Is That Money American Or Not?

Folks, we're about to begin to see the results of the Supreme Court's decision to allow unknown amounts of money from unknown donors given to Super PACs for the express and exclusive purpose of attacking any other candidate considered to be a viable opponent of the favored candidate. Now the law is very explicit about Super PACs not having any formal relationship to the favored candidate. And all candidates are meticulously careful not to have any visual or audible relationships with these Super PACs. So what they do is to have a senior member or members of their election campaigns resign and then take over as heads of the Super PACs. That way they get to have their way without having their way. So when you see a candidate say nice things and talk only about important topics, the Super PACs say only nasty things, often out of context about the opponent (s). That's what a SP is all about. Attack. Attack. Attack. It's all about shock and aw. Help the voters to see this opponent or that one in the worst possible light. Now remember, the Supreme Court decided that this type of political campaign was and is important to the political process. Voters need to hear this from anonymous sources, funded by anonymous donors, so that they are unable to determine if it's a true depiction of the candidate under fire. Does that make you wonder why the Supreme Court would want to allow such lying and cheating to influence our elections? And make no mistake, it is doing just that. If you doubt my words, take a look at what has happened to Newt Gingrich in the past few weeks. Don't get me wrong, I think Newt is unfit to be president. But I'm not convinced he should be attacked anonymously. Look at Ron Paul. Another candidate in the campaign. At least he has the honesty to stand up and point out Newt's shortcomings. What bothers me is that we don't know where this money is coming from. As I've said more than once. Could be China or Russia or who knows where or from whom. I just can't for the life of me understand why the Supreme Court would allow this to happen. It will cause real problems for our democracy one day. And we have the Supreme Court to thank for it. Mark my words. Enjoy the New Year.

The Stock Tax Two Step.

Have I got a deal for you. First you have to start a company. I don't care what the company does. Even if it does nothing but make cutesy lawn decorations. Of course you have to incorporate,but you can get all the info off the Internet. Then you go public and appoint yourself as CEO. That's the hard part. Then you give yourself or rather your company gives yourself stock options. Now to start with your stock is worth oh, I don't know, let's say one penny. Then you offer the stock to the public. When the value hits, say, ten dollars, you, the CEO, can sell a million shares and haul in ten million dollars. The company, you, claims only the value of one penny each and presumably claims a loss, but you the CEO claims only a penny each. No, I don't get it either, but high priced tax lawyers do get it and corporations and CEOs are making a killing over this. What it means is they're paying a whole lot less in corporate taxes and in many cases, no taxes. When they pay less taxes, you and I have to pay more taxes. That much I do understand. The government wants more each year, the corporations pay less each year. Where do you think all that extra money is gonna come from? I'll tell you this much. Santa doesn't have room in his sleigh for it. Well here's what I think. I think the government has three choices. It can charge us more in taxes (the preferred way) or it can borrow the money from China or it can reduce spending. Now if it reduces spending, a lot of people are going to be mad because either they get less from the government or their job is eliminated. If they borrow it from China, it means more interest payments. That leaves you and me. That's the way they wanted it in the first place. Funny how things always works out that way, isn't it?

Tear Down That High Price For Oil.

Hey, ya know what? I think I've figured out how to get the price of oil back down to where it was ten years ago. Or maybe even fifty years ago. That's right fifty years ago, and it's not really all that big of a secret. I think you would have figured it out yourself if you had been reading an article in the paper like me that pretty much spelled it out. Here's what the article said. Oil prices have dropped on news of increased fears over European debt crisis. Simple enough. If people are worried about other debt, they aren't worrying about oil. Well actually that's not quite it. See, if European debt causes countries to fail, then those countries and peoples won't be using as much oil and so there would be a surplus of oil which would mean the price of oil would go down. The trick to lower prices on oil is to cut back on the numbers of people who want to buy oil. Here, look. If suddenly China decided not to use any more oil, there would be a whole lot more oil available to us and for a lot less money. In fact if you could convince enough people not to use oil any more, you could get the price of gasoline down to under a buck a gallon. The real trick is to figure out how to convince all those suckers they would be happier without oil. There are several methods that come to mind. Threats comes to mind. Slight of hand trickery is another. But probably the surest way would be to go to war. In fact go to ten or twelve wars, all at once. I'm convinced we've been practicing this method for the last decade or more. You know, sort of rehearsing for the real thing. Now don't get lost in the explanation here. I know that the actual prosecution of war increases the demand for oil. But only in the short term. An added side benefit is that producing nations would ramp up their capabilities, so that when the wars are over, there would be even more oil available at even lower prices. Now you might suggest that these producing countries would simply cut back on production at the end of hostilities. Not so. Not if we threaten them.

What's All This With Iran?

Can anyone explain to me just how we can implement the rules congress put on us to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb? I mean, I understand they want us to make it almost impossible for
Iran to sell it's oil by making it nearly impossible for any other country or company to do business with Iran and America too. I get that. What I don't get is how we do that and make sure Iran doesn't retaliate by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz? This Strait of Hormuz is the bottleneck in the Persian Gulf where most of the worlds oil comes from. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE, and Iran, you name it, if they've got oil, there's a good chance they ship it through this Strait of Hormuz. And anyone who thinks Iran can't sink a tanker or two and effectively block the strait isn't thinking clearly. Now, don't get me wrong, I think we could stop Iran in it's tracks. Well except that we really can't afford to get into another war with another fanatical dictatorship. Especially one as big as Iran. Why do you think we chose to invade Iraq instead of Iran? Iran would have been a much tougher foe. That and the fact that they do have the ability to block that strait and cut off all that oil. Think we've got a fragile economy now? Try it without Saudi oil and double or triple the price of gasoline and heating oil. So then it comes down to letting them shut off oil supplies to half the world or letting them build a bomb.
So you might say they would never shut the strait because it would stop their ability to ship oil too, right? Two things here.  We said we were going to stop their ability to sell their oil anyway and nobody has suggested that Iran is run by level headed leaders who would not do anything to provoke America. Remember our Embassy in Iran? The one they overran and held our diplomats hostage for about a year? I don't think provoking America is something they worry about a lot. I'm not sure what would worry them. But whatever it is, it still might not stop them from hurting us. And like I said, we really don't need another war right now.

