Yes, It's About Time!
Updated: Feb 22
After about 230 years of men serving as presidents, 45 consecutively in total, America needs what it's never had: a woman at the helm.
But first off, so you know, I'm a man writing this.
Now, supposedly justifying all those years of men only, is this kind of reasoning: Men are smarter, stronger, less burdened with familial obligations, not as emotional, and have more stamina.
That latter claim, Mr. Trump made in his 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton. He made it when she quite humanly got pneumonia and fainted. Evidently per Trump, men don't get pneumonia, and if they do, they never, heaven forbid, faint. Yeah, uh-huh, sure.
Well, Mr. President, you need a history lesson. In 1841, President William Henry Harrison at his inaugural, came down with pneumonia and died 32 days later.
But back to the main point here: It's indisputable that gender has influenced our choices for president. And the sorry result is that two centuries plus of men only, have deprived our nation of fifty percent of its brain-power and talent for the office of president.
Sure, a lot of that was due to the times and lack of available, qualified women. Still the prejudice against them should not have been as encompassing as it was......in all those years, not a single woman president.
All that said, what are actual differences between the sexes; things that should or should not influence our presidential choices?
Well, as mentioned, physically, men are generally larger, taller, heavier, and muscularly stronger. They can perform physically demanding tasks easier than women. But such physical attributes, presidents really don't need. They'll never have to defend themselves, or in "absurdum," throw people out of the oval office. There will always be ample Secret Service help for such strenuous, nasty tasks.
And regarding intellect, there's never been any evidence, which has shown any difference in innate intelligence between the sexes. So, forget that.
The same goes for traits like articulateness, prudence, diplomacy, tactfulness, courage, frankness, truthfulness, honesty, honor, and so on.
Those qualities have zilch to do with gender.
So, now you know, that when it comes to qualifications for president attributable to gender, all things, especially in this 21st century, are fairly equal. That is, there's no advantage for either sex.
So, let's say thus far, you agree. Hence, how about some speculating: Say, at nominating time, 2020, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, lead the pack.
And further say that common sense has finally prevailed and ruled out Bernie Sanders. He's too old (78) and has recently suffered a heart attack. And if he continues to campaign, entertaining though he is, just like he did in 2016, he's misleading the public as to the democratic party's identity. And he's wasting his contributors' dollars as well as their time in supporting him. Also, he's squandering other candidates' time and money in having to respond to him. Plus, considering his delicate health, it's ludicrous for him to be on the campaign trail as strenuous, taxing as it is. He should be taking it easy and confining himself to senatorial duties.
So, ruling Bernie out with realities, it now appears, it's either Biden or Warren.
But because of a president's nuclear discretion, Biden's age like Bernie's, is a serious factor. Next month, he'll be 77. More on that later.
Now, both Warren and Biden are lawyers, graduates of fine universities and law schools. So, no difference there.
And by the way, Trump's not a lawyer. But he acts like he is. And at times, he even talks like he's wearing one of those black Supreme Court robes, sitting next to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
But let's talk about Biden: Some would argue, he has an experience-edge over Warren in having served as vice president. Nonetheless, many party faithful consider that experience a downside. They say it has turned him into a banal politician; always expedient, willing to do and say whatever's wanted; anything to please and garner support.
Yet he must be quite adept at playing this game, because he is where he is. He sure is a smooth talker and has a mellifluous voice.
But still, even as a masterful politician, he often makes embarrassing blunders, "Puts his foot in it." Once, in front of a live microphone, as he was talking to President Obama, he dropped an F-bomb. To say the least, the president seemed ashamed.
So, is this the real Joe Biden? Is he a consummate, please-everyone politico? I say, yes.
That said, still, many think he's a nice guy.
Disagreeing, however, are the ladies (yes, more than one) who say Joe is a woman toucher. They accuse him of making unwanted moves on them.
Nice guys, these women say, don't do icky things like that. They don't make women feel ill at ease with unwanted attention, touching, such as kissing them on the back or top of the head. So, when Biden does such things these women say they want to scream, "Hey, don't do that." But they can't. So, they just clam up.
