Advise For The Political Lorn.

I don't know about you, but I'm dismayed by President Obama's reaction to and attack on whistle blowers. Now I understand that no president likes leaks of information in his administration and we do need to be concerned about national secrets being spread around. On the other hand, we also need folks who work for the government, who see mistakes and lies and wrongdoings, to let us know so we can force change. Whistle blowers always get the short end of the stick. It's a case of being needed, but being unloved at the same time. When the government is spending money on things they shouldn't and won't stop if told internally, then it's time to let government know externally. Like the case of a man who said that the department where he works was paying huge sums for a software program that doesn't work well instead of using a software program developed in that same department that works great and won't cost anything extra. He told congress and a newspaper. Hey, it makes sense to me, how about you? There are even laws to protect them when they sound the alarm. Of course if you're the president, or even head of an important department of the government, you seem to be able to get around those laws. What the president is doing is accusing them of spying under an old "espionage act". Now I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Pres. Obama stating how important whistle blowers are a while back, but maybe he meant only when they blow a whistle on somebody from the other party. Then they would be important. But if the whistle sounds on one of the Presidents own, then that's different. Then it's espionage. I hope the courts take a good look at these kinds of attacks and call them for what they are. Dirty pool. Or in this case dirty politics. I think the president would be far more respected if he went after the folks in his administration who are doing the wrongs that are being whistled at. Those whistles aren't aimed at pretty gals ya know. So if I were you, Mr Obama, and I know you haven't asked for my advise, but if I were you, I'd shape up or you could be shipped out in November. That would make your attacks a mistake.

How're Your Investments Doing?

There's an interesting editorial in the N.Y.Times today by a young man (young by my standards) who claims he's quiting his job at Goldman Sachs. It's not so much that he's quiting that's interesting, except that it opens up a job opportunity for somebody else, as it is that he's quiting because he feels Goldman has veered from it's core principals. He now sees it as being far more interested in  how much it can make off it's customers instead of how it can help it's customers meet their goals. Does that surprise you? Are you shocked to hear that Goldman Sachs, or for that matter any of the big Wall Street houses, would think that way? That they're more interested in making money off you than they are about what you want or need? He says that they'd rather sell you something you don't want or need, so long as it makes them more money. Are you beginning to worry about your own investments? Well at least you have investments. But what about the company that's helping you manage those investments? Do they give two hoots what helps you? Oh, I know, they all tell you how much they can do for you. That they all want whatever is best for you. But is that what they actually do for you? Or do they, as this guy says they do, do they do whatever is best for them? Now to be honest, this young man states that he can find nothing illegal in what Goldman is doing. It's just that it's not the interests of the client that's of interest to them. Sounds like the interests of the client take a back seat to "how much money can we make off them". And the thing is that for the newer, young employees, this current theme is the one they see. They don't see where you work for the client and in doing so, you'll be rewarded. Now it's 'work for the companies benefit and the client might profit from it'. The thing is, I hate to burst his bubble, but I don't think he'll find a much different culture in any of the other Wall Street houses. I'm old enough to remember back to when John F. Kennedy said, in his inaugural speech to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Now-a-days it seems to be "Ask not of me, that which you can get from somebody else or do without", or in other words "Ask not what I can do for my country, ask why you aren't doing it for me". Corporate America seems to have changed to the point where they want only to make bigger profits, not just good profits. And if that means hurting the employees or customers, then so be it. I don't know about you, but I'm old fashioned. I'd rather see a company work to help me, instead of itself. Maybe I'm just selfish. But almost all companies used to have a social conscience. Now companies seem barely conscious of society.           

I'll See Your Earth And Raise You A Rare.

