<<also a drug test, before, and quarterly while holding office.>>
Of course, some would argue that having most of our politicians a bit more "chillled-out" would be a good thing. They might, at least, not take themselves so seriously and might begin to take others a bit more seriously.
On a slightly more serious note, however, while I am personally opposed to the use of many "drugs," for other than the proverbial medicinal purposes, I certainly have my vices. I enjoy a good drink and a good dose of tobacco. Despite that personal opposition, however, I wonder if part of the problem is that government through our elected leaders has not become too concerned about controlling our personal choices, based on others views, and less concerned about the common good.
In this context, ones views about who is a good person to lead and how to select that person depends in large part on what we expect them to do and not to do. The older I get, the less inclined I am to be receptive to others imposing through law their views about personal responsibility and choice on me.
We ought to have more limits on what our elected leaders can do with their power. There ought to be narrower windows in which they can do it. If we limit the power, we also limit the power that comes from the position and perhaps some of the opportunities to abuse that power or use it for personal gain.
Not all things that people think are problems are really problems. Not all problems need to be solved. Most of the time, although seldom exercised, not acting or reacting is the wisest thing to do.
I would add wisdom and tolerance to the list of primary virtues needed in any elected leader. They fall, in my view, very closely behind integrity.
Troy
Those who shoot from the hip usually end up just shooting themselves.
Plan the grub and grub the plan.
Where is the party tonight? Who is bringng the drinks?
