Ah Yes! Afghanistan.

So we were savagely attacked on 9-11 and the terrorists trained and planned in Afghanistan. We know that. We went over there and kicked them out, along with the extremists running the country. We pretty much installed Hamid Karzai as head of the country. We watched him rig the elections ever since, so that he wins every time and we decided it was OK because he was our man in that dangerous place. But recently he invited Iran's president in charge of loonybin, under the religious leaders of that country, to speak in the Afghan capital, in the Presidential Palace. Naturally, the talk was anti-American. We've asked Karzai and told him and warned him to clean up the corruption, but he's the corrupt one. Obama has just been there to, once again, telling him to change. Seems to me it's time to stop being polite and kick him out. Thomas Friedman, writing in the N.Y. Times this morning points out that we made similar mistakes in Viet-Nam, with a couple of leaders. We stick by our men in dangerous places, long after it's time to either kick them out or get out ourselves. Can we actually kick him out? Well, no, but we could stop propping them up. Without us he wouldn't last long. We all think that Afghanistan is a bit too important to our National Security to just get out. That doesn't leave much in the way of options, now does it. I'd like to see fewer of our young people dying over there and one way to help that happen would be to see the leadership of Afghanistan show us a little more respect. Just show a lot of affection and protection to someone else and a lot less to Karzai. I wonder how he'd react to that?

A Foot for the Mouths of Both Parties

In the Right shoe is the foot of the Chairman of the Republican National Party, in the Left shoe is the Vice President of the United States. Both seem determined to outdo each other in causing embarrassment for their parties. I suppose they cancel each other out. On the one hand you have Joe, who rides the commuter train, on the other you have Mike who rides a private jet and likes girly shows. On the one hand you have Joe with his foot in his mouth about every other day, on the other hand you have Mike who has his foot in his mouth only about every other week. They would be funny if it weren't for the fact that they both reflect their respective parties to the tee. To be fair there are others who would make great stars on the comedy channel or SNL, but these two are representing our countries best. If they're our best, we need work. Another question I have is, why is it that people with such large axes to grind seem to get to be leaders of opposition parties? Now I don't mean to poke fun at the Republicans, but right now they're the opposition party, and they are chock full of folks ready to find fault with everything the Democrats do. Another question I have is, why is it that the party in power never sees any good in what the opposition party has to say? Do you suppose that both parties aren't worth their salt?

OK for you, Bankers.

All right. Here's the deal. After the "Great Depression", our government put some pretty tight regulations on bankers. Some felt they were too tight. Maybe yes, maybe no, but there was no dreadful collapse of our economy for quite a long time. Then in the 80s things started to loosen up. Most folks thought Bankers had learned a really good lesson and anyway there was government guarantees on bank accounts etc. So some of the regulations came off, but also some new innovations to banking began to show up. Some folks have called them shadow-banking innovations and institutions, with no regulation what-so-ever. Now was the time for some very high flying. Big bucks, and I mean big bucks started flowing to the high-fliers. None of them gave any thought to bubbles bursting or bottoms falling out. It was just giant bonuses all the way baby. Well, of course, bubbles did burst and bottoms did fall out, but the high-fliers still wanted those giant bonuses even if they were to blame for the crash-landing. See, they still don't believe they're at fault. So when a responsible government wants to place some regulation on these high flying innovations, who do you think is fighting it? I can tell you this much, it ain't the folks who lost their retirement plans or homes. It's the high-fliers and the congressional types who depend on the largess from these high-fliers. Sorta like saying, "Don't tread on my campaign donors". Don't ya just love politicians too. They assure you they have your best interests at heart while they're cutting your heart out to sell to somebody else. They're poster children for term limits. They're almost as bad as the high-flying bankers they represent. Well, OK, they're worse.

