Ranting. How many times do I have to say NO?

There is a sneaky phenomenon happening in our American public place that I worry about.

Seems pretty frequent that when something is voted on in our democracy, the result is not the final answer.

An example is a local one. Two years ago our county voted quite strongly against allowing our Charles Town racetrack-slot parlor to add table-game-gambling to the ways to lose your money for entertainment. In the legislation that authorized the games, it was written that there had to be a local referendum to make it legal, and if it were defeated, the issue could not be resurrected for 2 years. Guess what!? It is 2 years. And, guess what?! They are back to try again. Here's the rub. We said NO.

What has changed that we should be asked again? Here's some of what has changed...the out of state company that owns the track is arguing about all we lost by not letting them take home the hundreds of millions of dollars they think will come in exchange for the few millions they will "contribute" to the tax base...the same tax base that will have to fund the increased burden of roads, traffic, security, infrastructure, etc. The other thing that has changed is they figured out there is opposition and they must fight it to win. I have a 5 year old that uses the same tactic - try to wear us down to get what you want.

mom.....mom....mom...mom....MOM....MOM....MOMMMMMM

We have the same thing going on in Washington. We revert to failed security policies (policies from Set 10, 2001 and back) because the policies that worked since Sept 11 2001 make us seem mean to bad people. We resurrect gun legislation that has already been turned away by the courts, as though if we "sell" it differently it will be legal this time. We want to relook at the definition of marriage as encoded by law, as though something has changed over the course of thousands of years of history, the foundation of our nation, and the core of the American people...even thinking maybe it's time to repeal a law passed strongly to protect marriage as it is known in those thousands of years...what changed?

We condemn our former President for being and idealist, and we lionize our departed Senator Kennedy for being (shhhh!) an .....idealist. Huh?

Seems to me we'd have a more peaceful time if we went with the decisions made at the time and quit trying to reinvent for the sake of reinvention Save the transformation for the color of your livingroom, and leave the majority ruling please.