Delaware Liberal has a silly controversy over John Kowalko’s performance.  The reason it is silly is because they are arguing over John’s alleged ability without determining the position that he plays.  For example, in football, a defensive player is rated differently than an offensive player.  In basketball, a center is rated different than a point guard.  A catcher is rated differently than pitcher in baseball.  To the casual reader it is pretty obvious that the argument is over which standards ought to be used, and not over whether John is an outstanding person or not.  (He is btw;  I’ve even heard Rick Jensen say so.)

In the current legislature, there are many moving parts.  The only true criteria one can hold legislators accountable towards…, is did they vote.   Everything else is superfluous. The only part of their job outlined  in legalese… is to vote.  Everything else they choose to do is extra; its over and beyond the call…

But politics is a personal business.  If challenges are made towards John’s effectiveness, even if baseless, they need a well honed defense.  Simply because if not, future readers may see only one side and base their votes upon what they read,   Therefore there is a lot of give and take, and bashing and smashing of egos, but it is all basically over whether John should play defensive, or go offensive.

We cannot have all of one and none of the other.  A team with only an offensive line, does pretty badly when the other team has the ball.  To the casual observer reading comments over there, it is obvious that we need both kinds of players.  Both are necessary. and since one person can’t be opposite of himself, it is necessary to have another person take up that position …

John is John.  Just like El Som is El Som.  Just like Deldem is Deldem.  Each has a unique set of genes, each has a unique set of life experiences.  Obviously none of those match, and therefore, their viewpoints will differ.  What happened is that it got personal, and the line; “others say it is so” got trundled out.

Of course others will say different things.  They are different too.  Instead of arguing over what this person said, and what that person didn’t say, we should be recognizing just how diversified our party is. Yay!  We should accept that we have John in the offensive line. Yay!  We should be grateful we have defensive players working behind the scenes. Yay!  Commentator Geezer actually pointed all that out before I do here.

The point I’m making is we have a team of people. They are individuals. They are not all carbon copies of each other.  Thank Goodness.  Just like any corporate development team, just like any legal defense team, just like any sports team, just like any managerial project team, all have a goal; all should work towards that goal.

Calling people out in public does not help all reach that goal.  It hinders it; is s-l-o-w-s the march toward that goal, considerably.  Talking to those people directly, one on one, what we like to call having a “frank” conversation, IS conducive.  It provides communication, and even if you disagree in the end, you trust the opponent’s judgment because you know exactly why he is adamant in his beliefs.  You know why.

I think everyone here has a part to play.  Just as in a car, if one part goes bad, the rest of the car doesn’t function at its full potential.  Everyone here, (or over there commenting I mean) has an important role to play in how our state will be functioning one, four, eight, or ten years into the future….

We have a job to do. Work is not done.  If we don’t finish it, others who oppose us will come behind us and tear it down.  This is serious stuff.  If we don’t work together as a team,  we leave no lasting legacy.  And what’s the whole point of even living, if your life here doesn’t make a difference?

So recognize our differences then use them.  Those in planning can say, John we need some public outrage on this at this time.  Let’s get it done.  Vice versa, now coming from John, he can say “hey we in the public eye are getting pinged badly on this item;  we need to develop a fix right now”.  Those are just two examples how each can use the other to achieve aims, instead of create friction….

‘Nuff said.