EPA rides to the rescue

The EPA has raced at breakneck speed to save us from the savagery of Mountaintop removal Mining. Now, after only an unbelieveably short few decades, they have stopped one single new mine from scalping a mountaintop in West Virginia. Now, why woud they do that, you ask? Well, because they dump the rubble into the valleys around it. So what, you ask? well, they fill in about nine miles of streams. So what, you ask? Well, toxic minerals drain off into what's left of the streams, down-stream. So what, you ask? Well, those toxic chemicals flow into the rivers that a great many people in cities along the way get their drinking water. Oh. Good for the EPA. Now we'll never have to worry. you say. Well, not quite. The EPA only put a hold on the project until they hear public comment. And guess who plans to comment, and file suit against that hold. The argument is that they already have a federal permit to do it. They have a, WHAT? A federal permit, that's what. Well what idiot approved such a permit? Actually, they've been giving out those permits for a very long time. In fact in Northeastern Pennsylvania, West Virginia and elsewhere in the country, permits to do all sorts of things that are harmful to human life, have been getting approved for as long as the Federal government has been involved with regulating such things. Now along comes the EPA, who says 'this is a bad idea'. Who do them think them is? Just exactly what's more important anyway? Cheap electric or people's lives. You know the answer to that. Turn the light on.

China! Again!

I know. You've heard a lot about China, and most of it suggests they're the bad guy. Well, I'm here to tell you they pretty much are. The send us their contaminates and toxic substances in our babyfood and toys and a whole host of other things. They steal our companies trade secrets and probably our nations secrets as well. They own more and more of our loans, which means they own more and more of our country. And one of the ways they do this is by manipulating their currency against the dollar. Now, I'm sure you've heard or read about how this works for them. It gives them an unfair advantage against every other country in the world. So what are we or anyone else doing about it? We're sitting around wringing our hands and wishing they would stop it. What good is that doing? Well for one thing it keeps our hands busy. In fact that's about all it does' No, in fact that's all it does. So, what would happen if we called them to task on it? They'd get mad at us. How bad would that be? Their stealing us blind. Cheating us and the rest of the world. Sending us toxic products. How bad could it be if they get mad at us? They're stealing from us. It's time to get firm. But what if they call in their loans to us? They're stealing from us. Do you get it? Their crooks and liars. Between good guys and bad guys, their the bad guys.

WHAT A GREAT IDEA

What a great idea and it isn't even original. A guy by the name of Phil Keisling who was the Sec'y of State in Oregon from 1991 to 1999 wrote about it the N.Y. Times today. If you're like me, you're sick and tired of listening to these rabidly partisan politicians, foaming at the mouth about how terrible the other party is. Now I admit, I've actually gotten bitten by that bug a couple of times myself. When you hear the other party, whichever it is, telling such lies they should get pepper on the tongue or soap in the mouth, you want to scream. Well that's exactly what they want. It's called the Two Party System of government. Instead of giving us good government, which is what was intended when it was initiated, it's become a home for fanatics who don't represent the people, only a particular cause. Well anyway, the idea is to have a completely open Primary. No political party would be guaranteed a slot in the General Election. Only the top two Primary vote-getters. It would be a runoff between the two people with the most votes in the Primary Election. There would be no point to partisanship. Anybody could run. Party affiliation wouldn't gain you anything. By golly, that would be excitingly refreshing. Like a cold brew without the wife telling you not to drink.

AHA! Just as I thought

Aha! Just as I thought. We're still trying to win two wars on the cheap. Iraq is still shaky so we can't pull our troops out yet. Meanwhile the Afghan war, which if you will remember, we've been in since 2001, and where the real threat came from, we're still trying to fight with fewer than we had in Iraq. So now with the "surge" attacking in the south, the insurgents are retaking in the north. It's a case of surge and re-surge. It'd be funny if it weren't so deadly serious. People are more worked up about providing health care to everyone in America then they are about our young people dying in a country many of our people don't give two hoots about. They should, but they don't. I guess if it's OK to fight these wars on the cheap and allow young Americans to die for lack of fighting a real war, by which I mean overwhelm the enemy completely, then why worry about people here in America not having proper health care. It makes perfect sense. It's completely illogical, but makes perfect sense. Want to know what would make perfect sense and be perfectly logical too? Provide health care for all Americans and either fight the war with all the troops and equipment that's needed or get out. Now I understand the reasoning of the fiscal conservatives. They hate having us in debt. But they want us to fight without everything we need. That costs a lot more in the long run, and they don't want to spend the money to make sure everyone has health care, but that costs more in the long run too. That sounds a lot like shortsighted thinking.

EPA to study gas drilling effects on drinking water

How about that. The EPA is going to study the effects of drilling for natural gas on our drinking water supply. I don't see anything wrong with that. They're punching mile deep holes and blasting the Marcelles Shale in Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia to get at the gas. It'd be nice to know it's OK to do that. Of course, the gas companies have been doing it for a bit now, so it's good to see EPA rush in to check it out. It'd be nice if they could rush in to check out if coal mining is harmful to our drinking water too. That's been happening for a lot longer. The difference is that the gas is over a mile down and our drinking water comes from a lot closer to the surface. Like the coal mines. And what about this Mountaintop Removal coal mining. When they slice off the top of a mountain, dump it into the valley streams and claim they're going to give us clean coal. How about that, EPA? Is that safe. Oh. Maybe you aren't allowed to check that. Maybe there's a law against disturbing the Coal Barons. Maybe that means that gas drilling is safe. If it weren't safe, do you really think the EPA would be allowed to investigate it? Why, harrumph, some Senator would put the stops to that, for sure.

How can this be?

Has enough been said about it yet? I guess not. I'm talking about financial reform. Do you remember how the financial world nearly caused the downfall of our economy?How about how we nearly wound up in a depression? In fact some people, mostly people who lost their jobs, still think we're in one? Or the fact that we're in a severe recession? How about how we had to bail so many of them out of the mess they caused, remember that? Do you remember the big bankers testifying before congress and saying this was just another bump in the road that was to be expected from time to time? Well, after all that and, oh yeh, remember that we suffered through the Great Depression because the financial world played fast and loose with other peoples money? And after that, our country came together and placed safeguards on them so it wouldn't happen again. Which it didn't. Until the safeguards were removed, because we were assured that the folks in charge of the financial world, knew how to safeguard themselves. Well it turns out they did know how to safeguard themselves. Yep. Giant bonuses. That's the way to safeguard yourself, if you're a financial industry bigwig. Well, now after all that, there's still people in congress who don't want safeguards put on these high flyers. That's right. They don't want us to stifle economic growth. Or something like that. What growth are they worried about, anyway? Is it the growth of giant bonuses they fear for? Or maybe the growth of campaign donations? That's important, ya know. Actually it's both, I think, and something else. Something even more important. What could be more important than bonuses and campaign donations, you ask? POWER! That's right, raw power. These folks don't have enough of it to suit them right now and that's what they want to reform. They want to reform the government so they are in as nearly complete power as they can get. Now, don't you feel better about them blocking financial reform?

School standardization

I don't know about you, but I've been concerned for our countries educational system and our ability to lead the world in technology and innovation for some time. Now, along comes our nations governors with the best idea they've had in, well, maybe forever. They actually got together, Republicans and Democrats, without partisan politics, and decided to standardize the educational system of all the states, so that a third grader in Indiana would be learning the same thing, at the same time, as a third grader in Maine or California or Florida or anywhere. Well almost anywhere, but I'll get back to that. No. Wait. I'll talk about that now. This is great news for everybody unless you live in Texas or Alaska. They don't like this idea. The Texas governor say's that Texans know best what to teach their kids. They do? As for Alaska, they aren't saying much of anything. Must be watching Russia. Now if we can only get the governors to raise the scholastic bar a little each year, we might begin to catch up with those countries that passed us out. Presumably Texas and Alaska will figure things out for themselves someday. But as for the rest of the country, three cheers. Do you suppose that Texas and Alaska are really not part of America? Or can we at least claim they're not?

Health care

Why is it that we can't seem to get health care reform? I wonder about that a lot. Most of the answer is that most of the folks that are against it, are willing to tell some pretty tall tales in order to kill any reform. Why is it that they want to kill reform? Well, there are some folks in the health care and Insurance industries who don't want anyone cutting into their profits. Then there are some folks who think it won't work and will cost too much. There are some folks who think we already have good health care for everybody. Then there are some folks who are afraid that if it gets passed, the current administration will gain an advantage from it. By not passing it they think they'll gain that advantage. Now the folks who think it might not work or will cost too much are, at least, honest. Wrong maybe, but honest. The folks who are afraid of loosing some of their profits are somewhat honest. I mean there's nothing wrong with making profits. It's good for the economy. It just isn't a good reason to block reform. The folks who think we already have good health care for everybody, live in a bubble. Don't pay any attention to them. They don't have any idea what's going on. The folks who are afraid of loosing an advantage are just plain dishonest. Now, I think the current Health Care bill is far from perfect, but it's a country mile better than what we have. If we don't pass this bill, it will be decades before we get another chance and before we get that chance the current system will bankrupt the country. So, what's your pleasure? An imperfect bill or America down the tubes? I've already called my Congressman and Senators. How about you?

Is Obama the Joker

Well, the Republicans got caught playing fast and loose with the truth. Not that the Democrats don't do the same kinds of things, but they didn't get caught this time. Now, the Republican leadership is saying they don't condone such things, which they do. We both know they condone such thing all the time. In fact both parties condone telling whoppers all the time. They'd rather lie than tell the truth, even if the truth would help them more. It's just that they're hooked on lies. It's like taking up smoking. It's easy to start, but almost impossible to stop. Now, there are times when a lie is good for the sole and relationships. Like telling folks you went for a walk in the woods when you actually went out of state to see your mistress, or when you tell someone not to report the beating they got from some politicians assistant. But it's not so good if you charged the out of state trip to your state government or told your police department to tell the person who got beat up not to talk. The point to all this is that all these lies haven't helped any of these politicians become more beloved, except maybe by other politicians. They seem to like it pretty well. Sort of gives them the chance to hone their own skills, so to speak. Sure could be nice if we had some ethics committees in government, wouldn't it? Better yet. What if we didn't need ethics committees in the first place? You know. Like if politicians knew lies were inappropriate. Ah well, we can always wish for candyland.

Oil & Gas advertizing

HRUMPF! Have you seen, OK, of course you have. Those TV ads where supposedly everyday people say something like" I don't think they should tax energy, especially with the economy in such bad shape". Sounds like it makes good sense, doesn't it? Problem is, nobody is suggesting we add any taxes to oil and natural gas right now, that I'm aware of. What is being suggested is that we stop subsidizing oil and natural gas after many, many decades of doing so. It's not the same thing. Especially when you consider that year after year the oil and gas industry has been making record profits. In fact I'm not sure why we've continued to subsidize these people for as long as we have, with sweetheart leases and other deals. They certainly haven't needed the help to keep from going on welfare, now, have they? No. What has been suggested is that if we stopped subsidizing these multi-billion dollar people, then we could use that money to start subsidizing other forms of developing energy sources to help get them on their feet and get the price down to where they can be competitive. See, here's the thing, if oil and gas are subsidized, even though they don't need it now, then we can't afford to subsidize other new energy sources, and then gas and oil have an unfair advantage. Now I'm all for giving these poor underprivileged oil barons a leg up, but do they need my arm too?

DON'T SHOOT YET!

Hey! I saw you lookin at my pecan pie. Them's fightin looks, pilgrim! DRAW! Actually, I'm not sure anyone will actually fight over a piece of pie, but I can see, through my crystal ball, gun fights at Old Faithful over a front row seat for the show. Or even the local Opera House could erupt into the gunfight at OK Corral. Yes folks, your fightin Supreme Court is hard at work trying to figure out how to allow people to carry handguns in some of the most surprising locations. Now, I'm sure all the Sportsman's clubs will be out to lynch me, but I just don't see the need to carry a firearm to places like our National Parks and now, maybe, in places like Chicago, then next in your town. I like to hunt, and I like target shooting, and I strongly believe in my right to own firearms, and use them. But there's a difference in having the right to sensibly own and use a firearm, and carrying one around places like Old Faithful or downtown in my town. For what? To protect yourself? I thought that's what cops were for. If you're a person that suspects he or she's in danger, maybe you should stay home. Or get a permit, or hire Blackwater. They'll shoot anyone you want. Seems to me we'd all be better off if we used a little common sense. Not too much. Just a little.