Yet whether Joe is a nice guy or not, that is, an affectionate grandpa-type or a creepy-old uncle, is not relevant. That's because being a nice guy won't make someone a good president.
And as Leo Durocher of the Brooklyn Dodgers long ago said, "Nice guys finish last."
So, all we should weigh is: whether Biden is the one America desperately needs to skillfully mend decimated fences? Can he brilliantly rebuild the international bridges Trump has burned?
I say, no, to both questions. And why not? Well, he just doesn't have what it takes. He doesn't have the extraordinary talents and characteristics to undo Trump's train-wreck presidency.
At his very best, Biden is just too average. He's only a fair to middling, pat-everyone-on-the-back politician.
And at times, he's been a suspect-member of the Good Old Boys Club that panders to lobbyists. Below I cite a critical example.
Then, add this downer to Joe, as mentioned, just like Bernie Sanders, he's too old. He and Bernie are just a year apart. Biden, if elected would be the oldest president ever. Born in 1942, at his first term's end, he'd be 82; and 86 at the end of a second.
So, if he's nominated, Trump surely will shout to the rooftops, "Good OLD Joe, you're too damn old."
And Trump will be right. Because for the nation's sake, for umpteen reasons, no one should be in his or her 80s as president.
Yes, absolutely, hurt feelings and ego aside, at some point, age-wise, society has to draw a line. And if there's anyone who is ageist-sensitive, it is I. I've had a lot of it unjustly practiced on me.
But long ago, I realized and accepted that for society's sake some age-limits are necessary. Yes, at times, age just has to be a limiting factor.
One excellent example: Airline pilots. And, at or near the top of the list, is being president of the world's most powerful country. For the earth's nuclear safety, there has to be a limit to his or her age.
As to Elizabeth Warren, she's 7 years younger than Biden. That's a substantial age difference. Through two terms, she'd still only be in her seventies.
Now, after reading her bio, her fantastic background, I'm thoroughly convinced. She's a superbly qualified candidate. Her credentials are extraordinary.
And even if Biden's age is disregarded, which it shouldn't be, his credentials don't come close to Warren's. It's really no contest as to who is best qualified to serve. And after you view what follows, I think you'll agree.
Here are some of Warren's milestones:
At 16 or 17, she won her state's debate championship.
That win, earned her a scholarship to George Washington University.
In 1970, she earned a B.S. degree in Speech Pathology and Audiology from the University of Houston.
In 1976, she earned a law degree, a J.D., from Rutgers University.
From 1977 through 1978, she taught law at Rutgers University.
From 1978 to 1983, she was a assistant or associate professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center.
From 1983 to 1987, she was a Professor of Law at University of Texas.
From 1987 to 1995, she was a Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania
From 1995 to 2012, she was a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
In 2012, she was elected to the United States Senate for the State of Massachusetts.
In 2018, she was reelected to the United States Senate for the State of Massachusetts.
She has authored 11 books on various financial dilemmas working families encounter. Two of those works, she co-authored with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi.
To sum up her expertise, she has 35 years or so experience in financial law. And as you see, impressively, she's been on the faculty of some of America's finest law schools. She's highly respected.
For this reason, Warren is considered one of the country's foremost experts in financial and bankruptcy law.
Her vast, unique knowledge for many years has enabled her to fight tooth and nail in behalf of consumers. She has taken on entities like huge banks and credit card companies. With their big money lobbying, they have been constantly trying to get laws passed by Congress that are harmful to middle and low income Americans.
As to her combativeness, Warren says, "I'm a fighter. But instead of using my fists, I use words." This is her modus operandi. It is, just as it was when as a teenager she won that debate championship.
But in 2005, despite Warrren's powerfully persuasive arguments (then, as a Harvard Professor), the big money lobbyists for bank and credit card companies, prevailed. They were able to get new, stringent, punitive bankruptcy laws passed. They were intended, and do to this day, to curtail debt relief for financially besieged families and enable these creditors to collect "blood" money.
And unfortunately, as a result it's generally the poorest people who suffer the most from this kind of punitive law. And debt relief for them, is supposed to be one clear intent of federal law; to give debt-oppressed people a reasonable chance to rebuild their lives.
But this new legislation changed, curtailed that chance.
As to need for these people to get help, as Warren persuasively pointed out and continues to do, most affected people need it, because of bad luck. They're in dire financial straits through no fault of their own. They're not irresponsible as banks, credit card companies, and most republicans contend.
Most such plagued people have lost lifetime jobs from cutbacks or have incurred impossible-to-pay-hospital or doctor bills.
So, it's blatantly unfair, nor does it make sense, to say that when people incur misfortunes, they're irresponsible. It's like considering someone reckless whose car is rear ended while stopped at a red light.
Now, in theory under present law, under Chapter 7 people are still supposed to be able to get their debts discharged. But they can only do so after much red tape; that is. a lot of onerous paperwork, paying high fees, passing a means test, taking counseling, and paying huge legal fees.
But in addition, and this is arguably unconscionable, the law has what amounts to an "abuse" provision. For a seemingly endless list of reasons applicants can be readily and arbitrarily considered as having abused their rights for Chapter 7 relief. And as a result they will be required to file under Chapter 13, wherein their debts will not be discharged. They will have to make payments to the credit card companies, pay off their debts, which they likely will not be able to complete.
In sum, under the law's unfair provisions, people can be so facilely and arbitrarily considered "abusers" that to say they can get debt relief, is pretty much of a farce.
Indeed, the reality is, the present requirements shut the door almost completely for most people, especially those with low income. They'll just throw up their hands, belly up. And this will enable the Silas Mariners, the Scrooges, the "enforcers" of the credit card companies to get blood money out of destitute people, for a while at least until it runs out.
The only applicants who might get some help, are those with relatively high incomes; wherein they can afford the fees, and costly attorney charges to meet the nick-picky requirements of the law.
Thus, back in 2005, these harsh new requirements were exactly what banks and credit card companies wanted. For all practical purposes, they just about cut out debt relief. So, talk about a lobbying success story, this was it. Money talks.
In sum, here's how fantastically successful the lobbying for these creditors was: In the two years that followed the law's enactment, bankruptcy filings dropped by some 1,000,077. That many less people filed as compared to the two years before the new law. So, that many fewer people got debt relief. The credit card companies retained the right to collect all money owed them.
So, no doubt they gained the right to collect millions and millions of dollars from a lot of oppressed people. And then consider how much more they got in the following 14 years. That is, if these poor families continued to financially survive, which is doubtful.
And behind all this success for these creditors, guess who was the ONLY democratic senator on committee, who supported this legislation? And who persistently pushed for its passage?
You're spot on, if you say Joe Biden. And yes, you're also right, if you think he now just has to have a bundle of friends at those banks and credit card companies. They must love him and surely would like to see him as our president so they can get even more juicy favoritism and concessions.
And by the way, to disguise, and divert attention from his main goal to help these plush creditors, Biden got something added to the law that helped divorced women. But it was just an astute ploy to distract, mislead people as to his real goal; to give his home state (Delaware) financial corporations enormous-financial bonanzas.
Regarding this disingenuousness, Warren said, ". . . Joe Biden should not be allowed to sell out women in the morning and be heralded as their friend in the evening." Amen.
Then, there's this reality as to shameful conduct of these creditors. They actually bait poor families into impossible debt loads. Yes, they lure them, by inundating them with mail invitations to get "easy money" accounts. They trap hapless people with easy credit cards.
So, no wonder so many families end up being unable to pay. They get sucked in by many of the same companies who lobbied for the harsh law change.
Question: How many tragedies, has this law precipitated in the past 14 years?
Probably, we'll never know. But no matter what, shame, shame on Congress for enacting such deadly, yes, deadly, legislation. Deadly, because it's indisputable that financial hopelessness, despair, and desperation can and does cause people to take their lives.
We learned this in our history books. How during bleak, hopeless financial times, like Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929, the great stock market crash, people ended their lives. Especially, poignant were the accounts of those, who that day had lost everything and then jumped out of skyscraper windows.
But back to today and some questions for you, senators, including, of course, Joe Biden, and house members who in 2005 voted aye on today's bankruptcy law. Over the years, how many lives do you think this law has cost? How many broken, destitute families?
And also today, there just has to be even more people walking a financial tight rope, especially, those without medical insurance. Cases where hospitals won't give them the same massive discounts, as high as 80-90 percent, that they give insurance companies. And because debt relief under present law likely won't be available to such people, these "compassionate" hospitals just let these poor souls "go broke," plunge into utter ruin.
And would you believe it? Many of these hospitals are owned by churches or religions.
Then, there's this question: What's in store for people when the new Trump tax provisions strip Affordable Health Care Act ("Obama Care") coverage from 15 million people? So, there could be that many more desperate souls who will need bankruptcy debt relief. But they won't get it.
They won't, unless the law is changed.
So, what will these people do? Well, to try to survive, many will turn to predatory private lenders; those who walk a line as to laws. And likely, in most cases, getting involved with such sharks will only make things worse.
Bottom line: Sadly, many will be doomed, ruined.
Finally, as to this bankruptcy debacle: Elizabeth Warren did all she could to inform and warn Congress. In many tries over the years, she tried to dissuade hellbent legislators from taking this route. But they didn't listen, and the last 14 years under this law have proved her right. It has been calamitous for consumers and especially the poor.
But at the same time, Elizabeth Warren was trying save the country from this bankruptcy travesty, Joe Biden, was doing all he could to get the country into it. And he did. Now there's 14 years of evidence that he was wrong, wrong, wrong.
The country is still paying the tab. And down the pike. when 15 million more people lose their health care, well, it's just plain scarrrrrrry.
But "Whoa Nellie," as Keith Jackson used to say. Forgive me for having made this piece so long. But it's so vital.
Yet no matter what, hopefully, you now have a clear concept of Elizabeth Warren's enormous intellect and character. How extraordinarily qualified she is to be our president. She will make America one of its best ever.
Still finally, I must cover one more aspect about her. What are her down sides? Well, I must admit, I'm biased. Except for nick-picky stuff, I say, none.
But she did have a spat about a native American matter. And she has apologized for it. After all, just like all of us, she's not perfect.
Then, of course, there's that prejudice-hurdle, which I've been tackling head on here: Warren's female.
To that, I emphatically say, SO WHAT! At this point in history, the country needs a woman, especially, this one, Elizabeth Warren. She's brilliant, gifted, extraordinarily educated, and experienced. She has all the tools.
And again, compared to her, I say Joe Biden falls far, far short. And as pointed out, he's flat out too old.
Furthermore, as covered ad nauseam here, he's shown he's more interested in looking out for rich, money grubbing corporations, than he is middle and poor Americans. He really should switch parties. He's a republican in democratic clothing.
Finally, please be assured: There is no one more capable than Elizabeth Warren to "drain the swamp" (hate to use Trump's words, but they're apt). She can marshal the forces to remedy this bankruptcy fiasco as well as the oodles of other things about which Trump has wreaked havoc.
And the big thing is that WE CAN TRUST HER. She has the requisite integrity, which is so critical for a president to have.
In closing, as my heading states, it's about time. We need to end this sexist malarkey. End the gender-prejudice that's been robbing us of fifty percent of our brains and talent.
Make Senator Elizabeth Warren, United States of America, President No. 46.
We need her so badly.
Finally, if you’re not yet a Sage follower click “Follow” at the very bottom of this page. Do so, because Sage is now working on many more valuable Gems of Wisdom. And by being a follower, you can assure you won’t miss one. Plus, they’re FREE.
Best to you all,
Let The Sage tell you in his own voice a short free sample chapter from his new audiobook, People Skills Magic. It’s just five minutes.
To hear him, first click: https://tinyurl.com/peopleskillsmagic
Then click the tiny circled arrow that says “Sample” at the bottom of the book’s cover. The Sage will then start talking to you.
And let’s say you like what you hear and download it. Then, you can listen to The Sage during your drives to and from work, long road trips, and flights. And if you properly and religiously implement his tips, you’ll be flabbergasted. Yes, you will, as to how much The Sage can help you in this rat race world. The results can be astounding.
Notice: The writings in this publication are strictly personal opinions, Furthermore, they should not be taken or relied upon as legal advice. For such counsel, consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.