Democrats War on Women

It isn’t unusual for a political group to accuse a rival group of doing what it is doing. This situation occurs because members of the the first group believe whatever they are doing is “right” and whatever the opposition is doing is “wrong”. The best example of this phenomena is the standard claim by each party that the other party is getting special interest group support.

Democrats have been accusing the Republicans of waging a war on women while ignoring the Democrats own war on women. War involves death and Democrats support policies that increase the death rate of women by failing to regulate abortion providers or adequately test contraceptive products.

Governments have long recognized the need to regulate the health care industry to insure that those providing medical services are actually qualified to do the job and adhere to the highest standards of safety. However, when it comes to regulating those who provide abortion related health care many Democrats act like disciples of Rush Limbaugh.

The only people who seem interested in insuring adequate regulation of abortion providers are the people who oppose the procedure. Many Democrats are so obsessed with the idea that abortions must be available that they don’t care about the safety of the procedure. Some Democrats seem incapable of understanding that women don’t benefit from abortions that kill them.

Although it is preferable for babies to be delivered by trained individuals, people with no medical training including cab drivers and children have been known to help successfully deliver babies.

However, abortion is major surgery. An abortion involves removing something from the interior of a body that is attached to the body. Abortions should only be performed by trained professionals operating in facilities that conform to government standards for surgical facilities. Abortionists should know how to correct the mistakes that sometimes occur during surgery. Government needs to strictly regulate the process to protect women from the type of under qualified individuals who will attempt to perform medical services if the opportunity is available. Government should require individuals and facilities that perform abortions to meet the same licensing standards as other facilities.

Failing to require facilities that treat only women to meet the same standards as facilities that treat men and women is the equivalent of the old southern Jim Crow laws. The lack of government oversight is particularly disturbing when unlicensed or under regulated facilities are allowed to operate in areas with high minority populations. A young black woman named Tonya Reaves died a few months ago from a poorly performed abortion at an unlicensed Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago.

As with many medical procedures there are potential adverse side effects to abortion. Democrats believe doctors who should be required to inform patients of adverse side effects for other procedures shouldn’t have to inform women about possible adverse health effects of abortion which some studies indicate include an increased risk of breast cancer (in young women) and suicide.

The primary impact of abortion on breast cancer seems to be on young women with the first pregnancy because their breasts are still developing new cells. The abortion stops this process with some cells not fully developed. If these undeveloped cells start reproducing later as something other than breast cells the result can be a cancerous tumor.

Medical authorities don’t fully understand how a woman’s brain chemistry changes with pregnancy and with the end of pregnancy. They know that women can become severely depressed and possibly suicidal after giving birth. An artificial end to pregnancy is likely to cause the same depression encouraging changes in a woman’s brain chemistry. Women who have unwanted pregnancies may already have a negative attitude about themselves which could lead to depression and suicide.

Women who have abortions should be encouraged to contact mental health professionals after the abortion. Women who have abortions may be more likely to become severely depressed because they have a negative attitude toward the pregnancy and possibly a negative opinion about themselves associated with the decisions that led to the pregnancy.

Medical treatments often have risks of adverse side effects for some people. Patients have a right to know what the suspected adverse side effects are so they can make an informed decision. Medical treatments don’t affect everyone the same way. For example, the penicillan that could save my life from an infection would have killed my mother because she was allergic to it. Some medical treatments, such as use of radiation, can increase the risk of cancer. Other treatments such as organ transplants may increase the risk of suicide.

Surgery carries the risk of infection, permanent injury or even death. Abortion can be major surgery. Complications from an abortion can include a hysterectomy or death as the family of Tonya Reaves discovered after she died from a poorly performed abortion in an unlicensed clinic a few months ago.

Democrats apparently think women are incapable of evaluating possible risks when determining whether or not to have an abortion. Democrats don’t think women considering an abortion can balance the possible adverse consequences of an abortion with what they consider the negative aspects of their pregnancies.

The 14th Amendment requires states to guarantee “equal protection of the laws.” If the law requires health care providers to warn men of possible adverse side effects of medical procedures, then health care providers must provide the same type of warnings to women including those seeking abortions. State laws that seem to allow those providing medical treatment to avoid warning women are unconstitutional.

