with a clear warning.

Not everyone is going to like this. Some may well take offense and that, I would suggest, is your personal choice.

For some time now I have been inclined to set down in writing what has been going on in my mind. I have hesitated and that primarily because I really do not want to contribute to that already toxic climate that seems to be prevailing these days.

But today, well, I really feel the inspiration to set this thought before any readers with the hope that you will step back and reflect seriously (prayerfully?) on what I am trying to say.

And I know it may not be easy.

But here goes.

And with it I enter into one of the biggest storms engulfing our society today.

Oh, and backing up for a moment, I suspect that one strong motivator just may be the fact that very many years ago, my college major was Philosophy. And while we did review a number of prevalent philosophical systems, the emphasis in these studies was Scholastic Philosophy. I do, presently, suspect that the Scholastic Philosophical System these days is not exactly looked upon with great favor.

Too bad.

It is my background and it does impact the way I may view things. And one of its great contributions has been in the areas of logic and reason.

And that is strongly at play in what I have to say on this Hot Button Topic.

I suspect that something similar is occurring presently in many other places around our country, but here In Michigan it seems that we are being inundated with the message especially as Election Day draws nearer. It seems to be a mantra repeated with every other political ad, a mantra that has sickened me and, yes, is angering me.

It is the statement that this candidate or that opposes abortion "Even in cases of rape or incest."

That's the part - "Even in cases of rape or incest."

Horrible, heinous crimes are being dealt with here. 

And with them, in this whole political climate another issue, critically important, is being raised as well. That is the matter of a woman's right to choose and her freedom and her dignity and her well being.

And, putting the ideas together, it sounds as if a woman can only be free and well adjusted if, after either of those horrid crimes, she is free to abort the result.

But my mind raises the question: such crime already scars the individual mentally and psychologically. That scar is not easily erased, if ever truly erased.

To that scar it sounds like we are suggesting a second scarring as some sort of "healing balm!"

Abort and then live with the knowledge that you have destroyed the life potential within you.

To me this sounds like a classic male chauvinistic approach to a woman.

You got scarred by some man and now we give you the freedom to heal that by giving yourself another scar!

And live with that for the rest of your life! Scarred once by a crime committed against you and scarred a second time by the "solution" offered to you,

That, in my mind, is not the kind of respect any person should be offered!

And still worse in this scenario?

The criminal, the perpetrator of this tragedy gets to walk relatively free!

Justice?

How about laws that truly give justice and dignity and freedom?

How about something like laws that allow judges to impose on any convicted of rape or incest that they have their bank accounts and financial holdings transferred to the victim, especially to provide a financial base for raising a child? And add to that garnishing the perpetrator's wages for a lifetime of child support?

Make the criminal pay.

Not the victim through a lifetime of scarring.

And not the potential life.

And having said my piece on this, I invite you to show me how my thinking just may be wrong.

(If, indeed, it is.)