The phrase, "Pig In a Poke", dates back to the late Middle Ages. It refers to a practice that today would be called a "scam". At that time in history, meat was in short supply. An unwary customer would be sold a "suckling pig" that was placed in a "poke" (paper bag). The customer would not see the "suckling pig" because the bag was closed so as to prevent the "suckling pig" from escaping. On the journey home, the customer would feel the wriggling in the bag, thereby assuring a live "suckling pig". Upon arrival home, the customer would open the bag only to discover a cat.
Two other phrases that came into use much later are: "Let the Cat Out of the Bag"; and "Left Holding the Bag". The first implies that a ruse was revealed, perhaps inadvertently or prematurely. The second refers to a situation in which a "customer" may discover a ruse / scam while in the presence of the perpetrator in which case, both the "cat" and the perpetrator would escape, leaving the customer "holding the bag".
For a moment, allow me to divert your attention from the information above and further down the page, we'll return to the "pig in a poke".
Over the past nine months, I have been working on behalf of a gentleman who was running for a political office here in Pennsylvania. One of the tasks in such an endeavor is to educate the public about the attributes of the candidate. In fact, I discovered I was the one who received an education. It was, and is, amazing to me how my fellow citizens view the political process and their thoughts regarding their part in the process. They do not seen to realize how much their lives are affected by political decisions. They can be catagorized into three groups. I am not sure of the percentage of each of the three groups, but they are significant for the first two.
One of the groups is those folks who do not vote at all. They may "justify" their decision by saying, "All the politicians are crooks, so why should I vote for any one of them". Or they may simply state that, "I'm too busy".
Another of the groups is comprised of folks who, for whatever reason, always vote a "straight party ticket". Perhaps their parents did the same and somehow they feel they would be "dishonoring" their parents if they voted for the opposition or for individual candidates!! Another reason they may vote a "straight party ticket" is that it's quicker to do so rather than vote for individual candidates. Yet another reason is that they feel it is too time consuming, before going to the polls, to research the record(s) of individual candidates in order to be able to choose the best candidates based on their past performance.
The third group is comprised of dedicated folks who take the time to "do their homework" and research the candidates' records. The effort allows them to identify which of the candidates are worthy of their vote. This group can be relatively assured that the candidates for whom they vote will dispatch their responsibilities in a truthful, ethical, and honest manner.
The first two groups are chiefly responsible for decisions made by politicians who should never have been voted into office. Decisions made by them may be described as "mean spirited", selfish, and certainly not in favor of the total population. Those who do not vote at all fail to take the opportunity to rid the ranks of politicians who demonstrate disregard for their constituents. Those politicians are known by their deeds, or more appropriately, their misdeeds.
Those who vote a "straight party ticket" are in fact, voting for a "pig in a poke". While some of the candidates on the ticket may be qualified, upstanding politicians, there may just as well be some who will "show their true colors" once they get into office. By that time, it's too late to ferret out the incompetents, the ne'er-do-wells, and the "hooray for me and the H _ _l with you" candidates.
Such was the case with the primary election on 18 MAY 10 when the majority of voters failed to do their homework. As a result, the gentleman for whom I had worked lost his bid for the Governorship of PA. He had attempted to run a grassroots campaign secondary to the party having endorsed his opponent. That automatically gave his opponent all the finance and advertizement he needed to capture the election. Apparently, folks who did vote, voted for the candidate chosen by the party. They were led like sheep to slaughter.
The man who lost the election clearly should have won. The reason the party endorsed his opponent is clear. They evidently felt they would not have been able to "control" Samuel E. Rohrer. Mr. Rohrer is "cut from a different cloth". He was the only candidate, of both parties, who had introduced a plan six years previously to do away with the most divisive tax imposed on property owners. But all is not lost!!
There is still an opportunity for Mr. Rohrer to become our next Governor. Hopefully, voters from all parties will do their homework and realize that he is the only man eminently qualified for the position. You can learn more about the effort on his behalf at www.samrohrerwritein.org Do a favor for all of us by setting a good example for your children and "do your homework" as you expect them to do.
If we allow either of the other two candidates, running for the Governorship of our State, to win the election, we will be left "holding the bag". The only problem with that scenario is that the "perpetrator" (candidate) who wins the election will not have escaped. He will have retreated to the inner sanctum of the Capitol and set up shop with the "special interest" folks and other jerks who managed to stay in office or get into office because of the registered voters who didn't bother to vote.
Semper Fidelis
Nurse John
No comments:
Post a Comment