Ruth Truth

Dear Ruth: I wish there were a reputable male advice columnist I could contact with my problem. He might have a better understanding of my dilemma. Yet, I have read your advice column for years – and I think you might be able to offer the help I need.

Here goes. I’m well into my 60s, and I’m not the well-chiseled male specimen I used to be. My wife of 45 years and I do lots of fun things together. We have always had a wonderful marriage. But I have one minor flaw. When we visit the beach, I can’t help but admire the shapely forms of attractive women in scant bikinis. I would never cheat on my wife, but I can’t seem to control my roving eye. When a comely less walks past, I have this uncontrollable compulsion to admire every curve and cranny. And boy do I hear about my indiscretions when we drive home at the end of the day. She is relentless. Then, I get the silent treatment for days. Yet, when we return to the beach, I do the same thing all over again.

Apart from sticking hot pokers in both eyeballs, what can I do?

Lecherous in Louisville

Dear Lech: Don’t be too hard on yourself, but you might want to lay off the testosterone pills.

I do have a game plan that might divert your wife’s attention away from your roving eyes. Before you head for the beach, go shopping for a new Speedo, preferably a bight red one. You might want to select a size that is a little smaller and tighter than your old suit. Take a large Idaho baking potato with you, and stuff in inside your swimsuit before you walk out on the beach. As you and your wife stroll down the beach, the bikini girls will be looking at you. It’s hard to leer at the lassies when they’re staring back at you. It will make you feel manlier, and you will relish the newfound attention. You might even hear a catcall or two.

But be warned; make sure you stuff it down the front of your Speedo – not the back.

See how an out-of-the box solution can change the dynamics of your days at the beach.

Let me know how my advice works out, but don’t send pictures.

Your friend and co-conspirator, Ruth

Dear Ruth: I’ve talked to close friends about a weird request, and nobody has a reasonable solution. But I knew you would, so here goes.

We recently received an elegant wedding invitation from my oldest niece and her fiancé. It was lavishly embossed with gold leaf and engraved lettering. It’s a destination wedding at Westminster Abby in London. My sister and her husband are quite wealthy, so I guess they can afford it. The invitation said it will be a “royal wedding,” and all guests are to dress appropriately. We’re supposed to look like we just arrived at the court of Henry VIII. I heard that the celebrant will be dressed to look like Cardinal Wolsey, complete with a red cassock, gold chains around his neck, and an ermine stole. The whole thing sounds outlandish and expensive. We will be expected to bring a wedding gift, pay for an expensive overseas flight and first-class accommodations, and buy the royal attire.

Hilary (my niece) has always been self absorbed, thinking only about herself. And her parents never discourage her selfish behavior. In fact, they encourage it. I don’t mean to be unkind, but Hilary is a sociopathic liar, and the only thing that’s royal about her is she’s a royal pain in the ass. Her parents hired a lady’s maid for Hilary when she was eight years old, and the girl berates the poor woman at every opportunity. Did I mention her potty mouth? She throws around the F bomb like a reveler tosses confetti. My sister once told me that Hilary has political ambitions too. Heaven help us.

My husband and I estimated that the cost for royal outfits alone could be more than $5000, and we are expected to be there bearing gifts.

What are we to do?

Stumped in Sacramento

 Dear Stumped: You are in a pickle. But I have a workable solution. My solution will not only bring some merriment to an otherwise tense situation, it might teach Hilary a desperately needed lesson in acceptable social behavior – and humility.

Go along with the ploy to dress like royalty, but not exactly like lords and ladies. Even King Henry had his court jesters, and there’s no record of jesters having had their heads lopped off.

I’m sure you can rent colorful jester costumes. Hope you and your husband don’t mind wearing tights. Arrive right before the wedding begins, and bound down the aisle like Tigger in Winnie the Pooh. Make a real ruckus and upstage the self-centered bride. The crowd will love it. Expect nervous laughter. You might even hear some gasps. When the bride and groom recess down the aisle at the close of the ceremony, leap out of the pew in front of the newlyweds and lead the way, dancing and bobbing, like a couple of fools.

I would love to see the expression on Hilary’s face.

Hope the marriage lasts. Given your description of Hilary, her husband to be might have a problem with fidelity.

Send pictures.

Yours in common sense advice.