If Democrats really cared about women they would do something to prohibit those men who molest young girls from paying abortionists to dispose of the evidence that a molester has gotten an underage girl pregnant. Children who are sexually molested can suffer for years afterwards. Proving child abuse can be difficult because courts may not consider a child’s testimony to be reliable. The remains of an aborted baby provide indisputable evidence that a man has sexually molested a child. Child molesters often molest more than one child. Failing to prosecute a molester allows him to continue to ruin the lives of children. If Democrats really cared about women they would support legislation requiring abortionists to deliver the remains of abortions on underage females to the local medical examiner for possible law enforcement action.

Democrats make a big deal out of contraceptives. They want to make sure women don’t have to pay for them. However, Democrats don’t seem to care as much about the safety of contraceptives. If you notice the ads by ambulance chasing lawyers you’ve seen the ones about a lawsuit involving the once popular contraceptive Yaz.

Yaz has been discovered to have the same problem as some earlier contraceptives. It can cause fatal blood clots. If Democrats really cared about women they would insure that contraceptives are adequately tested for the potential to create blood clots or cause other problems before they can be marketed.

Democrats claim Republicans are waging a war on women, but it is the Democrats who see nothing wrong with allowing unregulated or poorly regulated individuals to perform medical procedures on women that can injure or even kill the patient. It is Democrats, rather than Republicans, who favor laws that increase the risk of death for women

Obama Disrespected Voters in 3rd Debate

On October 22 voters tuned into a presidential debate expecting a serious discussion of foreign policy issues. Apparently President Barack Obama didn’t understand that fact or didn’t care. Or perhaps, he decided to use the show to audition for a new career on Saturday Night Live.

Obama responded to a statement by Mitt Romney about the navy being smaller than in 1916 by telling what some considered a joke instead of attempting to explain why he thinks the United States doesn’t need a larger navy.

“But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets — (laughter) — because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

The statement is something I might expect from a half wit comic like Bill Mahr, but not from a president who is supposed to be demonstrating why he should be retained as commander in chief. If I were a Democrat I might suggest it is the type of statement I would expect from Michele Bachmann

Obama’s comparison of the size of the navy to the reduced need for horses and bayonets makes no sense. His use of this comparison indicates he doesn’t understand military matters. Incidentally, I was recently reminded that our special forces troops initially entered Afghanistan on horseback. I also found out that bayonets have been used in Iraq.

His statements about aircraft carriers and submarines sound like something a child would say or maybe something an adult would say to a child. I would be remiss if I didn’t suggest that Obama’s statement might be something someone under the influence of alcohol might consider brilliant.

It might come as a surprise to Obama but “ships that go underwater” were used extensively by the Germans in WWI. Our navy had trouble protecting merchants ships from submarine attack because our navy was too small. Incidentally I won’t fault Obama for using the word “ships” to refer to submarines, but the navy has traditionally used the term “boat” for a submarine rather than “ship”.

Aircraft carriers date from WWI, but the first ships used seaplanes that landed and took off from the water and were only stored on the ship. The first carrier capable of launching and landing aircraft, the HMS Argus, wasn’t launched until 1918.

No Dave, Undecided Voters Aren’t “Idiots” —- You Are

During the last week talk show host David Letterman has been calling undecided voters “idiots” because they are still undecided. If he actually knew anything about the candidates he would understand that the undecided voters may be the smart ones.

For those who don’t watch Dave, it has been evident for a long time that he’s an Obamista. He believes whatever Obama says and ignores criticism of Obama. He frequently criticized Mitt Romney for not releasing his tax returns while saying Obama could keep all his records secret.

Many undecided voters may be waiting to see if secret documents are released. Perhaps undecided voters are more likely to recognize that politicians who attempt to keep documents secret are usually covering up something.

Typically undecided voters in an election involving an incumbent have decided they would rather replace him, but aren’t sure of the possible replacement.

President Barack Obama is clearly an ineffective president. He seems unable to comprehend the fact that the al Qaeda attack on the American consulate in Libya indicates the organization may be getting stronger, not weaker. He brags about the drop in unemployment while ignoring the fact the drop is due largely to people becoming so discouraged they have stopped looking for work. A half million have dropped out during the last couple of months.

Obama is the worst president since Gerald Ford. I’ve been reluctant to compare him to pre-Depression presidents because the office has changed so much since the Depression. However, Obama’s recent suggestion that the navy has declined in importance like bayonets and horses, indicates he is out of touch with reality. He may be the on the way to becoming the most irrelevant president since Millard Fillmore.

The challenger Mitt Romney has thus far been uninspiring. Undecided voters want to watch him a little longer to make sure Romney doesn’t self destruct.

The undecided voters are attempting to send the major parties a message. They want better quality presidential candidates from the major parties. They want candidates they can have confidence in. They want candidates they can commit to instead of having to decide which is the lesser of the two evils.

Obama’s Inane Debate Comment

President Barack Obama made the most inane debate comment of the early 21st century in the October 22nd debate.

“But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets — (laughter) — because the nature of our military’s[sic] changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

We may not need as many horses and bayonets as we did in 1916, but we need more ships than the peace time navy of 1916 did. In 1916 the United States didn’t think it needed a big navy because it wasn’t involved in World War 1 and still expected the British Navy to control the seas. The United States Navy has inherited the commerce protecting and peace keeping role the British Navy played a century ago. However, the U.S. cannot perform that role with only 114 ships of 287 total ships deployed over 139 million square miles of ocean.

The United States should have an aircraft carrier based group with rescue helicopters and Marines off the coast of Libya and other hot spots where embassies are close enough to the sea for sea based rescues. The capital of Iran was too far from the sea for a sea based rescue during the Carter administration. Diplomatic facilities in Libya and some other trouble spots can be reached from ships.

It may come as a surprise to Obama, but the main reason we ended up in WWI was because the United States didn’t have enough ships to protect its merchant ships from German submarines called U-boats. Nuclear power for submarines may have come long after WWI but “ships that go underwater” were a major German weapon in that war. The first submarine was built in the 17th Century and the first submarine attack was an unsuccessful attempt to attach a bomb to a British ship during the American Revolution.

It is unlikely that Japan would have attacked the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor in 1941 if the United States had had more than one fleet in the Pacific. Japan thought that knocking out the only American fleet in the Pacific would allow it to take control of the Pacific before the United States could build a replacement fleet.

This year begins the 200th anniversary of the first major war fought by the United States, the War of 1812. The United States wouldn’t have felt a need to enter that war if it had had a big enough navy to discourage the British navy from kidnapping sailors from American merchant ships and even naval ships.

Peace provides the best environment for the international trade the U.S. economy has always depended upon. The United States first foreign “war” was an attack on pirates on the North African coast. The U.S. needs a big enough navy to permanently station ships in shipping lanes plagued by pirates.

The Navy provides the best option for protecting the peace. Moving ships to a trouble spot doesn’t require construction of large bases first. Personnel can be stationed near a trouble spot without the complications involved with stationing troops among the local population. We may not need as many horses and bayonets as were needed in 1916, but ships are even more necessary.

Four years ago Democrats criticized Gov. Sarah Palin for her statement “I can see Russia from my house”. Compare that to Obama’s statements: “We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.” Obama apparently thinks he’s speaking to children, or maybe he just has a simple mind.

Obama’s statements that al Qaeda is weak ignores the implications of the attack on the Libyan consulate. Al Qaeda may be weaker in Afghanistan, but it is growing elsewhere. It is not going away any time soon. Obama is underestimating the strength of al Qaeda much like the Johnson administration underestimated the strength of the Viet Cong before the 1968 Tet offensive.

Was Obama DUI in Denver — Debating Under the Influence?

Was President Barack Obama under the influence of alcohol during the debate in Denver? Could alcohol consumption combined with the high altitude explain his poor performance?

I’m not suggesting that Obama was drunk. It’s not necessary for someone to be noticeably drunk for alcohol to adversely affect performance.

If Obama had a few drinks before the debate it’s probably a normal part of his preparation for public appearances. If he did drink, he was probably unaware that the alcohol combined with the altitude could affect his performance.

The old belief that altitude can cause someone to become drunk faster appears to be a myth. However, alcohol can impair judgment and perception as well as depressing respiration. The reduced oxygen availability in the mile high city could have further slowed Obama’s brain and reduced his ability to process information The U.S. Army Public Health Command recommends against alcohol consumption at higher altitudes for this reason .

Altitude alone could not explain Obama’s behavior because it would have affected him and Mitt Romney the same.

There’s a strong possibility that Obama is an alcoholic like his father Barack Obama, Sr., and his half brother George Obama. Susceptibility to alcoholism is hereditary. As a nephew of a few alcoholics, I know that the only way alcoholics can avoid the negative affects of alcoholism is to not drink alcohol. Moderate use is not an option for alcoholics.