Houston, we have a problem. Rare Earths. Who what? Rare Earths. The problem is that China controls 95% of the Rare Earths on earth. That doesn't mean they have 95% of the Rare Earths (R.E.s). Which is what I thought they've been saying. They do have something like 35% of the stuff. But America and Canada have a lot of the stuff too. So what's the problem? Well Houston, the thing is, China used it's favorite tactic to garner control of this important market. They mined and sold the stuff cheaper then anybody else could. Then as soon as everybody else went out of the business, they started limiting the amount of R.E.s they would export. This accomplished two things for them. First it raised the prices and second it gave them more, cheap product for their own industries. Now they can, and do, use it as a hammer against anybody who messes with them. Japan found that out the hard way a year or two ago when they argued with China over some islands in the South China Sea. When they claimed they owned the islands, China suddenly could no longer ship R.E.s to them. It seemed there was some sort of problem. Now if you're sitting there wondering what in the world are Rare Earths, they're metals that are very rare, hence the name (Rare) Earths, but are needed in almost everything electronics related, like car batteries, solar panels and also flat screen TVs and so on. Without these metals, you just can't manufacture any of these high tech products. So Houston, what do recommend? I'd say it's time to restart production in countries like Canada and the U.S. The problem is, China can always flood the market with cheap stuff again. That's what put us out of that business in the first place. Well maybe it's time for the U.S. to subsidize it's R.E.s mining and production and pass the savings on to the rest of the world. We'd come out looking like the good guys and we'd have a good safe supply of quality stuff. So would the rest of the world. China would come out the bad guy, but so? It seems to me that's exactly what they've been for some time now. Of course they'd complain to the World Trade Organization (WTO), but so?

Sometimes War Just Doesn't Make Sense.

I hate to talk about this, but I'm concerned for all our people in Afghanistan. Instances of Afghan security people suddenly turning on their American counterparts, what appears to be increased bombings, Instances of Americans burning the Quran, purportedly urinating on dead Taliban militants and now a soldier killing 16 Afghans in their sleep, door to door. All these things are explainable, by themselves, as isolated and unfortunate side effects of such an extended war. But that's just the problem. The war has gone on too long. There's far too much battle fatigue, on both sides. People's instincts for good and what's right are breaking down. The thing is, the longer the war continues, the more of our people will die or suffer injuries. But the thing is, the longer this war continues the more of our people will bring these breakdowns of instinct, home with them. Is there a real, justifiable reason for us to continue to remain where we're unwanted, fighting people we can't defeat because they melt into the population at large? We're talking about anther two years. Exactly what will we accomplish in the next two years that we were unable to accomplish in the last ten years? There's a well thought out theory that says you cannot defeat an enemy if the people of their homeland, the populace, can't be convinced you're trying to improver their lives. If we can't win over the hearts and minds of the population of Afghanistan, how in the world can we win that war? Do some Afghans side with us? Of course. Do many wish we could be successful? Of course. Is the whole country with us? More and more, I fear not. This started out as a justified war against those who attacked us without warning. We have succeeded in that phase of the war with the death of Osama BinLaden. Is that war over? Not yet, but it no longer centers in Afghanistan. It's no longer a war that can be fought by massed armies or shock and awe. It's going to have to be fought like our enemies fight. That's something we can do, but we have to accept it and move to do it. We may need tighter defense at home. We need to be able to move quickly and quietly to where the enemy hides. Armies can't do that. It's time to bring our Armies home from Afghanistan and be ready to strike again in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world if necessary. I think our leaders know this. I think our military knows this. It's time for them to act like they know it.

You're Not A Snob Unless You Own Your Own Oil Well.

Thomas L Freidman, one of my favorite commentators had an article in the N.Y. Times today that tells about the testing of all 15 year olds in 65 countries around the world for proficiency in math and science every two years. They also compared those test scores to the saleable natural resources in those same countries. Ya know what they found? The countries with the most natural resources had the lowest scores, and the countries with the least natural resources had the highest scores. Can you imagine that? There were a few exceptions where countries like Canada also had high scores, but those countries saved the income from those resources and invested them in education instead of spending that income on giveaways to the populace among other vises. In other words, the "drill baby drill" mentality suggests a nation so overcome by the desire to have the good life that they're willing to throw away the opportunity to be self reliant. See, the idea is that if you don't have natural resources, then the people must become the resource. Now I don't know who had the idea of comparing the test scores with the natural resources, but somebody did. It does point to a reliance on those reserves instead of education. The unfortunate thing, for us in America, is that we're too big a country to put so many of our eggs into that basket. Because there just aren't enough oil wells to go around. So if you're left out in the cold, without an oil well to heat your life, with state after state, county after county, school district after school district cutting back on the education they're providing, and the federal government forced to cut back, and nobody truly trying to improve the educational experience, and some suggesting it's snobbish to get an education anyway, if you're one of the ones left out, you're getting the short end of the stick. Why would anyone think it's snobbish to get an education? If you're going to be a carpenter or plumber or production worker or whatever, it wouldn't hurt you to know how to do the work, the best way. That almost always means some form of education. There should be a word for people who have that backwards Maybe we should invent the word "Bons".

Boy What A Difference A Decade Makes.

Do you know what a 527 is? How about a 501? Maybe a 501(C), or a 501(C)(4), (5), (6)? Well why not? I know, but only because I just read an article about them. No actually I knew about 501(C) (4)s, and if I knew about the others I'd forgotten. Anyway, 527s are or were social welfare organizations that could get donations without disclosing who donated what and then turn around and run attack ads against candidates for political office. Sound familiar? Back in 2000, the congress, lead by John McCain and other Republicans, pushed to stop them from doing that, unless they disclosed their donors. Democrats were against it. But it became law. What they forgot to do at the time was to do the same for 501(C)(4)s which are now doing the same thing, since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Well now some in congress are trying to outlaw the 501(C)(4)s from this same practice. The only difference that I can see is that now, the Democrats are championing the cause and the Republicans are against it. Just the exact opposite as in 2000. Amazing how people change in such a short time, isn't it? How come if it was the wrong thing back then it's the right thing now, or how come if it was the right thing back then, it's the wrong thing now? Ya know what I think? I think it's an opportunity for one side to be against anything the other side wants to do. And a second opportunity to be just as obstinate. It's not that I fault congress back in 2000 for missing an opportunity, because that seems to be what they do best. No, it's that they are so willing to change sides so easily. Do they get up in the morning and have to check to see which side they're supposed to be on today? Or do they have to wait until they get to work to find out? Or do they wait to see what the other side does? My guess? I don't think they know what they're doing. But here's what I do know. Attack ads don't help the political process. They make it harder to decide. But then, that's what they're designed to do.

The Price Of "Green" Has Just Gone Up.

I don't think it's big news that I'm in favor of green technology. I'm a person who understands that evolution is an accurate and proven science. Global warming is happening and human energy sources are part of that problem. The world is not flat, it is in fact a globe, round. I'm in favor of ending subsidies for the oil industry. The subsidies began when oil was a fledgling industry. They were meant to help it become a strong stable resource. I think we can say without dissent that that has come to pass. I'm also in favor of now giving similar support to alternative energy and green technology. Why would anyone disagree with that thinking? Having said that, I must say that the government's awarding of a $10 million grant for any company that could develop an affordable (that's AFFORDABLE) "green" light bulb seemed promising. Oh and it was to be at least somewhat "made in America", too. Well, the votes are in, the prize has been awarded. Philips, the light bulb people have been awarded the $10 million prize. And now the bulb is actually on the market. It's an LED bulb, so there's no question that it's green. It apparently meets the MIA requirement. And now, a drum roll please, the price is $50 each. That's right. This "affordable", "green" light bulb is $50 a piece. Now if you're one of the one percenters, $50 might be considered inexpensive, but if you're one of the 99 percenters, you're gonna think the government was a bit premature in it's awarding Philips this prize. Come on, $50. For a light bulb? And you consider it cheap? Okay, not cheap, affordable? Really? $50? Cheap? Well I guess you have to consider that it is Washington that gave the award. In Washington, you can't expect anything to be that cheap. Hey, you can't even buy a legislator for $50. But haven't these folks ever been in a store where they sell light bulbs? Even LED bulbs currently on the market only sell for about half that. What is it? Is it because it has to be made in America? That doesn't make sense if American workers are so much more efficient and do a better job then foreign workers. Well, I happen to believe that, so the answer must be that Philips wants to make a killing on this thing. Maybe they want to cover all their costs of development in the first couple dozen bulbs. I hope so, because at that price, they're not gonna sell too many more than that. I think maybe everybody forgot that the prize was supposed to be for "inexpensive" or maybe they just forgot the "in".