Ruth

 Disclaimer: The person or persons depicted in these letters are purely fictional. Any similarity between these characters and real people, living or dead, is coincidental.

Dear readers —

I’m bending the rules. I normally only post letters from readers who ask for my advice. The following letter from a life-long friend and colleague poses a monumental problem. He doesn’t ask for advice. Frankly, short of another American revolution, I am without a plausible solution.

Please read this with care. Parts of the letter are so true that there is little room for satire.

I’ll follow up with Stewart Scott soon to see if his problem has been resolved.

Ruth

P.S. I asked Stewart to submit his letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune. He did. They didn’t respond.

LETTER:

If you harbor the notion that life for you would be better under socialism, keep reading. By definition, socialism controls companies, their pricing, how much money their employees earn, and how much their top managers make. A socialistic government decides what your children are taught in school, and how the subject matter is taught. It dictates how you raise your children, assuming the government can do it far better than you. Socialism rewards laziness and incompetence, and penalizes hard work and ingenuity. It slowly strips you of your liberties.

Read what Winston Churchill said about socialism: “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” 

If you still think socialism will heal the many woes of our society, try resolving a simple problem with the Cook County Assessor’s Office. Try reaching them by phone. Try visiting one of their satellite offices. You will quickly learn that the phrase “customer service” is an oxymoron when bureaucrats define it.

I know. I have visited their office in Richton Park four times, and their office at the Markham court house twice. I have called the main office in Chicago three times. And I have written a detailed, well-crafted letter to Joseph Berrios, the Cook County Assessor. I have even contacted my state senator. I started this process on January 14, 2016 and nothing whatsoever has been done although countless promises have been made. I have learned that the employees of the assessor’s office have mouths with two sides, and they speak out of both of them.

I have paid a bloated tax bill, and they even agree that I have paid too much. If I had been late paying my bill, they would have quickly charged me 1-1/2% on the unpaid balance, but when I asked if they would pay me interest on my overpayment, they laughed out loud. I’m glad they at least have a sense of humor.

Even though I have filed and signed all of their paperwork, they still think I went to bed one night at age 73, and miraculously woke up the next morning a spry 62. That would make me ineligible for the senior citizen discount. They think I just moved into the house we have lived in since 1977. That would take away my homestead discount.

Don’t be deceived, as long as the Cook County machine is in charge, this problem has no hope of being resolved at the ballot box.

Bernie Sanders makes socialism sound promising when he talks about free college educations, but it’s about as welcoming as the anthrax virus.

Stewart Scott

Dear Ruth: We’re in the midst of vicious primaries and the mounting political rhetoric is again filled with promises. All the candidates are making promises, and few (if any) will be kept. Do you think the America people will ever hold elected officials to higher standards? Voters have short memories. What’s your opinion on this important matter?

Angry in Atlanta

Dear Angry: Your question reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend. This short exchange might provide the answer to your question.

During the weeks leading up to the election, my friend casually said, “I tell people to vote for the candidates who will do the most for them.” There was a momentary pause. I felt like questioning his advice. What about the greater good of the country? I thought to myself. But I held my tongue. I often steer away from confrontation. To argue with my friend wouldn’t change his mind, and he wasn’t about to change mine.

I pondered the thought: what if all of us voted for the candidates who offered us the most free stuff? In our present primary debacle, Bernie Sanders is offering free college educations. We’ll have those corrupt Wall Street boys pay for it, says Bernie. Not one candidate has suggested forensic audits to analyze the excessive costs of running a college or university. After all, that’s why the cost of a college education is so high.

A good friend returned to the School of Journalism at the University of Missouri to teach after a stellar career with a major advertising agency. He loved teaching. Felt like he had been reborn. During one visit to Columbia, he told me, “Ruth, this place seems to have chancellors for everything. A chancellor for the parking lots; a chancellor for the flag poles; and another chancellor for the stately columns in the quadrangle.”

Chancellors get paid big bucks. They’re probably plum patronage jobs. Professors are well paid too, and then they delegate teaching to grad students whose primary language is not English, and even bright, intelligent students can’t understand them. Maybe we should take a sharp knife to budgets filled with excess fat.