Obama admitted in his autobiography that he drank heavily when he was young. Such drinking could have helped him develop a high tolerance for alcohol so he could drink significant amounts without it having a noticeable affect. Union General Ulysses S. Grant won the Civil War even though he was a very heavy drinker.

Obama could be a “high functioning alcoholic” (HFA). They usually don’t give obvious signs of being affected by alcohol and can function without those around them noticing any adverse affects on judgment or behavior. The fact that those around Obama praise everything he does would reinforce any feelings Obama has that his drinking isn’t adversely affecting him. Their tendency to idolize him would blind them to any indications he had a problem with alcohol

Two years ago “White House physician, Navy Capt Jeffrey Kuhlman, said Obama should stick with ‘moderation in alcohol intake’ and ‘smoking cessation efforts’, the use of nicotine gum, and come back in August 2011 after he turns 50.”

Some suggest that the recommendation for “moderation in alcohol intake” is some type of standard recommendation. Others such as the writer of Mountain Republic, who has a family history of alcoholism, believes that the doctor wouldn’t have brought the subject up unless he detected a possible alcohol related problem. The writer suggests that the beer summit involving Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge police Sergeant Jim Crowley provides an example of how alcoholics think alcohol is a solution to problems.

The beer summit isn’t the only time Obama has invited someone to the White House for a drink.

Sandra Rose believes that alcoholism would be consistent with Obama’s narcissist personality. She agrees that a recommendation of moderation wouldn’t be needed if a patient was already drinking in moderation.

A doctor would have to be careful about recommending moderation in alcohol consumption. Some patients who drink in moderation might complain because they think the recommendation means they are drinking too much. An alcoholic might interpret the statement about “continued moderation” as an indication that his consumption is within acceptable limits.

At a time when the nation faces significant economic and foreign problems, would any president who wasn’t an alcoholic brag about setting up his own brewery? Obama’s decision to brew his own beer indicates alcohol plays a major role in his life. Working class individuals might brew their own beer because they don’t get a feeling of personal accomplishment from their jobs. Obama is President of the United States. He shouldn’t need to brew his own beer to feel he’s accomplishing anything.

Maybe events in Libya would have been different if Obama had been taking care of presidential business instead of brewing beer.

I’ve been watching presidents speak for decades. I know I’m being subjective, but something about Obama’s facial expressions have looked a little off, particularly a tendency to smile or almost smile at inappropriate times. I had thought this was an example of the way liars smile when they think they are getting away with a lie. However, his expressions could also indicate he is being affected by alcohol.

An alcoholic Obama could appear to be functioning normally.but still have impaired judgment that would affect decision making. He might fail to recognize a threat such as happened in Libya. He could also exhibit paranoid tendencies. He might treat normal criticism as a major attack on him. He might overestimate the threat to the United States from some foreign event.

A Duke University study lists President Richard Nixon as one of our previous alcoholic presidents. He was forced to resign from office because of poor decisions associated with the Watergate scandal. President Ulysses S.Grant who was an alcoholic is considered to have had one of the most corrupt administrations.

Is President Obama Mentally Competent – the $5 T Gaffe?

President Barack Obama’s obsession with a mythical Mitt Romney $5 trillion tax cut raises serious questions about Obama’s mental health.

The federal government only receives about $1.2 trillion in total income taxes per year. There is no way a $5 trillion tax cut would be possible in the short term.

Congress would have to almost eliminate the income tax to produce a $5 trillion cut in 5 years. Cutting $500 billion a year would take 10 years to produce a $5 trillion cut. Cutting $250 billion a year would take 20 years to produce $5 trillion in cuts.

I considered the possibility Obama was deliberately lying, but why would an intelligent rational person use a lie that would be so easily exposed as a lie? Besides, Voice Analysis Technology used its audio technology to check the level of stress in the statements of both candidates and determined that both believed they were telling the truth.

The presidency is a high pressure job that can potentially destroy people. Many historians believe that the stress of heading an administration tainted by corruption killed President Warren G. Harding. Obama’s obsession with an obviously non-existent tax cut proposal indicates he has apparently cracked under the pressure.

If Obama isn’t living in the real world, he may not be able to respond appropriately in crisis situations.

With the recent Middle East crisis and the state of the world economy, we would expect our president to use the opening of the new session of the United Nations to meet with other world leaders. Instead, Obama decided to appear on “The View” talk show. He apparently is unaware that news stories about him meeting with world leaders would do more to help his presidential campaign than appearance on a talk show, even a talk show like “The View”.

His most important recent accomplishment seems to be establishing a brewery in the White House. While he was showing off his brewery, he failed to check to see if American diplomatic facilities in the Middle East were prepared for possible 9/11 anniversary attacks. The result was a disastrous attack on the American consulate in Libya. Obama brewed beer while the Middle East burned.

Obama’s separation from the real world may not be recent. Mark Bowden claims in his new book “The Finish” that in the event Osama bin Laden had been taken alive, Obama wanted him to be tried in American civil courts to demonstrate American due process. Shouldn’t a Harvard Law School graduate have been aware that if that had been done, the first thing bin Laden’s attorneys would have done would have been to request bin Laden’s release on the grounds that his “arrest” without a judge authorized search warrant was illegal, particularly considering that the SEALs had entered Pakistan without permission of the Pakistani government? We should be doubly glad that the SEALs killed bin Laden instead of merely capturing him. If he had been captured the courts might have released him.

The British tabloids reported two years ago that Obama’s doctor had recently told him he should cut down on his excessive drinking as well as his cigarette smoking. If President Obama is drinking excessively he is almost certainly an alcoholic, particularly considering that his father Barack Obama, Sr., was an alcoholic and his half brother George is an alcoholic. Alcoholism often has a connection to certain genes, especially the “risk taker” gene. If Obama is an alcoholic, he won’t be able to simply cut back on alcohol consumption. His only option is to stop drinking completely.

Alcoholics often have trouble relating to the real world, but I’m doubtful that alcohol alone could explain such an obviously mythical claim that Mitt Romney wants a $5 trillion tax cut. Alcohol consumption might explain unwillingness to drop the tax cut subject and other aspects of his demeanor in the first debate, but probably not the development of the tax cut idea itself.

Biden Busy Being Old Uncle Joe

Vice President Joe Biden was busy being good natured Old Uncle Joe in the debate. He spent much of his time trying to keep young Rep. Paul Ryan from talking. You know Uncle Joe. He’s always interrupting everyone at the family gatherings. He wants to remind everyone his mouth still works even though he might be moving kind of slow. He smiles a lot to show he’s enjoying the attention.

One of the problems some of us old guys have is wanting to remain the center of attention. I believe a lot of this practice comes from fear of being displaced by the younger guys. We want to remind the younger generation we are still around.

I don’t expect much substance from the debate because two minutes per question is insufficient time to do much more than to allow the two parties to say “did so” / “did not” much like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck saying “duck season” / “rabbit season” in the old Warner Brothers Looney Tunes.

Biden is out of touch with the situation in the Middle East. He seems to think we are winning in spite of the fact that al Qaeda recently destroyed our consulate in Libya.

Biden doesn’t understand that withdrawal from Afghanistan will be portrayed by al Qaeda as victory over the United States like their victory over the old Soviet Union. Osama bin Laden wanted us to invade Afghanistan because he believed the United States didn’t have the willingness to go the distance.

He knew he couldn’t defeat the United States. He believed he, or his successor, could get the United States to tire of the war and leave our allies behind without support like the Soviets did and like we did in Vietnam. The recent attacks on American forces by local Afghan forces are because they think the Americans are deserting them like bin Laden said we would. Afghan forces believe if we withdraw our troops we will eventually end support in the form of providing war supplies like we did in Vietnam. Many Afghans may believe the situation will be like the conflict with the Soviet Union when the Taliban took advantage of the chaos that followed the Soviet withdrawal to take over the country.

The War on Terror is an endurance contest like the Cold War was. The United States has to continue the effort if it wants to outlast the enemy. We still have forces in Germany even though we won that war almost 70 years ago. and we have had casualties there because of terrorist activity. We need to let the enemy know we will keep forces in Afghanistan for a similar period of time if we want to outlast them. Al Qaeda will use early withdrawal as a recruiting tool by claiming they have proved they can defeat the United States with terrorism.

Mitt Romney the Intimidator

Megyn Kelly on Fox made an interesting observation on the first debate. Mitt Romney would watch Barack Obama during the debate while Obama tended to look at Jim Lehrer or the cameras. I had halfway noticed this situation during the debate but didn’t really consider the implications until she commented.

I went back and fast forwarded through the debate. Romney would look at Obama for significant periods, but Obama only occasionally glanced at Romney before looking away or looking down.

An obvious explanation for Obama not looking at Romney is that Obama felt intimidated by Romney. The debates cannot resolve differences on issues because the responses are too short. Romney apparently recognizes that the debates allow a candidate to show who has the strongest personality and would be best able to stand up to the leaders of other countries, the leaders of special interest groups and congressional opponents.

Watching one’s opponent is important in verbal combat as well as in physical combat. A boxer watches his opponent to look for an opening for a punch or an indication of what type of punch the opponent may throw. A verbal combatant watches body language and facial expression for signs of weakness.

I was a boxing fan when Mohammad Ali was the champ. I still recall him trying to stare down opponents to try to shake their self confidence. Romney at times seemed to be trying to stare down Obama who occasionally glanced at Romney and then quickly looked away.

Romney obviously understands personal conflicts in a political, or business, situation and how to appear to be a tough opponent. Obama does not.

The 1962 Cuban missile crisis occurred because Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev felt American President John F. Kennedy could be intimidated. The recent attack on the American consulate in Libya may have occurred because al Qaeda believes Obama can be intimidated.

Before the debate I was planning to vote for Romney only as a means of getting Obama out of the White House. Now I will vote for Romney the Intimidator to be our leader in foreign affairs.

No, Mr. Obama, We Don’t “Belong” to the Government

President Barack Obama made a major gaffe when he recently said that we are owned, or “belong to”, government. In the United States the government is supposed to “belong to” the people instead of the other way around as he suggests.

We the people are supposed to own the government and tell it what to do. Obama and other elitists believe that government exists to control our personal lives and even tell us how much we can eat or drink.

Some government controls are necessary to prevent people from harming others. Government needs to restrict sale of some substances that can adversely affect physical or mental health or can cause people to harm others. However, there is no reason for government to regulate the size of soft drinks or treat all school children as if they had the same nutritional needs. Active children need more calories than those who spend all their time playing video games.

Too many officials at all levels of government think they are better than the rest of us and have some special right or knowledge to make decisions for us. Government officials who believe themselves superior will sometimes say “if you only knew what we know” when they really mean “if you knew only what we know.”

One of my favorite movie quotes is by Glenn Ford’s character in “Teahouse of the August Moon”. Ford plays an American military officer helping the Japanese develop democratic government after World War II. He tells them: “Democracy is where the people have the right to make the wrong decisions.”

All humans can make mistakes. I read a book review several years ago about some incredibly stupid things done by the high IQ members of Mensa. During President Lyndon Johnson’s administration men who were considered to be the best and the brightest put half a million of us in Vietnam for no apparent reason other than that they didn’t want to lose the war before the next election. They had no idea what victory meant and thus didn’t know how to win.

President Thomas Jefferson once said: “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.”

“It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from its Government.”- Thomas Paine

National Custodial Workers’ Day – October 2

National Custodial Worker’s Day will be observed on Tuesday October 2nd. The holiday recognizes those who clean and maintain buildings that others work in.

Unfortunately. many organizations seem unaware of the holiday. I didn’t find out about it until after I retired after 23 years of custodial work.

I haven’t been able to determine exactly when it was established, but some web sites indicate that public school systems may have originated the day to recognize their cleaning and maintenance workers. I haven’t discovered any formal designation of the day.

Custodians deserve the same recognition as secretaries (sometimes called administrative professionals although most aren’t paid consistent with the new term) and bosses.

As Rodney Dangerfield might have observed cleaning and maintenance workers often don’t get no respect. Custodians often are only noticed when they don’t do their jobs, like forgetting to empty a trash can.

Maintenance workers sometimes have the difficult task of keeping old plumbing or worn out heating/cooling systems working until the money can be found to replace the equipment. Cleaning workers may have to clean up “flood” waters or other storm related damages.

My first boss at the courthouse where I used to work, Rick Juarez, had a sign on his wall that was written about those who maintain trains. I don’t know who wrote it, but here is one version that the text editor should accept.

It’s not my place to run the train
The whistle I can’t blow.
It’s not my place to say how far
The train’s allowed to go.
It’s not my place to shoot off steam
Nor even clang the bell.
But let the dang thing jump the track
And see who catches heck.

Custodial workers who have bad days might want to see the humor at this site.