Legislating As A Profession.

Have ya ever given thought to running for congress? Well let me tell you right here and now, it ain't all wine and roses. There's a lot of hard work that goes with that job. Maybe not so much actually serving, because they are often out of session, which means lots of days and weeks off from the "not all that hard" work of legislating. After all, how hard can it be to disagree with the other side and not get anything done. At least not get anything done until the very last minute before you go back home for some well deserved time off. The thing is, they get all the work done, all the heavy lifting done in a couple of days. They could actually only show up two days before the close of the term and still get all the work done. Now you may wonder why we pay them so much if they only really need to work a couple of days a year. The thing is though, they need the extra time to attend fund raisers for the campaigns. They need a lot of time. In fact they need the whole year and barely have time to do any legislating. But speaking of pay, I just read that way back in 1984, the median average net wealth of a member of the House of Representatives was $280,000 adjusted for inflation, while the same average for all Americans was $20,600, again adjusted. But in 2010, the average house member had a worth of $725,000 and we Americans had an average of, are you ready for this? $20,500. That's right, $100 less. And none of these figures include our homes. So if your congressman is worth three quarters of a million, plus his home, and you're worth twenty grand, how well does your congressman understand your needs and concerns? If he has to spend most of his, or her, waking hours scraping together donations to run his campaign in order to stay in office, how would he have time to find out what you need? He's too busy trying to fill his own needs. You think he can find out when he campaigns and shakes a few hands and kisses a few babies, if they still do that? No, his speech writers write his speeches, and his election committee plans his agenda. He has no idea what you really need. Oh he reads the paper. Most likely the Wall Street Journal or a national progressive paper, and he may even get the local papers delivered to his office so his staff can read them. I guess that, short of running for the office yourself, the only way for people to be able to honestly represent their constituents is to be one. And the only way they can do that is to have term limits. So they don't have to campaign any more. A side benefit of that would be they wouldn't be beholden to wealthy contributors and big corporations. I don't mean the corporations couldn't or shouldn't be allowed to be heard, it's just that they shouldn't be allowed to be heard instead of the people. Have a Happy New Year.

We Do What With Our Foreign Aid?

I just found out something that I still can't quite understand. Everybody knows that China really isn't our friend. It never has been and it isn't likely to be our friend for a very long long time, if ever. They send us poison tainted products, steal our trade and military secrets, hack into our industrial technology and vote against our attempts to make the world safer, in the United Nations, just to name a few. They also hold nearly a trillion dollars of our debt. None of this is, however, all that new. But here's something else that's not very new. And I'll bet most of you didn't know this. Each year for over a decade, in fact it's going on almost two decades, we're sending foreign aid to China. That's right. We borrow money from China, and pay interest on it, and then turn around and send China foreign aid, for free. And I'm not talking about peanuts. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Some years it's been over a billion. Heck, we even give Russia nearly a billion. In fact we send foreign aid to at least four of the ten wealthiest countries in the world. Now I happen to think that it's important for America to help other countries who are trying to dig themselves out from being among the poorest countries and help them get on their feet. But I don't think China happens to fit in that category. Not even Russia. And while I don't think that these countries we help must support America in everything, even if it hurts their country, I also don't think that proven enemies are deserving of our gifts of help. Especially when they obviously don't need it. And even more obviously when they send us their toxic waste and steal from us. But congresses have continued to approve it, as well as presidents and state departments and a whole bunch of other departments. Helloooo? Does anyone read what they sign down there in Washington ? Helloooo? I don't think they can hear me. I think that's part of the problem with Washington. In fact I think that's the whole problem with Washington.

To Judge Or Not To Judge? That Is The Question.

It may sound odd coming from me but as much as I disagree with many court decisions, especially from the Supreme Court, I have to say that Mr Gingrich's idea that he would eliminate some courts and arrest judges he disapproves of, is not just over the top, it's over the universe. Let's suppose he got his way. He could then remove any judge who, in his considered opinion, was not conservative enough. That's okay for him, but since he could only serve for eight years, and at some point it would be extremely likely that a progressive president would be elected. That liberal leaning president could then remove any, in his opinion, unfit conservative judges. All this would work out well for criminals because eventually there would be no judges at all. The thing is, federal judges are appointed for life for a reason. The reason is politics. Politicians, being politicians, will always look for a way to get their hooks into our legal system. Some are doing it because of dark agendas, but most just want to bend the courts to their own desires. The thing is, judges are supposed to be independent of and above  these attempts. But if they have to be constantly looking over their shoulders to see which party will be in control next term, there won't be time to rule on cases. Now I agree that in some cases that would be a good thing. The real question is, in who's opinion we should trust? If judges would actually be independent of, or above politics all would be perfect. Well, except that most people, on both sides, would be certain that these judges were favoring one side or the other. As for me, I favor judges who favor my opinions. What about you?

When Does A Lie Become A Truth?

Did you know that there are several ways to count up how many people get employed for a proposed project? Pretty much any project where it's likely to get quoted by politicians? Well there are. Maybe more than a couple, but here are two. the first way is when a politician, especially during an election campaign. Or even a nominating campaign. You guessed it. A politician will take information about a company who wants to build or wants a tax break or whatever, the politician will take a suggested number of new jobs of, oh lets say 100, just for the sake of conversation. The politician will them claim that there will be 1800 new jobs created. There are two reasons for this practice. First is to make that politician look good, the second is to make the opponent look bad. What did you expect? How can you make the opponent look bad? Just claim the opponent is against it. He might be the one that actually talked the company into moving here, but if you shout it loud enough and often enough, it becomes the truth. Understand that both parties take part in this process, although one party is a little better at it than the other. There is another way for jobs numbers to get inflated. In this approach,  an independent company looks at the new 100 job industry and says, if one worker works two years, that's two worker years. So if they believe the company will stay here for eighteen years and keeps it's workforce at 100, that would be 1800 worker years. Back to example one. The politician only hears 1800, not 1800 worker years. Even if it's clearly explained to the politician. What about a temporary jobs project? Let's take the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas. In this one you can see both examples used. Claims from 20,000 to over 100,000 jobs are being claimed by politicians, but the fact is only between 5000 and 6000 temporary jobs will be created and about 50 permanent jobs expected. The company that made the projections on jobs used the worker year plan and came up with 13000 jobs. The State Department's office expects about 5000 or 6000 temp jobs, but as I said, politicians are making all sorts of claims. Why now? The politicians want others to look bad. Why? Because we're approaching an election year. Just remember, just because they'll shout it loudly and often, doesn't make it so.

There's Always A Solution, If You Look Hard Enough.

Have you ever heard of the Naval Support Facility Thurmont? Here's a clue; it's located in Catoctin Mountain Park, Maryland. Now do you recognize it? What if I were to call it Camp David? Would that help? Yes? Good. What's that? Some of you still don't know? Not to worry. It's been the Presidential Summer Residence since Franklin Roosevelt put his claim on it. But of the last five presidents, none use it very much. Oh, they might invite a visiting head of state to join them at the Camp for some private time, but not so much. The thing is, it's supposed to be very, very nice. But if it isn't getting used all that much, it's costing us a bundle to keep it up when we're not really using it. How about this? We keep having crisis after crisis unfold in congress. They just can't seem to come to a consensus on very much at all. Often it happens just before a congressional recess. There are two reasons for this. First there are a lot of congressional recesses, and second, neither political party wants to do anything that might be construed to be a win for the other side. It doesn't seem to matter if it might be a win for the American people, so long as it doesn't help the other side. So here's my suggestion for these kinds of problems. Whenever one of these impasses comes up, all the leadership from both parties from both houses must be loaded onto old school buses and transported to Camp David, where they must remain until an agreement is reached. If an agreement still can't be reached, the Air Force would bring a flying boxcar to the closest airstrip where the leaders would board the plane for the trip to Guantanamo Bay where they can also be held incommunicado until a agreement is reached. Then, if congress still can't get the bill to pass, all those voting against the bill could follow the same ritual as the leadership. Now, you might say that this would slow down the process of running the government. Not so. The president can run things during congressional recesses, he (or she) can run it during times of congressional segregation and interrogation, including water boarding.

These Feet Ain't Made For Dancing!

Well, now they've done it! Now the fat is in the fryer! Now the time has come to act resolutely! Now they've gone and upset nature! Now it's time to hold their feet to the fire! China has really gone and done it. They have slapped a cruel tariff on chicken feet. A 100% tariff to be specific. The claim, and it's totally unfair and untrue, is that the U.S. is unfairly supporting this vital industry by providing lower feed costs to chicken farmers so they can dump the feet at below cost on China, thereby unfairly competing with Chinese chicken farmers. But the thing is our chicken farmers are paying higher costs, not lower costs for feed. That coupled with the fact that in America, chicken feet are a waste problem that must be disposed of, while in China, chicken feet are a delicacy, consumed with beer. So not only is China messing with our chicken growers, they're messing with the Chinese people, who love their chicken feet. Especially the plumper, cleaner, tastier American chicken feet, to those of the Chinese poultry industry. China just doesn't have a chicken leg to stand on. Or thigh or breast, for that matter. My fellow Americans, if push comes to cluck, we need to stand upwind of the chicken ranch and loudly proclaim our solidarity with the plight and the flight of the lowly chicken. Now you may think this is just chicken feed when it comes to the poultry business, but the chicken feet export industry has risen to over $1 billion per year. It's time to put our feet down and peck a fight with China over this obvious infraction of the WTO rules. We've submitted a complaint to that organization and are awaiting a decision. In the meantime, all is not lost. A strong black market has sprung up in China for American feet. Chicken feet that is. But the point is, we deserve to export chicken feet without this unfair treatment. If we can win on this issue, it will be a feather in our caps. And a few less feet in the landfills. WE'RE FOR FATTER, JUICIER FEET!

Dashing Through The Mall, With A One Person Open Cart.

Tis the season for shopping and for the past several days, I've done just that. Now I tell you of my exploits in the field so you will know of my expertize in the giving of advise to both shoppers and stores. First let me suggest that if you must shop, if you are so foolish as to believe that you know better than those you would wish to give gifts to, what it is that they actually want, including the right sizes, colors, models and brands, if you actually think that, let me say here and now, you are wrong. But if you insist on doing it anyway, let me caution you that the experience will likely cause some substantial discomfort. Before you go, take some extra strength, long lasting pain relievers and don't forget something for acid indigestion. For the stores, whether in a mall, shopping center or a stand alone, consider that the parking lot is, in all likelihood, ill designed. Also, you might consider that, while handicapped parking is both advisable and required, you should not devote more handicapped spaces than unrestricted spaces. I consider those spaces reserved for expectant mothers, for the purpose of this narrative, as handicapped. Spaces should be just wide enough so as to allow only some minor damage to the car next to the one that just pulled in and opened the door. Once inside the store, I would suggest uniformed traffic patrolmen. They should be generous with tickets for shoppers who park their cart in the middle of a narrow isle, then proceed to stand along side it while reading all of the exciting literature on the outside of a shrink wrapped sale item. Tickets for speeding out of blind intersections are also recommended. And store managers, be sure to place additional display shelving in the middle of isles so they are not quite wide enough to allow a cart to pass through or turn around. These tickets could be in the form of a reduction in the discounts being offered. Another innovation I would suggest is turn signals on shopping carts. That way when that lady who isn't watching what she's doing, can put the left turn signal on, so that she can turn right. An even better idea would be to begin your seasonal shopping six months earlier.

Boy, Doesn't It Feel Great To Be Safer Now?

Well, it looks like it's official. We could well see the day when speaking out against the government could land you in prison, without trial, for life. Folks like me might have to go into hiding and hope they can't be found and will probably have to stop saying anything about the government at all, just to be safe. You think I'm kidding? The new rule applies to terrorists and it states that terror suspects must be turned over to the military (which doesn't want them) for incarceration and interrogation. What's wrong with that? Here's the thing, terror suspect is open to interpretation. And since you wouldn't have the right to a lawyer and since you would be held incommunicado, forever, who's to say whether or not you're a terrorist or just fed up with the government. That's because terrorists are usually unhappy with the government for one reason or another. So if you speak out against the government, you could be considered a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer or are fomenting terrorism. Anyway you slice it, one night you could find yourself hauled off to a special hoosegow where you'll get the chance to feel like your drowning or get hooked up to the car battery. Just imagine how much you'll enjoy sleeping on a cold concrete bed. Anyway, you get to enjoy all these luxuries, compliments of our Congress and the President. Congress slipped it into the defense budget and the President, after hemming and hawing for a little bit, has agreed to accept it. Is this a great country or what? The whole idea is to make us all safer from terrorism. If you're in a "detention Center" you will be safe from terrorism, I'm sure. That is unless you consider torture to be a form of terrorism. So I guess the thinking is that if only we would be willing to give up enough, or all, of our civil rights and all other rights, the government can make us safe. Or at least those the government considers worthy of being safe, will be safe. That probably doesn't include me. How about you?

Oh, China's At It Again.

Here's the problem with China. When we export a Jeep Grand Cherokee of similar SUV or car to China, they have built in tariffs that increase the price of the vehicle. That Jeep that might sell for $28,000 in America will cost you $85,000 in China. Pretty steep. Now they're increasing the fees by about 22%. That'll put the price for a Jeep over the $100,000 mark. Now I should say that while Jeeps are nice, they ain't in the $100 K+ category. Of course the WTO will have some say as to whether or not that fee will be allowed. See, China is mad because we complained about their subsidizing solar panels they sell in America making them cheaper than it costs the Chinese companies to manufacture them. So what's wrong with that? Well if America would like to create jobs in the solar panel industry, and it would, it will make it impossible to sell them unless the American company is willing and able to sell them for less than the cost of making them. It would be a neat trick if they could do it, but I'm pretty sure it would put the company out of business in short order. That's because companies are really in business to make money, not give it away. Now if the employees would be willing to pay to work for that company instead of being paid by the company, it might work. Thing is though, I don't know anybody who would be willing or able to work under those conditions. So China is not playing fair and got mad that they got caught. That's too bad for them, but it's not too bad for us. If we didn't catch them when they cheat, they'd quick enough put all of our industries out of business. I'm not sure how they think we'd then be able to afford their products, but I can tell you that we most assuredly would not. The thing is,world trade depends on everybody playing by the same set of rules. Many countries, in fact most countries do play fair. But a few prefer to have an edge. They like to get that edge by cheating. Those are the guys you have to watch out for. It just so happens that China is one of those guys. It's not the Chinese people that are the problem. It's the leadership. Ain't it funny how leaders are usually the problem? No matter what the problem is?

A Pipeline To Where?

Well, it's my old friend the XL Pipeline that's back in the news again. So here we go again. The claims are that it will create tens of thousands of jobs and help to decrease our dependence on middle eastern oil. Okay, let's see about that. The owners of the pipeline, TransCanada, a Canadian company says about 6500 temporary jobs in construction. The State Department, which was about to approve it, agrees. Not ten thousand? Cornell University's Global Labor Institute says it will create about fifty permanent jobs. Where's the ten thousand? Maybe in cleanup for spills. The pipeline would lead to Texas Gulf coast refineries who have contracts that will require them to ship most of the oil overseas. So here's what the pipeline would mean for America. It would cross sensitive lands and aquifers where the residents, of both parties, don't want it, in order to tie up U.S. refineries in order for the refined oil to be shipped to foreign countries. Now tell me again how this thing is in our best interest? I don't mean to be a stickler for good decisions, but this just isn't the issue we need to hang our hats on. Let's face it, it's the dirtiest type of oil, which must be cleaned up before it can be shipped out. That means there will be more waste to get rid of. The waste won't be good for anything but pollution. It could work out pretty well for that use. So if you want to buy a barrel of pollution, they would be able to provide it. In fact, if you would like this waste stored in your backyard, maybe around the pool, have they got a deal for you. The other claim is that if we don't take it, they will just run a pipeline to Canada's west coast, which is much closer anyway, and refine it and ship it from there. If they can do that, why do they want to pipe it across America? Ya know what I think? I think they don't want it in Canada any more than we do here in America. And another thing is that they're going to have to destroy a whole lot of forestland just to get at it in the first place. Nope, if I were a smart politician, I wouldn't want my hat on it.

Is That A Mark On Your Ear?

Here's the skinny on the fat. Earmarks will no longer appear on any piece of legislation. Word has it that the new term will be "Funding Requests". See, if a friend, relative or influential supporter ( rich guy) requests funding, then that's something our legislators can add to a bill being proposed. It won't be an earmark because it was requested. As opposed to the legislator just putting something in the bill that wasn't requested by somebody. It's all very clear and above board. Well, no wait. Actually it's not all that clear. It's more translucent or even opaque and therefore not all that "above board". What I wonder is how long it will take before Funding Requests will become a bad word so they can go back to earmarks? Or will they have to come up with a new name for an old habit? These earmarks/funding requests were supposed to have ended, but in the defense bill they're getting ready to push  through, there are 115 of the things in it. $834,000,000 that they've been able to find and another 31 they're not sure of. Here's the best part. Ya know all those freshmen legislators in their first term? The ones who campaigned against earmarks? Well 20 of them have earmarks in this one piece of legislation alone. Now the reason they can't determine the total number of earmarks is because they've been removed from websites and the like. The thinking was probably that if you can't see them, they don't exist. Except that they do exist and they still cost taxpayers millions. Now, let me assure you that these earmarks, oops I keep forgetting to call them funding requests, these things are bi-partisan. Members of both parties are building them into this over padded bill. So, once again, if your cousin the congressman or your uncle the Senator hasn't asked for your request for funding, just get it in. There's not much time left on this bill.

It's All Down The Royal Hill From Here.

Well now I know things are getting tough. The Queen of England has been laid off. Okay, that's not completely true. She hasn't been laid off. Just her income has been laid off. Presumably she's still expected to work. For free. Now it's not that she can't afford to do that. The simple fact is, it's not even true that she's needed at all. That includes the whole family. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to be cruel, and I realize just how much the English people revere her, but exactly what is it that she does that couldn't be done by a president for substantially less money. Or even a prime minister. Or even a less than prime, minister. Now the idea of this entry today is not to find fault with the Queen or her family, but rather to point out that folks who act like royalty don't always contribute anywhere near what they cost. Take corporate executives, especially Wall Street execs and hedge fund managers. Hey, they make even more than the Queen does, I mean did, and they don't even officiate at state functions. They don't even officially open parliament, or congress. Lord knows they should, since they own it, but they don't even show up for the opening. I would hope that if I owned congress, I'd at least show up for the opening. You know. To sort of cheer them on and remind them that there must be no new taxes on the 1%. Now getting back to the Queen, you don't suppose she did something to get Parliament mad at her, do you? You know, like a public snub. Or even a private snub. Well, now I suspect the Brits will take a second look at these leaders who have short-changed her majesty. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that heads have rolled after the next election. There could even be a no confidence vote. Why can't we call a no confidence vote? They could demand a reinstatement of her Majesty's paycheck Can't have the grand old lady going around in hand-me-down gowns and crowns, now can we? Next thing ya know they'll have her back in the old horse and buggy. A what?            .

Wanna Trade? I'll Give Ya Safety For Freedom, Your Choice.

Well Congress is trying to do it now. In the next defense budget, they want all terrorists and terrorism handled by the military. Sounds strong and smart, right? Wrong. Aside from the questions of Guantanamo Bay and torture, it basically pushes out the agencies best suited to do the work of investigating and interrogating of suspects, the FBI and CIA, and it gives the military the right to detain, even American citizens, indefinitely without trial. Now you could say that it sounds great because we wouldn't have to worry our pretty little heads with handling these bad people. As though we Americans aren't really up to the job of finding, trying and punishing these bad people. We're just not strong enough or smart enough so we need our military to do that for us too. I can imagine that's exactly how every brutal dictatorship in the history of mankind got it's start. Say, fellow citizens, we don't want to bother you with these insignificant details, so just give me the authority to take care of this messy business for ya. We'll be sure to keep you warm and safe from any unpleasant interruptions of the services you want most. No need for you to have to witness this scary business. Problem with this kind of thinking is that once you give them that kind of authority, then they can decide for themselves just who is unworthy of protection under our Constitution. Such as where our Constitution states that every citizen is entitled to a speedy trial by his or her peers. So I guess if you were to speak out against these policies, you could be determined to be a terrorist sympathiser and you would suddenly disappear, never to be seen again. Your family wouldn't know what happened to you. Ya know what? It could even be a case of mistaken identity. Since our current law enforcement system has done a pretty good job of protecting us, does it make sense to give it to the military who hasn't done this kind of work and has never been allowed to be deployed within our borders? Changing from trained to untrained sounds like a blunder to me. Oh, and the military doesn't even want this job. It sounds like the beginning of the end of freedom.

There Are Always Suggestions. There Are Rarely Solutions.

So what's the deal with the so called mortgage crisis? How come so many houses are empty in so many cities and towns across America? I think I've counted about a dozen different reasons for this problem. How many have you heard? Which is your favorite? Is it really such a problem? I mean, why not just rent these houses out. Because there used to be people living there. There must be loads of people looking for someplace to live. Let's face it, not everybody can move back in with mom and dad. What if mom and dad downsized or are in a nursing home? Problem solved. Now on to the next crisis. Not so fast there cowboy. If you were to check these houses out more closely you'd find that behind the high grass in the lawn and the graffiti on the door you'd find that many have had the copper pipes removed from the plumbing and the electrical wiring as well. Then there's the fixtures, electrical, sinks, stoves, kitchen cabinets and pretty much anything else removable that's saleable. Well, maybe the new owners would have wanted to change the decor anyway. A couple of things should be mentioned at this point. First, what new owners? Second, in order to remove wiring and plumbing, you pretty much have to tear up and tear out the inside of the house. Walls, floors, ceilings, the whole shebang. If the reason for foreclosure was that it was worth less than was owed on it, it's worth even less now. In fact it may not be worth fixing back up since there aren't enough buyers that can afford that many homes. Okay then, tear them down, bulldozer them and plant grass on the empty lots. Grass? Who's gonna mow the grass? Elementary kids who don't know the values of getting to work on time and staying for the day, as one candidate suggested? Well then plant trees. Who's gonna pay for this tearing down, bulldozing and tree planting? The Banks that hold property ownership now? Ya think they're interested in spending even more money on any of these ideas with no prospects of getting repaid? Maybe the neighbors would do it. You mean the neighbors that are terrified they'll be the next to lose their homes and are working two or three jobs to make sure they don't? When do you suggest they do it? In their spare time? With the spare money they have? Okay then let the cities and towns buy the properties, tear them down and plant the trees. You mean the cities and towns that are beginning to look at bankruptcy? There are loads of suggestions for the problems, but there are no solutions to the problems at this point. But at least there continues to be foreclosures at an alarming rate. Why would banks continue to do this? They don't. The mortgage servicers do. Who are these mortgage servicers? The companies who handle the mortgages, collect monthly installments and prosecute delinquencies. Why? Money, fees. They don't make as much if the owner stays in the house.

Campaigns Are Tough On Everybody.

I've found what I can only describe as a fatal flaw in the communications industry. It's the hugely inconvenient disconnect. Let me give you the most egregious example of this disconnect problem. I've been trying to register my PAC, PIMP, as a Super PAC. You remember? I'm running for President. Now that should be a simple process of calling the Federal Elections Commission to ask for an application to form a Super PAC, right? Well it isn't just that easy. In fact, because of 'disconnect' I haven't been able to complete the process. Look, it's bad enough that you have to wait for hours just to get through, must be a lot of folks with the same idea as me, and once I get through, there's the forty five minutes on hold listening to music that I wouldn't subject my most serious opponent to, just to get to speak to a recording that tells me to push one for English. Then after an additional fifteen minutes of pushing various buttons, I'm informed my conversation may be recorded for quality purposes. I'll bet. Then it's another ten minutes with music from, oh you know where. Then just when I finally get to speak with a real person, at least I think she's real, I'm so surprised that it takes several minutes for me to remember why I called. I then explain that I want to register my PAC, PIMP, as a Super PAC. Fortunately, I'm able to catch her before she hangs up and explain that PIMP is an acronym for 'Put In My Pocket'. It's invariably here where I'm disconnected by the phone company. I know it's the phone company and not the person at the FEC, because I've already explained to her that it isn't a crank call. The thing is, the more time I have to spend trying to register my Super PAC, PIMP with the FEC, the less time I have to look for voters in the cemetery.

Debate Is Good If You Win. Not So Good Otherwise.

I love to debate my cousin by email. We've been doing it off and on for about a dozen years. He's a moderate conservative and I'm a moderate progressive. But for the sake of debate, we're both rabidly opposites. We've argued everything from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe with side trips to Bush and Obama. He's called me uneducated and uninformed while I call him an elitist aristocrat. He hates regulation while I point out the similarities of the now and the past. If I point to a flaw in a conservative position, he spends substantial efforts in finding the discrepancy in my findings and if he points a finger at a progressive ideal, I quickly prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he's wrong. I tell you this so you'll understand the righteous rightness of my position and his inept attempts to discredit the good of progressives everywhere. On some things we agree. We both think that Washington needs to be housecleaned. The Senate too. We both like the idea of term limits and we both agree that it's never going to happen. We both believe this because, while most people agree with us, most people feel that congress should all be thrown out except for their own special favorite son. Because they're all no good except for this one special favorite son, or daughter. So if you threw everyone out of congress except for the favorite sons and daughters, you really wouldn't be throwing anyone out, now would you? Another thing my cousin and I wouldn't miss is political parties. We do like New Years Eve parties though. About the only way that could happen is with a constitutional amendment to require open primaries where the top two vote getter run in the general election. Can you imagine the full court press the two parties would unleash on that idea?

Why Bother Voting? Gerry Tells Us Why.

I think I mentioned once before about gerrymandering in creating congressional districts within every state that gained or lost population over the last ten years. 2010 was the census year and so this year many states got to carve up the states according to the desires of the majority parties in each state's congress. Well, that's true for all but a very few. But states like Pennsylvania and Texas to name just two, carved it up in favor of the majority in state congress. In Pennsylvania, they have a pretend fair process. Members of both parties get to be on the board that carves up the state, but since one party has a majority, they get more people on the board. Care to guess how good ole Penn's Woods goes? In Texas, they're more open about it. They just have the majority party in the state congress carve it up. Now there are states where the Republicans are in control and others where the Democrats are in control. In that respect, the country is bi-partisan. Back to Texas. They were supposed to get four new seats or districts, which means four more in the U.S. Congress, almost entirely because of the influx Hispanics in the state. So how was the state divided up. Well the new map would have decreased the number of Hispanic leaning districts by one. A neat trick, right? Well the federal courts said it wasn't neat enough and redrew it so that there is an increase of four Hispanic leaning districts. The Texas governor, vise governor and state Atty General are all up in arms, not to mention the majority party in the state house. They're appealing it to the U.S. Supreme Court. So the question to the Supreme Court is; Do citizens get to have their vote count or not? The question to the rest of the country is; What about us? Do we get a voice or not. California has a non-partisan board make the decision. It's final. Why isn't that the law of the land? How come I don't get to have my vote count? How about yours?

Matters Of The Heart And Mind.

Here's a question for ya. How important is it to you that the person we elect next year has the ability to be informed about matters of historical locations? Or foreign affairs? Or voting age, or for that matter what the constitution actually says (not just cherry picked sentences)? How important is it to have someone who is consistently in favor of or against any subject? How about their private lives? How important are dalliances to the presidency? How about a persons ability or willingness to follow through on a campaign promise? How important is a business background or an educational background? How about personal appearance? How important is that? Is it a necessity that our next president be clever in a debate? My guess is that the number one attribute for any successful candidate is appearance. It's like mom always said, "first impressions are lasting impressions". Of course that presumes you don't get too flustered in a debate or interview. It also presumes that someone  else isn't able to appear to be far superior in  the knowledge of all things, or at least all things being discussed. Second is that a person identify with the core desires of the base, regardless of how that affects the country. Now this time around, on the Democrat side, Barrack Obama has nobody up against him. But on the Republican side, there is a host of debutant's awaiting the first dance, or in political terms, the first vote. Who will the handsome prince (voters) choose for the first dance of the gala (Iowa caucuses). The engagement party in Florida (Republican convention) is nearly a year off. Once the betrothal is announced (including the selection of V.P.) comes the coming out parties including bridal showers and bachelor parties. The catch, of course is that there is room for but one marriage ceremony at the church. Only one opportunity to take the vows. So who will be the Republican team to face the Democrat team? As you know, I am among the front runners for the nomination. I hope I can count on all of your votes, from each of you.

Traveling The Highways And Byways And Back Roads.

When is the last time you traveled by automobile to a region you were unfamiliar with? If you were on an interstate highway, or even back country roads, you probably tried to follow the directional signs, right? Have any problems? Uh huh. Here's the thing. Highway signs are designed by two separate groups of people. One group is represented by people who live in the area and are completely familiar with how to get where you want to go and really don't need the signs, but will explain with arrows how to do it. The other group which also designs signs, is represented by the folks who designed the roads in the first place. They too know how to get where they want to go. After all, they designed the highway. So they don't really need the signs either, but they too will explain how to do it with arrows. Where the problem comes in for you, is that all these good and well meaning folks already know how to get "there" and which way to turn. For instance, just because you want to go south, doesn't necessarily mean you will need to turn south. Some times you'll need to turn south, but then sometimes you'll need to turn north, or east or west or stay straight. In other words, it's best if you don't use that compass you bought especially for the trip. Now comes the best part. You are advised to follow the signs directions. So if the sign tells you to get into the left lane as soon as safely possible you need to do so, because, this sign would normally either instruct you to do so as you pass the turn or just far enough ahead for you to get into the left lane just as the next sign instructs you to turn right immediately. That's why the front seat passenger is required to search farther down the road for contradicting signage I don't mean to find fault with the folks who make and place these signs. I don't mean to, but I will. It's not their fault that they already knew how to get "there". It is their fault, though, that they unconsciously assume that you do too. See, if you don't know how to get "there", you will need better instructions as to how to get "there" than you will if you already know how. This is what the sign designer/maker/placer doesn't know. On the other hand, it does afford you the opportunity to see places and parts of Americana you never expected to see. Like the city dump or Charlies Auto Junkyard or the dead end at the local swamp.

Hey! It's My Legacy, Don't Mess With It.

Have you ever contemplated how you will be remembered,what your legacy will be? In order to do that, you have to recognize your own mortality. This isn't an easy exercise. I know that when I pass away, I plan to be cremated and that really burns me up. I worry that after I've gone on to my eternal reward, whatever that may be, that I will not be remembered as a serious political observer. I am, however, an astute critic of our current political system. On the other hand I consider myself to be bipartisan in my disapproval of both the Democrats and the Republicans. As for Independents, I bequeath my strong belief that when asked which side you will support, you ought to say, "yes". An independent, when asked if he favors a particular viewpoint, might offer this response,"some say yes and some say no. I agree". How does one claim to be an independent? Is it because they don't have any opinion on anything? Are they unable to make up their minds on any subject? Do they fear reprisal or disapproval of acquaintances? Do they not have an original thought? If they agree with one side, does that make them a full fledged member in good standing of that side? Do they covet the attention of being courted by both sides? I propose the answer is none of the above, but rather, that they forgot the question. Back to my legacy. I want to be remembered as a wise-acher, someone who is more than willing to poke fun at the most respected of our leaders when the screw up. And they will. I also want to be remembered for being willing to poke fun at those who consider themselves to be great leaders, even though they are not. Most of all, I want to be remembered for being willing to poke fun at those who are truly buffoons and don't know it. I'd like to be remembered as one of the greatest baritones of our times. I'd like to, but it isn't likely that I will be so honored. Well, okay, if I can't be a great baritone, then how about a magnificent tenor instead? These are the contemplations I contemplate late at night.  And lastly, I want to be remembered by my real name, Fred Farkle.

I Heart My Congressman and Senators.

Do ya know what earmarks are? Well I can tell ya they ain't from scratching your ear with earrings, that's for sure. No, actually they call them earmarks when Congressmen or Senators try to add a special favor to a bill being readied to become law. The "special favors" are lots of "pork", which is another word for money, to friends and relatives in their home districts or states. See, the way they do it is to get the government to give a contract or grant to a company formed by this friend or relative, often formed for the purpose of receiving these "earmarks". Okay, so  last fall and last winter, the House and Senate voted to stop doing it because of our tight financial situation. Because of the economic downturn and our burgeoning deficit and debt, it was decided that they needed to stop adding these earmarks to other bills, at least until the country got back on it's feet. At which time, presumably, our legislators could then return to the pork-fest. Well if you think about it, while it sounded like a magnanimous gesture, because of the fact that they're hooked on the process just like being hooked on heroin, they couldn't stop. There have been hundreds of earmarks that have been slid into bills since the "ban" took place. Or maybe the ban was only for that day, or week. Anyway, you'll be pleased to note that the friends and relatives of our hard serving servants of congress are now back on the gravy train. Now if you're a friend or relative of one of these selfless servants and are not receiving any earmarks as yet, you may want to be in tough with that legislator to whom you have a relationship, in order to ascertain an estimate of the approximate date and amount you will receive for your earmark, in the form of pork of course. Don't ya just love these folks. It's perhaps the only bi-partisan effort you'll find in the halls of congress. I have a special place in my heart for them. I sit on that place every day.

Frankly It's Frank.

Well, Barney Frank is retiring from Congress at the end of next year. For those who haven't heard of him, he has two doctoral degrees from Harvard and nearly has a third. He's a very outspoken Representative from Massachusetts by way of Bayonne, New Jersey and sounds like he never left there. They say he has a real sense of humor. A quote I just read tells how whenever someone complains to him about the lazy good for nothing politicians, his reply is that "the public is no bargain either". Amen brother, Amen. Rep. Frank is on the committee that overseas the banking industry, but could easily head almost any committee in Congress and would almost instantly be the best informed member of that committee. He's not typical of congressional members these days. He actually knows what he's talking about because he's studied the subject before he speaks. As opposed to speaking about a subject in spite of the fact that they haven't studied it. That's part of the problem in Washington. On the one hand you have the folks that will vote any way they think they have to, for their own personal gain and then there's the folks who speak without knowing whereof they speak. Unfortunately it's usually the same people in both categories. Mr Frank doesn't seem to fit either category. Nor is he likely to miss the chance to tell it like it is. Ya know, it's true that politicians are no bargain, but then he's right, the public is no bargain either. Elsewise, they wouldn't have voted the bums into office in the first place. Residents of the fourth legislative district of Massachusetts excepted.

How Big Is The Party Of No?

I don't generally speak out about either political party, but rather I prefer to point out silliness. But I'd really like to point out some over the top silliness in the current Republican party. It seems that this proud old political party has been taken over by some of the strangest people in the country. It seems to me that long time members are stunned into silence. Could you describe the vacuum emanating from the right, or more properly, the far right? Let's look at a few; Evolution. Now science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is in fact the correct method by which we have arrived on this planet. Is it possible that there is another way? Of course, although there is no real way to prove it, evolution is by far the most likely. It's the "reasonable" part that rules. There is a very real difference between science and belief. But even the Roman Catholic church agrees there is no conflict here. Secondly, Global Warming. About 97% of all climatologists and any other scientists agree the earth is experiencing global warming and that humans are, in large part, responsible for it. Even a scientist who disagreed and ran his own study, funded by a staunch nonbeliever of Global Warming, found it to be happening and, yes, it was caused by humans. The there's the economy. All agree we have far too much debt. All independent economists and even many conservative economists agree that to solve the problem we need to cut spending substantially and increase taxes, or at  least eliminate loopholes, but not tax cuts. Only the far right seems to think it can be done by entitlement cuts alone and add in some tax cuts. Immigration is a serious matter. We need to overhaul the laws and the system to allow more people, especially those with the skills to develop new industry, as well as to address those already here illegally. The Far right wants to deport the 11 to 12 million people who are here. Twelve million. How in the world could we do that? It would break the bank. It makes no sense what-so-ever, but that seems to be the stock in trade for the far right. Now let me say right here that the far left is not without it's share of silliness, but for right now, the ultra-conservatives hold the record. The problem comes in that right now, with the elections coming around, we need a credible presidential candidate in the Republican party who isn't spouting ultra-right theology. That is the theology of No Evolution, No Global Warming, No Taxes, No Immigration and No Sense.

The Teaching Wars.

There's a new war going on in this country and the battlefront is in your home town. Yessiree boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen and children of all ages, and this war is being fought for the hearts and minds of those children out there. Cyber or virtual schools is the new boy on the block and it's trying to replace your Alma mater. Opponents claim there is no way to gage the effectiveness of such schools and there is no way to properly fund them. Proponents point out the needs of many students such as high and low achievers. Even targets of bullying. What these waring sides don't realize is that there is a simple solution to nearly all of the arguments, both pro and con. Holograms! You betcha. See, Holograms would provide that "classroom" experience opponents of virtual schools say that students need. Each student would have a hologram assigned to them. Teachers would have one as well and would also have the ability to switch off any student hologram that was misbehaving. They could even have the "instant replay" feature, as well as "challenge" option if a student's coach (parent) felt there was an error in the penalty. Now I realize that we're not quite ready with the technology to put these holograms to work yet. There are bugs to work out. Like what arrangements to make relating to contracts with holograms, vacation pay and length, their union contracts and various classifications. Everybody wants the extra smart one but nobody wants to be the class troublemaker hologram. The big question is who gets the bigger pay rate, the smart one or the troublemaker?  The smart one because of all the extra data storage necessary, or the troublemaker because of the built in safety mechanisms necessary to protect it from damage?  But these are all questions that can be worked out. All that's left is for someone to figure out who gets the prettiest one. That and hologram dating. On to Hologram U.       

It's A Travisty And A Tragedy.

A truly important issue has boiled up to the surface. As if Congress didn't have enough on it's plate, this happens along. I hope and pray for all of our souls, that we can come to bi-partisan support for a solution to this most pressing difficulty that threatens to disrupt our whole way of life. Nothing of this magnitude has come along since congress was forced to enact a law that required a limit of no more than three riders per horse, back toward the end of the nineteenth century. Okay, Okay, that never happened, but it should have, because then there would have been a more monumental crisis than this new one. Here's the thing. Most airlines are charging for checked baggage. That's right, can you imagine? Charging for checked baggage on top of the price of a ticket. Why the mere thought of such an outrage sends tremors up my spine. No wonder Congress has weighted in on this egregious issue. Many, if not all passengers have taken to claiming their baggage as carry-on. A simple solution, or at least it should be, except for two things. It's difficult to consider crates and luggage chests as carry-on. It takes several people to carry them on and how in the world do you get them up and into the overhead storage compartments? Secondly there are certain restrictions as to size that all airlines ascribe to. The problem is, just like all laws, these are not followed to the letter of the rule. Not even the spirit of the rule. Therefore the United States Congress has entered the fray with the full force and integrity of our national governing bodies. There is nothing so important or pressing as this potentially catastrophic inconvenience. Neither war nor Recession nor backbreaking debt nor global warming nor floods nor earthquakes nor pestilence of any kind can keep our Representatives and Senators from resolving this over-arching and looming disaster. Check-in baggage fees must be curtailed.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Ahhh. Today is Thanksgiving. It's been a tough year for many. I read an article today that points out that nearly one third of the people in America are in poverty or in that difficult area just above poverty called "near poor" So at this time, on this Thanksgiving day, we need to give thanks for what we have and pray for those who must struggle. This Recession we face still, has been so hard on so many. As we try to dig out from under the weight of this Great Recession, I'm reminded of something else I read today. It's a reminder of part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's second Inaugural Address "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little". Little wonder that he kept getting reelected. For a very wealthy man, he understood the needs and the suffering of those who must worry each day over how to provide for the next day. So, as we partake of this rich bounty before us, let us pray for and seek ways we can help to meet those needs that President Roosevelt say so many years ago. To do this, is to do Gods work.

Is Your Sixth Grader Ready for The Third Shift?

There's an article in the most recent National Review, a conservative news publication and web site, