It usually occurs after making a decision to do something even though your gut tells you not to do it. You fight it and fight it and finally get the grumbling in the stomach to silence and you go ahead and do it anyway. As soon as you do it you know that it was the wrong thing and the words just leap from your mouth. “Oh my goodness, what have I done?” You might even make this statement after having done something that you knew to be wrong, but you thought that you could correct the issues before anyone actually found out about it. You can’t correct it and they always find out about it.

It is a pattern of speech that is almost always based on a poor decision. You don’t even have to form the words. It is an involuntary utterance that requires no action on your part. It is like vomit except for the fact that vomit can at least be cleaned up. These seven words, once released, are much messier to clean up and sometimes leave lifelong stains based on their reason for oral expulsion.

Why do we do it? We know it’s a bad idea. We’ve seen other people make the same decisions with bad results. We have already done it ourselves in the past and the results were always bad. But for some reason, we really believe that this time will be different.  I’ve covered all of by bases this time and I think that it just might actually work. No you don’t. You know it won’t work. You know full well that it won’t work. But you writhe back and forth, first with your gut and then with your conscience, and you convince yourself that it might just be different this time. 

Maybe it was eating that one bite of apple pie that turned into an empty pie pan. Maybe it was getting in the car because you had only had “one” beer.  Maybe it was putting off studying for that final exam until the night before because you knew you would be more focused. Maybe it was calling that guy, whose arms are bigger than your leg, a name that was not so flattering.

Maybe it was telling that girl or guy things about yourself that had not an ounce of truth to it but it sure sounded good when you were saying it.  Maybe it was taking on that big assignment, that was based on a volunteer needed, knowing that it would take an army of volunteers to ever get it done. It might have been giving that certain person a piece of your mind when you knew that you really don’t have any extra pieces to spare.  And, after you gave it to them, you are even shocked yourself that it actually came from your mind.

Whatever it might have been, we did it. And then we did it again. And there is a great likelihood that we will do it once or twice more.  And we will all act surprised at the results as we hear those familiar words, “Oh my God, what have I done?”

I’m not sure how or why we even bring God into this conversation. Do we believe that if we ask God for some type of explanation that it will make it any better? Would it not make better sense to try and keep him out of this all together? Maybe a better comment, after committing the unfortunate act would be, “Oh God, I have no idea who could have done this.”

I have no idea why people continue to make decisions that are based totally on bad criteria. I don’t think that any of us believe that the outcome will be any different this time from the last, or the next. I think that it is just a matter of taking the easier route that typically includes instant, albeit short lived gratification, and knowing full well that you can depend on that all too familiar axioms when reality bites you….once again. “Oh my God, what have I done?“

But, I suppose that even that tactic would fail. As soon as we recognize that not only has God not been fooled, but he knows that we have lied to him completely, and we begin to think about the consequences of that action, we might just say, “Oh my God, what have I done.”

Perhaps that rumbling in our stomach is not always indigestion. Sometimes it may be more important to listen to our stomachs than our hearts.

At least that is how they have historically been known and it is how they should be known. But, due to a series of unexplainable and inexcusable acts it will now take them years to recover that reputation that is the envy of every similarly placed law enforcement agent throughout the world.   They have not only smudged the badge that they wear, but they have smudged the reputation of the nation that they serve.

Law enforcement officials were involved with prostitutes is the entire story that needs to be told. It is a one line story that tells it all. There is no need for follow up about reasons, justifications, or the other sides of the story, etcetera. Once the first line is uttered, the story is over. Once the first line is uttered, the career of those officers is over.  And, once that first line is uttered, the process of holding those officers involved criminally responsible should begin. It is an embarrassment to law enforcement, an embarrassment to the Secret Service, and an embarrassment to this country.   And it seems that the recent story as to their missteps is not an anomaly.

One agent has gone on record as saying that they thought the behavior was okay because senior officers had allowed the activity in the past during recent trips to Colombia. I hope that this is not the case. I fear that it is.

Something is happening in law enforcement that should be alarming to all of us. The trend of officers, who commit crime, when they are supposed to be the epitome of those upholding the law, is growing. Some will say that police officers are human and as long as that is the case, they will make human mistakes. The badge will not be able to prevent them from those inherent human frailties.  Perhaps this is true, but if it is, we must do all we can to put people in these positions who have historical perspective as it applies to their moral and ethical center. Even the best of them will be tested and surely those who have documented flaws will typically fail. In my opinion, therein lies the problem.

We continue to lower the bar, and to ignore “simple” infractions of one’s past, in the recruitment of our police officers.  This process causes us to fill our ranks with some who are not fully committed to the prospect of what is required for law enforcement. There are some people who just are not meant for law enforcement. A nice starched uniform or a dark blue suit will not change that fact. Don’t be fooled. The issuance of a gun and badge to an individual is a very powerful action. The natural psyche of that man or woman who accepts those items eventually will surface. We are starting to see this more often than ever before when those people, who never should have been allowed to be in these positions in the first place, make decisions similar to those of the most recent Secret Service scandal.  When we get to the point that it is difficult to identify the police officers from the criminals, we are heading up a street that is certain to be a dead end.  This story has more to do with the identification, recruitment, training, and status of law enforcement officers as a whole, rather than a specific story involving the Secret Service.  It’s just the most recent story. In this specific story, much has been said about the issue of the President’s immediate safety. I’m confident that this is true. But, the bigger story is the immediate safety of everyone else based on the law enforcement that is assigned to protect us.

Every time that I hear of a law enforcement officer who steps on the wrong side of the line, I must say that I take it very, very, personal. Not only because I spent 32 years of my life trying to do those things that law enforcement officers are sworn to do and are supposed to do, but more importantly, because of the fact that I have had close friends and many officers whom I never met who have literally given their life doing what they were sworn to do and were supposed to do. This year alone, we are approaching record numbers of officers killed in the line of duty. One wrong step by a law enforcement officer diminishes the many steps of those who have always strived to uphold the glimmer of what their badge stands for.

After a while, bad steps become bad strides and bad strides become bad jogs and bad jogs become bad runs.  The epidemic, as it applies to bad cops, may not be into jogging yet, but you should have no doubt that the problem is undoubtedly in full stride.  A running coach once told me that when one’s stride gets out of control, it may be time to tighten the laces a bit. I think he might be on to something.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about recycling. We practice it in my house religiously. But, my understanding is that the point of recycling is to take something old and turn it in to something new.  That is a great idea. To simply take something old, that has been dead and gone for many years, and introduce it as something new and innovative is a waste of time and just wrong. Most of these new and improved ideas were a flop the first time, so why do we think simply calling the same program something different will make it work better this time? But we do. And shortly after we do, we are reminded why it failed the first time and we stick it back in the box and wait a few years to bring it back out again. This is “next time is the charm” type of thinking…….alrighty then.

Law enforcement and the judicial system, with few exceptions, are one of the worst culprits of this recycling mentality. As I write this article, I have just read of someone introducing a program to put police officers back in the neighborhood so that everyone would know them by their name.  Really, and this is new? My Dad, who was a police officer in the sixties, speaks often about such a program that they had. And, it was even new at that time. We’ve had different variations of it called community policing, Neighborhood Watch, the “Broken Windows” theories and on and on.  Anyone who is worth their salt will understand that a good relationship between the cops and the community they serve is the best formula possible for effective crime prevention.  It’s a no brainer, but it is not new and hasn’t been in a long time. While it might have been fairly new a couple of centuries ago, it is not now.

Our most recent legislative session in Georgia has introduced us to a new plan where we are going to start to look differently at the way we sentence convicted criminals. Sound familiar? It should.  Even though this is one of the recycling issues that has been brought up and will be brought up again, it is being made to appear as new and novel.  Truth is, over the years, we’ve gone back and forth with this one like the swoop of the pendulum. Everyone should go to jail and no one should go to jail. And, some variations of everything in between that has little to do with rhyme, reason, rehabilitation, or second chances and has everything to do with money. When times are good, there is a greater likelihood that you will go to jail and stay there, in fact, for a long time.

However, when times get tough, all of a sudden what you did was just not really that bad in the grand scheme of things. It was just this or just that, but certainly not deserving of actually being incarcerated. It was a victimless crime. No one was hurt. Everyone deserves a second, third and what the heck…a fourth chance.  We’re already starting to hear these arguments and maybe all of it is true. But, if it is true, why wasn’t it true when the economy was booming? What about two strikes and you’re out? What about mandatory sentencing that even the judge has no say so on?  What about lock them all up and throw away the key? What happened?

As much as I am not a fan of Bill Clinton, he had a pat answer to most things. And, one of his most well-known applies…“It’s the economy, stupid.” Harsh, but true. We simply can’t afford to keep as many people as we do in jail anymore.   So we start looking at “non-violent” offenders and more creative supervision so that we don’t have to house them.  According to the supporters of this new found (recycled) ideology as it relates to crime, we have electronic surveillance and intensive probation and all of the other “new” cures to incarceration; things will be different this time.  They won’t. They just won’t.  It never does. If you don’t believe me, take a gander at some crime stats and recidivism rates when a large program of this type was implemented in the late seventies. Anyone remember the economy then? Hmmmmmmmmm.

I don’t know, maybe our criminals are a kinder and gentler version of our perps from that time period.  Most criminals don’t look at new found freedom as a way to turn their lives around. Some do…I should say very few do, but some will. The rest will look at their new found freedom as a way to find new found opportunities to commit crime. I wish it was different, but I also wish that I had a new Porsche 911. I don’t see signs of either one occurring. They’ll continue to commit crimes and I’ll continue to drive my 1998 GMC. Such is life. But, there is one thing for sure. When you see me in that old GMC, I will not try to convince you that it is actually a brand new Porsche; a recycled version that is better than the original. That stuff only works with people who are out of ideas and people who buy into it. In the meantime, you might want to lock your doors, at least until the economy picks up and we get that next great (recycled) idea.

But, there is one little blurb in that old parchment paper that, while it was written with great foresight, it is one that is more and more folded into the crease of the page and unused.  It’s called the 6^th Amendment to the Constitution, and it is a part of the Bill of Rights.  The authors of the Constitution knew full well, based on a variety of reasons, that only by the Grace of God, they had not been charged with a crime. Based on their outspoken protest of those things that they found contemptible, there are those who would have enjoyed nothing more than watching these “grandstanders” hauled off in shackles.  Realizing that the potential for such was very real, they added a few sentences that guaranteed a person who had been charged with a crime to have a public and speedy trial in order to confront their accusers.  Few would argue that this was a good thing. All of us want to have the right to get a case before court in a timely manner should we ever be accused of a crime. That is of course, unless you also happen to know that you are guilty of the crime.  Those are the ones who will quietly put their thumb all over that “speedy verbiage.” They prefer it slow and easy…very slow and easy! Somewhat like the pace of a snail who has lost his ability to ooze. 

So while our forefathers took great pride in their attempt to speed the process up, they didn’t really talk about those who would do everything possible to slow it down.  Many of our courts today are bogged down in red tape based on frivolous challenges and appeals that seem to have no merit. But our process, as it applies to our court systems, are being slowed down by of all things “due process” and the rights that are available to those accused. Red tape, legal maneuvering, and technicalities have become the buzz words of those who will do all that is possible to avoid a case being brought to trial. These delays are to the defense’s advantage as time has a way of creating diminishing memories, unavailability of witnesses, misplaced evidence, and on and on.   The delays seldom have anything to do with the facts of the crime, but more so about the facts of the matter. As in, it only matters what evidence is available at the time of the trial versus what evidence was available at the time the crime was committed. The passing of time typically does very little for the appearance of our physical presence and the passing of time typically does very little to a case getting any stronger.  In fact, we end up looking worse, and so does the case. And, that is the entire point of the often ridiculous delays.

While our Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial, the more preferred method for some is a long, painful, and deliberate attempt to keep the case from going to trial at all. And while it should be obvious that I believe this to be a misuse of justice, I am also very quick to say that it is all done within the confines of what is lawful.  Some of you may find this process to be the method you will choose should the fickle finger of fate ever end up pointing toward you.

But this red tape, which over a period of time goes through a transformation, becomes more of duct tape than red tape. It may have been applied as red tape, but through a series of events and over a period of years, the chemical makeup of the tape changes. What once was a red, shiny, and very temporary tape becomes much less attractive, in the shade of gray, is more cumbersome and permanent, and very difficult to remove.  Through this process of legal photosynthesis, where the final product barely resembles its original form, we now have some cases that have been in the system for years without any legal adjudication.    Maybe that is good for the person accused, but I am far from convinced that it is good for the system.  Cheese and wine get better with age; court cases do not. 

I have heard of story after story where those “other” people who are involved in these cases, also known as victims, have lost complete confidence in a system that they originally looked to for justice.  Perhaps the one mistake the writers of our Constitution made was not adding a section to the 6^th Amendment that not only guaranteed the right to a speedy trial but absolutely demanded it.  Speedy is speedy and intended delays are intended delays.  We are left with a system that can function well at times and at other times cannot function at all.  And, unfortunately, the justice that we all should seek,  is most often found in a corner of an office,  wrapped securely in fading red tape, while some inconsequential appeal floats around the room like a feather in a breeze. Just when you think it will actually land, another breeze of hot air will billow it back up in the clouds of legal wasteland.  In the meantime we wait, and wait, and wait. I’m pretty sure that this is not the justice that was being considered in the original pursuit.

Prior to the agreement being signed, it is safe to say that there were personalities at the bargaining table who couldn’t see the big picture if it was taken with the most technologically advanced HD, super pixilated camera in the world.  It was all about the snap shot and how it affected their portion of the picture. It’s like the guy who is presented with their school yearbook and they turn immediately to their small photo on page 247. They might have an idea of what is included in the first 246 pages, but the book is now so dog-eared that it automatically turns to page 247 when it is opened. 

Thank goodness, based on a series of events that brought other people to the table, the big picture, or the class photo, became more important than any particular member of the class. And, with that formula in mind, the agreement was reached that brought back some sense of normalcy that will allow people to actually do their jobs. Law enforcement has been crippled in its responsibility of maintaining roadways due to the fact that the disagreement had caused radar to be taken out of the police tool box.  I’m sure that there were very few complaints filed by the drivers on county roads, but the lack of revenue that was lost based on lawful traffic enforcement is estimated to be many million dollars. This caused a ripple down effect as to new police officers being hired; decreased funds available to crime victim services and overall decreasing budgets which made it difficult to do what police traffic units are supposed to do, enforce traffic laws.

Several other sources of revenue through grants and other state funded programs also came to a screeching halt based on the dispute. Emergency services, as a whole, paid a big price during this series of stand offs that should have been settled long ago. So, now it is finally settled, our leaders should evaluate the entire process and consider what can be learned from this big mess.

Firstly, things have changed in Gwinnett County in the last ten years and our cities are much stronger than they once were. They can now provide services that they had previously depended on from the county and the tax rate should be reflected as such. However, even if the cities can now provide certain services, the question of whether it is necessary to duplicate those services (just because they can) that are working very well and are already provided by the county. Law enforcement, regardless of its governmental standing, is a unique branch of government that can work very well with each other when allowed to do so.  But, the tentacles of this recent dispute have had far reaching effects that brought politics into an area that it does not belong. Granted, some of the existing shared services were factored into the current agreement, but it still left issues in it that could cause confusion and potential hard feeling amongst law enforcement agencies throughout the county.

Even with the agreement in place, these issues should be fully discussed so that once they become problematic; a plan is already in place. Politicians can afford to argue; law enforcement and emergency service providers cannot. When politicians argue, feelings get hurt. When law enforcement argues, innocent people can get hurt. This is not and should never be a scenario that ever plays out in our county. We must always remind and encourage our political leaders that emergency services is much more than a line item on a budget spread sheet. It can sometimes be a matter of life and death.

Congratulations to those county leaders, and you know who you are, who were responsible for unlocking this seemingly un-lockable issue. As always, it was simply a matter of coming together for the common good, rather than the singular issues, recognizing  the strengths and weakness of all parties involved, and creating an agreement that was the most fair and equitable possible that would allow it to move forward in a positive manner.  That’s what it took and that is what they did.

At any rate, the chest thumbing of stubbornness is over and the fist pumping of resolve can begin. That is not to say that all parties are ecstatic over the agreement. Some would have held out for more without the pushing forward of others. Some think they gave too much and others feel that they got too little. That is the way in which negotiations work. You show me an agreement in which all parties got exactly what they wanted and I’ll show you an agreement in which all parties never even knew what they already had.

But, at least we have an agreement in place that can once again focus on maintaining law and order in our streets. And this, fortunately or unfortunately… according to where you might find yourself, includes the reintroduction of the often dreaded radar gun. As you now begin to accelerate well past the posted limit, you might also consider……What’s in your wallet?

Maybe the pothole has been filled, so let’s journey down that road one more time. Maybe, the street is no longer a dead end destination; perhaps someone has extended it to allow for further travel. Maybe they simply did it wrong, and as we are much wiser than they, we will get it right this time.  Maybe, but not likely.  And, to make matters worse, we even have some who attempt to change what was actually a success based on past history. I, like many others, have watched this Presidential campaign with great interest.  Somewhere along the way, our current method of choosing a leader has become less of a campaign and more of a vaudeville act. I recall the history lessons that taught us about the great debates that were put on during Abraham Lincoln’s time. A back and forth frank discussion between Lincoln and Douglas about the issues that faced the country and how they, if elected, would reacts to those problems.  Those events, as were others in our nation’s history, were truly indicative of what a debate is supposed to be.  Somewhere along the way, we got away from the typical debates and did not revisit this type of format until the late fifties and sixties.  When we did, it was still a very civilized, issues oriented, attempt to identify that candidate who had the better grasp on the problems of that particular time.  Boring…perhaps, but actually very informative.  Shortly after the return to the debate platforms, something went terribly wrong. 

Actually, several things went wrong. The first of these was the addition of television to the mix. This should have been a good thing. It should have provided a real chance to get the word out to the largest group of people so that they could make an intelligent choice on Election Day.  But, with the mix of television ratings and overzealous moderators looking to grandstand in their own right, and a detour from real issues versus sound bites, it began and has continued to deteriorate into nothing short of a circus. However, television is not the only culprit here. The change from a few well placed debates to having one every week for a year and a half, spotlighting 10 or 12 candidates who are jockeying for the spotlight like an American Idol audition have made the current debate platform laughable.  The only thing that we have learned, after the first two or three debates, is just how far some of these candidates  will go to cut the throat of a fellow party member for their own good. So much for the Reagan mantra of never criticizing a fellow republican. These guys not only have no problem with criticizing, they would be willing to burn their opponents at the stakes if it moved them up in the polls a point or two.

What we are left with is two hours of a bad Dean Martin roast. However, the consequences of these roasts go well beyond the antics of Dean Martin and Don Rickles and their light-hearted ribbing of each other. In these roasts, it is every man and woman for themselves and nothing is off limits. Nothing! Their careers, their personal lives, their family, their children’s family, their batting average on their little league team, and whether or not they ever listened to a tune by Jimmy Hendricks. The horror!

Maybe this is a time where we should once again reflect on our past.  The debate style of the past is not as exciting as we demand in this fast paced world that we now live in, but it just might produce a candidate that is most qualified to lead our country at a time where great leadership has never been more needed.  In our current style, we are creating bruised and battered relationships among what is supposed to be our party’s very best that will take years to heal. It is possible that old Abe had it right? A serious conversation about issues, with all sides of the issues being discussed, and at the end of the day; a hand shake among the participants.  Is that tired old format that we heard so much about in our history classes completely irrelevant taboo in our current political system?

So what we are left with, after a year or so is four candidates, who are all bleeding and limping badly, sunburned by the constant exposure to television lights, all uttering blasphemy after blasphemy toward whoever the front runner of the day might be, and in a format where everything is shouted rather than spoken, and in an environment where the truth really is not a perquisite of the statements being made. Oh wait, there is one candidate who is standing tall, not a bruise on his body, who is right there at the top in the polls and has somewhat of an advantage on the rest of the field. You might have heard of him. He currently resides in the White House and he is having a ball so far watching the bloodbath that we are providing. 

It obviously doesn’t matter anymore about ethics, morals, or leadership. And, ability is a trait that is no longer necessarily required. It’s all about the polls baby!  Whatever it takes. That is how you get elected in this country. Where are old Abe and a history book when you need them? I think it is way past the time for a short review.

But, even they will find time to include a portion of their coverage or commentary to bring up the “who looks presidential” comment. First of all, what does that statement even mean? If there is a look that a candidate should strive for, what is that look and who set that look as the standard?  Is it short or tall? Is it black or white or brown or a mix of the three? Is it overweight or slim? Is it athletic or studious? Is it mature or youthful? What is this look that we keep hearing about?

I took some time to review some people who had actually been president. Surely, they would have the presidential look. They must have it. If not, how did they get elected? I started with our first President George Washington.  President Washington is generally considered to have been a good President, but his looks are a different story. I’m not one to criticize, but George was not necessarily an attractive man. Let’s face it…bad wig, unusually common face, and a mouth full of wooden teeth. Did he look presidential? Apparently to somebody… he did. Sorry, but I don’t see it. By the way, his wife Martha was no beauty queen either.

What about Honest Abe, our sixteenth president? He happens to be my favorite president of all time. I read everything that I can get my hands on concerning his presidency. But looks?  Not so much! He was tall and gangly. He had a nose that was eclipsing each time he turned against the rays of the sun and a mole that every plastic surgeon in 1863 Washington would have loved to get their scalpel on. And, that chin-lined beard and top hat; need I say more? A great president but not much for looks either.

What about Teddy Roosevelt? He served two terms and was generally well respected. But, did he look like a president? Some might argue that. When he put on his battle gear, he looked more like a stand-in for The Crocodile Hunter. Dainja, Dainja!!!  He seemed more at home on the back of a horse than in the big seat of the presidency. He wore those round glasses and accompanying lancet very well but neither was very stylish. That look might have been well suited for the land down under and someone with a slight vision impairment, but it did not bode so well for a president.  He was a smart and courageous man, no doubt, but not so much of a fashion icon.  In his defense, very few men can carry off that bloused trouser look. He gave it his best shot.  

I would be remiss if I did not at least mention our 27th President, William Howard Taft.  You remember Mr. Taft don’t you? He was the heaviest President in our nation’s history at over 300 pounds. He was definitely substantial, but Presidential?…I’m not so sure. Taft is the only President to actually get stuck in the White House tub. I can’t imagine he looked very Presidential at the time. He wasn’t much for looks, but you have to give him some credit. He never met a meal that he didn’t like.  And, what about our 4th President, James Madison? At only five foot, four inches and less than 100 pounds, could he have possibly looked Presidential? Maybe he was the first to coin the “light” phrase. As in Presidential- Lite. I’m sure his parents were proud of the little rascal, but I suspect that he looked much tinier than Presidential.    

So who is it that someone would say looked presidential? Was it Kennedy, was it Eisenhower, or maybe it is Obama? Although I do not hold my breath every time a strong wind blows by those ears of our current leader. On any given day, I expect him to take flight. I have no idea what it means to look presidential. Is it one of our current slates of candidates?  I look at Gingrich, I look at Ron Paul. Is that the look we are talking about? Really? If it is based on sheer “easy on the eye” concept, maybe it is Romney or Perry. At least, you can look them head on without putting one hand over your eye as a natural filter.  I think that whoever started this whole business has been to one too many movies. Robert Redford and Harrison Ford looked presidential in the movies, but we must not forget they were acting. Come to think of it, maybe the line between fact and fiction is not that different. Aren’t they all actors to some degree? Hey, it worked very well for Ronald Reagan. He did pretty well at both. Someone once said that politics is show business for ugly folks. I’m just saying.

Perhaps looks should have nothing to do with it and we just stick with qualifications and abilities. Nah, it’ll never happen. We’ll just keep searching for the candidate that has that look, whatever it is, that looks presidential.  Let’s just be glad that Ben Franklin never made it to the White House. He is responsible for so many of the great things that have happened in our country, but I challenge anyone to say that he had the look.  He would add a factor and an element to this whole formula that would require such a corrective curve to the point that would never allow us to find the look we are searching for. Give him his due. He was the originator of bifocals and could work that mullet like it was nobody’s business. Most of us wish that his early, yet apparently long lasting, fashion statement had also been struck by lightning on that fateful night. It wasn’t pretty then and it’s not pretty now.  

So the search continues. We’re not sure what is it but somebody has it and we won’t stop until we find it. It may, however, prove difficult. In the meantime, here’s looking at you. Feeling Presidential?

But, there are still some things that offer complete clarity and gray is not a color that goes with the ensemble.  It is found in words. Words can be very difficult, they can be very simple, they can have multiple syllables, but they typically have a very clear and exact definition. It can become a little confusing with words that sound alike but are spelled differently, but once the word is identified, it is as clear as night (not knight) and day as to the meaning and use of the word.

The obvious intent of the word never gets in the way of some who will still try and bend it to their advantage. President Clinton was a master of wordsmithing and would defend his incorrectness to the end. He fought like a warrior over his apparent meanings of the words “the” and “that” and also apparently had his own definition of what the word sex actually meant.  And, in his indefensible defense of these words, it appears that he did in fact change the meaning of the word sex in some ways for the generation that was coming of age during this unattractive time in our nation’s history. I guess that the rest of us have just been wrong all this time.

We are now hearing much debate about the word transparent and what it actually means or does not mean.  This argument is very confusing. For anyone who has ever had in their hand a roll of tape, you will have a “clear” understanding of the word transparent. If you can see through the tape, you are using transparent tape. If you cannot see through the tape that you are using to try and adhere your muffler back to the frame of your car there is a high likelihood that it is not transparent, but a very clear shade of gray.

An open and transparent government, to some people, means that you can see right through it.  But, that clear line of sight is also situational and only at the right time. I have looked at my handy Webster several times and have never seen the word transparent defined as such. You can either see through it all the time or you cannot see through it. Maybe politicians should consider other words to describe their administrations. Words such as cloudy, foggy, muddied, infracted, or maybe… goodness forbid, opaque. It’s all still there, you just can’t see through it. It may not be the form of government that we want, but at least we know what we have.

It is like going to a restaurant and expecting a very good meal and upon removing the cover of the dish you see a possum all sprawled out and on the plate.  It’s not very appetizing, but at least you know what it is. In today’s culture, there are those who would try and convince you that the dish is actually a rare and scarce type of pork that is considered a delicacy. You know it is a possum, but if you hear “their” interpretation enough; you start to believe it.  

Maybe we should stop listening to the actual words that are being said altogether. Maybe we should resort to a little known and used method referred to as the Pinocchio principle. Even though we have always been taught to look someone in the eye when they are talking to us, this technique requires a slight adjustment to be effective. Once the words in question begin to flow from the mouth in question, lower your gaze just a tad to the facial feature that is located above the mouth and slightly below the eyes. This feature can vary in size according to the orator. As the words are offered, particularly those that are being offered in a context that is in opposition of their actual meaning, watch closely and you might detect a disfiguration in the nostril region.

It may be slight and it may be significant. But, if you ever observe this phenomenon, you can be absolutely sure of one thing. It most certainly will not fall into that gray area. You will know that the speaker is stretching the truth and it will be as clear as the proverbial nose on their face. And yes, there is a word to describe this sensation once you have experienced it. Priceless! 

We often hear the phrase that “words cannot describe” when someone speaks of a particular situation. Well, in fact, words can describe anything that happens. They can be described in great and fascinating detail. Some words can be very dull and others can be as sharp as the point of a sword. But, what words cannot do is make pork out of possum and that, my friends, is the great conundrum that faces even the best of the political word masters. The truth may not always set you free, but through truthful words, they will typically let you know the path to take you there.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.  Stan L. Hall is the former (retired) director of the Victim Witness Program for the Gwinnett County District Attorney’s Office.

And it’s not just the news. Every radio station will tell us what the top 100 hits for the year were in their annual countdown. Let’s be honest. The music industry just hasn’t been the same since Elvis died. I’m not even sure that there were 100 songs written this year that could be considered hits. There might be 100 songs written that could be considered crap but I suppose that the top 100 crapiest hits would not be much of an incentive for the listeners.

And then of course, the E Network will tell us about the top 50 greatest dresses of the year. I could narrow that down to the top one dress and save us all some time. It was whatever J-Lo was wearing. That woman could make a potato sack look like Paris chic. But no, we have to listen to Joan Rivers babble through one outfit after another as if she is the one to decide what fashion is. Plastic…maybe, but fashion….I don’t think so.

Everything in this world has to be categorized during this last week of the year just so we can be sure that we have not missed anything. I wish we could just have one year when the end of the year article simply stated the following; “Hey, it’s the end of the year; you should know everything that happened. If you didn’t, you must be living under a rock and if that is the case the last thing you need is a year-end countdown.”

Instead of looking back each year at this time, I wish that we could just look forward. That is what is really important at this juncture. Not much that we can do about last year, but we are in a prime position to try and make next year better. I remember Satchel Paige once said to “never look back over your shoulder…someone might be chasing you.” He was right. You don’t have to worry about the monsters from the old year chasing you if you are out there looking straight ahead and fighting for a better new year. Some will say that we cannot effectively plan for the future without evaluating our past. Believe me; we have evaluated our past plenty. Between Fox news, CNN, C-Span, the regular networks, 400 cable news shows and the rest, there is nothing that has happened this year that we have not evaluated. If one looked, one can even find out what color tie Sean Hannity wore on May 15th, or on what day the President’s dog was officially house broken. As to last year’s events, I think we have them down pretty good.

What we don’t know is what next year will bring. This is where we should be putting all of our attention. We have a Presidential election coming up. We have the recession that continues (yes…we are still in a recession despite what you may hear in the recaps). We have unemployment, bickering politicians, the Middle East, decaying infrastructures, and an American in the Space Station that had to catch a ride with the Russians because NASA is broke. Don’t talk to me anymore about 2011. I simply do not want to hear it anymore. No more lists and no more “best of” and “worst of”, tell me about 2012. That’s where the news is. And this is news, news right now, that we can actually do something about.

My grandfather had an old mule that he used to plow his fields with. Her name was Suzie. Suzie was a good mule but she tended to look left and look right and back at my grandfather who was steering the plow. It caused the plowing to be slow work. One day he put some blinders on her where all that she could see was what was in front of her. Suzie went from a good mule to a great mule. All she concentrated on was what was ahead of her.

Maybe that is what we need in this country. We can’t worry anymore about all of the crooked terraces that we have caused in the past. But if we look ahead, without distractions, we can be sure that the next field that we plow we have perfectly straight lines and furrows that will create a better harvest for next year. Next year at this same time, it would be great to pick up the paper and the yearly recap would read…”it was a damned good year; let’s do even better next year!”

Happy New Year Everyone!