Donald Trump is no better. He talks about bringing automobile manufacturing back to America. Another boastful promise. You can practically hear the ecstatic cheers from unemployed auto workers. If you brought auto manufacturing back to America, and paid autoworkers the outrageous salaries their union demands, a new Chevy Malibu would cost $150,000. Maybe Donald could afford one, but most of us can’t. Or, you could scuttle the United Auto Workers Union, and lose the labor vote.

Remember, those of us who pay taxes bailed out General Motors. We were told they were too big to fail. Today, 70% of General Motors’ cars are made in China.

Hillary is promising to create jobs. What does she know about jobs? Her husband created many millions of jobs related to the construction industry, but the plan backfired and propelled our economy into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. How did he do it? He relaxed rational mortgage lending requirements, making it possible for a family with a modest income to buy a $350,00 home with no money down, and get financing for $450,000. After all, the family needs another $100,000 to buy furniture. Then the family only had to pay interest for the first five years. No principal. When the sixth year rolled around, their income was not high enough to pay principal, interest, and real estate taxes. Boom! The bubble exploded, and we haven’t recovered yet. Hard working men and women in the construction business were put out of work, and so were many millions more, but then it was a new president’s problem, not Clinton’s.

Promises, promises, promises. I’m sure my friend is listening to the current political exchange and salivating.

We Americans like to believe that our wonderful form of government will go on forever. All we need is a new, fresh president, abounding with syrupy promises for hope, change, and prosperity to feed our appetites for opulent houses, free college tuition, fancy cars, high paying jobs, free daycare, and generous pensions. There’s nothing wrong with opulent homes or fancy cars, but they give you much more satisfaction if you earn them.

Many young Americans don’t even know who we fought against in the Revolutionary War, and why. They could care less about the sacrifices of our forbearers. Perhaps they’re too caught up in the promise of their free college education to spend a little time with a history book. I wonder if those promises include straight A’s and a diploma. We wouldn’t want to saddle marginal or lazy students with C’s or D’s; that might damage their fragile self-esteem.

The men who planned and drafted our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were brilliant, educated, successful, selfless men. We weren’t a wealthy nation then. The government didn’t dole out free stuff.

When the Constitution was ratified, a woman asked Ben Franklin, “Dr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?”

Franklin replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

His was a very short answer to an important question, which basically means – it’s up to you.

Are you as worried as I am? If not, maybe this will help: In 1887, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, said: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

If we’re going to make this country great again, as Donald Trump promises, we’re going to have to rediscover the qualities that set us apart from some other nations in the first place: self-sacrifice, humility, generosity, hard work, dedication, faith, integrity, and courage. Do you see these attributes in any of the presidential front-runners? Do you see them in yourselves?

We all have to strive to embrace these attributes (leaders included) if we are going to be the beacon of freedom for the world.

Ruth

Dear Ruth: We have an awkward problem. And I thought of you when I couldn’t think of a solution on my own. It’s a prickly one.

One of our grandsons is 14, and he likes to spend the night with his grandpa and grandma. I’m flattered that he likes to be with us. At the end of the evening, we put Joel to bed in the guest room, and Fred (my husband) and I head for our separate bedrooms. We don’t share the same bedroom. Fred has a horrendous gas problem, but that’s another story.

About midnight, when I’m in a deep sleep, Joel awakens me. I quickly discover he has slipped into bed with me. I tell him he has to go back to his own bed, but he says he is frightened by the boogieman.   He returns to his bedroom, but within an hour, he’s back in bed with me. This goes on every time he visits. When I wake up in the morning, Joel is back in my bed again. I’m at my wit’s end. It doesn’t seem to be healthy. What should I do?

Fatigued in Fargo

Dear Fatigued: You’re right, this is a prickly problem, but there is a solution.

First of all, you left out some essential details. Do you sleep in a single bed, a double bed, or a queen-sized bed? Do you wear conservative flannel pajamas, a flimsy negligee, or do you sleep in the buff? Do the two of you snuggle up together? That’s important to know.

Of course, you idiot, it’s not healthy for a 14-year-old boy to be sleeping with his grandmother. You need to nip the problem in the bud.

Go out and buy Joel a full-sized Teddy Bear, not a little flimsy, wimpy one. Give the bear a manly name, like “Rocky,” or “Clint.” Convince Joel that his manly Teddy Bear will protect him against any and all boogiemen. Tell him you guarantee it. Then, when you go to bed, lock your door. If Joel raps on your door, tell him to get back to his own bedroom, and his bear will protect him.

If that doesn’t work, you will have to endure sleeping with your flatulent husband again. His frequent busts of gas will be far worse than any boogieman. Joel will decide it’s better to sleep with the threat of a boogieman than in the same bed as your malodorous husband.

Does that help? Do you think “Dear Amy” could come up with a better solution?

Ruth

Dear Ruth: I have a very close friend. Tracy and I have known each other since childhood. We socialize together, share many common interests, and see each other several times a week.

While my description sounds like the perfect friendship, it’s not.

Tracy is very conservative politically, and is not shy about expressing her opinions. She seems to feel that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are essential, and should not be ignored or misinterpreted.

Tracy also believes we should uphold existing immigration laws. She even quoted George Carlin who said, “If we don’t have borders, we don’t have a country.”   Then she said, “Illegal immigrants should not be given the right to vote.” Can you believe that?

She thinks our welfare system is basically an incentive program. “When the government gives unmarried, unemployed and unemployable women more than $1,500 a month for every child they grunt out, it’s nothing short of an incentive to keep pumping out more babies. Each baby simply means another raise in her annual income. Just think, a 35-year-old women with six children is bringing in $9,000 a month, or $108,000 a year, and there’s no guarantee that the children will grow up to be anything more than drains on our society – just like their mother.”

She thinks Obama is the most unqualified, naïve, and clueless president we have ever had.

And she thinks our school system should teach values, as well as academics.

I haven’t had the nerve to ask her, but I’ll bet she even believes in the 10 Commandments.

I’m very liberal, yet I am reluctant to argue with Tracy. I voted for Obama twice, and will vote for him again when he runs for a third term. In my opinion, the 22nd amendment* is meaningless, like the rest of the constitution and amendments. I agree with the president when he said the constitution is a flawed, outdated document.

What should I do? I don’t want to forfeit our friendship, but I don’t agree with her political points of view either.

Sarah from Septic, Pennsylvania

* The 22^nd Amendment limits presidents to no more than two consecutive terms.

Dear Sarah: Listen to your friend. Hang on very word she says. Change your warped, confused, and misguided thinking. She is right. You are wrong.

Follow my advice and you will be a much happier person. And the country will be better off too.

Ruth

Dear Ruth: We hear so much about constitutional issues from the right-wing media, and how the Obama administration and some Supreme Court justices ignore or misinterpret the basic principles of constitutional law and the Bill of Rights. In fact, Obama has made it clear that he believes the constitution is a flawed, antiquated document. Many voters seem to look the other way; they don’t seem to care, as long as they’re getting their monthly stipend from the government. Or maybe they’re mesmerized into delusional sub consciousness by his syrupy speeches.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if we could somehow interview one of our early presidents or a founding father, and find out what they think about the status of America today? I know that’s a silly, unrealistic idea.

Disillusioned in Davenport

Dear Disillusioned: Don’t be so quick to brand your idea as either “silly” or “unrealistic.” Here’s why. Several weeks ago I broke down and bought a fancy, new smart phone. It will take months to figure out its myriad capabilities. Last week I was reviewing the various apps, trying to learn their functions, and I came across an interesting app entitled “Séance.” After a few moments of hesitation, I lightly touched the icon. Instantly a strange voice asked, “To whom do you wish to speak?” I quickly hung up. It was too spooky.

I put the phone away. I had to give this app a lot more thought. Who should I ask for? And what questions should I ask? I couldn’t rush into this phenomenon. Frankly, I was a little taken aback.

Each day that mysterious app drew my attention like a powerful magnet, but I didn’t dare open it again. Then I thought about all the historical novels, biographies and autobiographies I’ve read over my lifetime. So many brilliant and fascinating characters: Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Abe Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, and countless others. If I’m going to do this, I’ve got to start somewhere.

I touched the icon, held my breath, and waited.

“To whom do you wish to speak?” the voice asked.

I paused. “Thomas Jefferson,” I said with authority.

“Sir, you must be more specific,” she said, “we have hundreds of thousands of Thomas Jeffersons here. Maybe millions.”

She sounded a bit bossy, like the Garmin lady that guides me along the open road.

“The third president of the United States. Does that help?”

“Please hold,” she said, and I sat back in my chair and waited anxiously.

After about five minutes of complete silence, I was boldly greeted with a hearty: “Good day, madam. This is Jefferson. How may I be of service?” The voice was strong and articulate, with a noticeable Virginia accent.

“Mr. President,” I said. “Thank you for taking my call.” That seemed like a stupid thing to say, but the phrase was out. “This is Ruth Truth, and I’ve been dying to interview you.” Another stupid statement with a poor word choice.

“Miss Truth,” the president said, “I am delighted to hear from you. This is the first time in 188 years that someone from among the living has tried to contact me. I must say I am overwhelmed with gratitude.   Please, madam, commence with your questions.”

I could tell Mr. Jefferson was trying to put me at ease.

I was completely tongue-tied. I was going to ask about Sally Hemings, but that conversation might take an embarrassing turn.

Then the president asked me, “How’s the constitution working out, Miss Truth, and the Bill of Rights? Has it survived the test of two centuries?”

“I wish I had a good report for you,” I said. “But first of all, I would like to commend James Madison and George Mason for their clear, concise language. The wording of the Bill of Rights is just as succinct today as it was the day they wrote it. But we have an administration that not only misinterprets the wording, they outright reject it. Our standing president has told one world leader, ‘The constitution is dead.’”

“Begging your pardon, madam,” Jefferson interrupted, “but how can you govern a country without a constitution? I find that appalling. You can govern a dictatorship without a constitution, but not a democracy.”

“You’re not alone, Mr. President,” I said. “But many people just ignore what is clearly a national tragedy. And frankly, he governs like a dictator, making and changing laws without congressional input or approval.”

“As I recall,” Jefferson said, “The oath of office asks the president to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Has that changed? Is there a new oath, or none at all?”

“Mr. President, the oath is exactly the same as the one you took,” I said. “The wording has not been changed.”

“You mean to tell me that the standing president swore to preserve, protect and defend the constitution in one breath, and in another breath he tells world leaders the constitution is dead? That makes no sense? That sounds like both hypocrisy and outright treason. That sounds like grounds for a second American revolution, does it not?”

“Third American revolution, sir,” I said. “We already had a second revolution in 1861. But, with your permission, we’ll save that for another interview.”

“Tell me, Miss Truth,” Jefferson said, “How did this president of yours get elected? I can’t believe an informed electorate would propel such a man to the highest office in the land.”

“Therein lies the problem, sir,” I said, “Most people don’t read the newspapers anymore. And even it they did, the newspaper writers make this man sound like the next messiah. We still have newspapers, but very few people read them.”

“This distresses me greatly, Miss Truth,” he said. “Doctor Franklin once said that the republic we helped shape depended on an educated and informed electorate. Franklin was a brilliant man. Now please give me some good news.”

“Well, the wording of the original Bill of Rights hasn’t changed,” I said. “While new amendments have been added, the original 10 have not been modified.”

“I guess that’s a relief,” Jefferson replied. “What about the first amendment, particularly the part about freedom of speech. I’ve often wondered about that.”

“Sir, the government still doesn’t control the press,” I said. “Reporters and editors still write what they want. But the concept of freedom of speech has been broadened quite a bit.”

“Explain that, madam. What do you mean by ‘broadened’?”

“Here’s one example, sir. A woman can shake her naked booty and gyrate her hips like Jezebel on steroids, and her actions are protected by the first amendment. It’s called ‘freedom of expression.’”

“I don’t understand the word ‘booty’; and what do you mean by ‘steroids’?” Jefferson said, “but I think I get the picture. That was neither the spirit nor the literal intent of the first amendment. Your judges should be ashamed of themselves. I fear the republic we left you is in grave danger. In fact, I feel nauseated for the first time since I was lying in mortal anguish on my death bed.”

“I’m terribly sorry to have upset you, Mr. President. There are still people who feel the constitution and the Bill of Rights are practically sacred documents, but we seem to be in the minority.”

“Miss Truth,” he said, “I’m relying on you to share our conversation with the voters. Please don’t disappoint me. But I must cut the conversation short. Adams is waiting for our daily game of checkers, and he has never been a patient man. You ought to call him sometime. I think he would like to express his opinion too. But be warned, he’s a bit more blunt than I am. You can reach him the same way you reached me.”

“Thank you, sir. Thank you for your time. And give my regards to Saint Peter.”

“What makes you think I’m in heaven?”

Ruth Truth

To be continued.

Dear Ruth: Hardly a day goes by that I don’t receive blistering e-mails — all of which are highly critical of our president. Some of them even include cruel cartoons, depicting Barack Obama as an imbecile. For example, one friend sent me an actual picture of President Obama with both feet propped up on the beautiful, antique desk in the oval office. That desk was a gift to President Rutherford B. Hayes from Queen Victoria in 1880. The hand-carved desk was built from timbers of the British Arctic Exploration ship Resolute. I wonder if that’s the same desk Monica Lewinski crouched beneath as she pleasured President Clinton.

What do you think of President Obama? After all, I understand you are from Illinois – so you might be more familiar with his achievements.

Concerned from Cincinnati

Dear Concerned: I empathize with your anguish. It might surprise you, but I receive an assortment of critical e-mails too, usually from informed, patriotic, and concerned Americans.

This will shock you, but I do not blame President Obama.

I do not blame him for the debacle at Benghazi. It’s simply not his fault.

I do not blame him for spending taxpayers’ money for extravagant multi-million dollar vacations. I don’t even blame him for using a separate government aircraft to fly the family dog to exotic vacation destinations.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed he had visited all 57 states. I don’t blame him for saying that. Campaigning can drain you of your senses, so he probably forgot how many states we actually have. If you don’t study geography in American schools, you might not know. It could happen to anyone.

I don’t blame him for claiming that his father served in World War II. His father was only four years old in 1941. A lot of radical African countries recruit children to fight in their wars. Maybe that’s what happened to Obama’s beloved dad.

I don’t blame him for saying our constitution is an antiquated, outdated document — AFTER he swore to defend and uphold the same document. Didn’t he teach constitutional law? If so, he must know that the founding fathers provided the opportunity to amend the constitution when we felt that was necessary. Of course, in order to amend the constitution it requires the popular, democratic approval of our sovereign states.

I don’t blame him for refusing to place his right hand over his heart and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. After all, maybe he didn’t know that millions of Americans have fought to preserve our constitutional freedoms; hundreds of thousands have shed blood and died for that cause. Our flag is a visual symbol of those courageous sacrifices.

I don’t blame him for blocking the public scrutiny of his academic records from Columbia University. The records might reveal that he was a foreign exchange student, and not a natural born American citizen. That information could have kept him out of the White House.

I don’t blame him for increasing the national debt to obscene levels and destroying the country’s credit rating. It’s simply not his fault.

No, I don’t blame Obama. But I do blame the mislead hordes of hapless Americans who voted for him. Never in the history of our country have we elected a more inept, unprepared and unqualified president. Placing Obama in the White House is like taking a Navy seaman, fresh from boot camp, and putting him in command of an aircraft carrier, simply because he can read a teleprompter and deliver an inspiring speech.

Now, just so you don’t rush to conclusions and brand me a racist, I would be first in line to support the candidacy of Colin Powell.

So, if President Obama wants to rewrite our constitution, I suggest he start by disqualifying a large group of shameful citizens who are just as unqualified to vote as Barack Obama is to serve as president. Too many people were more interested in making history by electing the first African American president than electing a qualified public servant to lead our country into the future.

Ruth

Dear Ruth: My husband has many good friends at work, and we socialize with them at least once a month. One of his co-workers is a delightful guy in his early 40s, and would make some lucky woman a wonderful husband. Yet, his first dates never lead to second dates. Earl is funny, self-effacing, intelligent, thoughtful, generous, wealthy, and has many other positive attributes. He drives a brand new red Camaro convertible too. The trouble is – he is not physically attractive. Most women can’t seem to look beyond his less-than-flattering features. For example, the base of his nose tilts up a bit, and one nostril is considerably larger than the other. The tilt of his nose makes his nose hairs highly visible. He thinks they make him look manly, so he refuses to trim them. When he laughs, saliva drips from the corners of his mouth. And when he is a little nervous (which happens on dates), his tongue juts in and out when he talks, like the forked tongue of a garter snake. His earlobes are oversized too, and they jiggle when he turns his head from one side to the other. Unfortunately, his teenage acne left ugly scars on his face, and sometimes he scratches his face with reckless abandon, like a dog with fleas. Also, when he looks at you with one eye, the other eye appears to be staring in another direction. That can be disconcerting. Did I mention he is bald too, and a little on the short side? One more minor thing: due to a childhood illness, one buttock is noticeably larger than the other. When he sits down, he lists about 10 degrees to port. And when you sit next to him, it’s best to sit on his starboard side.

When you are with Earl, he is so kind and considerate that you forget about his physical imperfections.

We have fixed Earl up on dates and encouraged him to use online dating services, but nothing leads to long-lasting relationships.

Do you have any ideas?

Trying in Tulsa

Dear Trying: I applaud you for your concern for Earl, and your willingness to find a true soul mate for your friend. It amazes me that some people can be so shallow, and allow a good man to be rejected just because he doesn’t look like Brad Pit.

Statistic show that many long-term relationships start with online dating services, so I encourage you to pursue that option. There are hundreds of reputable services, and I’ve got one strong recommendation. Please check out: www.lighthousefortheblind.com/hotdates.

It’s good that you and your husband are such good friends for Earl. Perhaps he will ask both of you to be in his wedding party.

Always glad to help. That’s what I’m here for.

Ruth

P.S. If any of my readers feel attracted to Earl, let me hear from you. I love to play cupid.

Dear Ruth: A friend sent me a short video via e-mail recently. He thought it would alarm me, and it did – but not for the reason he thought.

In the video, an elderly African-American man was ranting on and on about President Obama. He clearly did not care for the man. At the very end of the video, he used the forbidden “N” word – referring to Obama. His demeanor was vitriolic. But the “N” word didn’t upset me as much as something else he said. He also criticized Obama for not doing enough for his people.

Where do we get the notion that our government exists for the sole purposes of doing things for select groups and giving us things we didn’t earn?

Troubled in Tupelo

Dear Troubled: You sign your name “Troubled,” yet our entire nation and our democratic form of government is in trouble, and on the verge of extinction.

First let me address the “N” word. Only once in my long and unsheltered life have I heard a white person call a black person the “N” word in the presence of a black person, and that was in the mid 70s in rural Georgia. I cringed when I heard the word, and expected an explosion of fists to follow. Rather, the black man responded almost as if the white man had called him “Buddy.” Maybe the black man didn’t have a choice. I’m not excusing the use of the word for a moment. Yet, I’ve heard blacks call one another by the “N” word more times than I can count. Sometimes fights break out. So, it has become a hate crime if a white man calls a black man the “N” word, but it’s just spirited conversation as usual if a black man uses the word. Maybe “Dear Amy” can explain it. I can’t.

One of the most quoted phrases from a presidential inaugural address was John Kennedy’s plea, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” As a result of Kennedy’s initiatives, young people signed up in droves for the Peace Corp. People responded to his appeal. When Lyndon Johnson took over the reins of government, the appeal changed. It became: Vote for the candidate that promises you the most stuff. And Johnson promised and delivered the most sweeping civil rights package in the history of the world under his “Great Society” program. Did Johnson have a heart for African-Americans? Not exactly. In his many years in Congress as a representative and a senator, he joined with other southern democrats and opposed every piece of civil rights legislation that was written. Perhaps his motivation and his hunger for power changed when he became president. After he passed his civil rights reforms, he said to a small group of confidants, “We’ll have the niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” I’m simply quoting a former president. I do not use the “N” word. Did his sweeping legislation help? Look at the extreme poverty and high crime in Chicago, such as the Englewood community, before answering the question. Look at Detroit, and Washington DC. But he achieved one thing: he secured the African-American vote for generations. He spent a boatload of the taxpayers’ money, but didn’t make a dent in poverty.

Chicagoans all know the story about the Great Chicago fire in 1871. Legend has it that Mrs. O’Leary’s cow kicked over a kerosene lamp, ignited the hay in her barn, and started the fire that destroyed most of the city. After the raging fire was finally extinguished, a group of wealthy Chicago businessmen headed to New York City to raise capital to rebuild Chicago. They didn’t even think of heading to Washington DC for a government bailout. It wasn’t easy, but the city was ultimately rebuilt.

Long ago in 1787, about the time our founding fathers were adopting our new constitution, the Scottish history professor Alexander Tyler said, “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think Tyler was not only a history professor, he was a prophet too.

Ruth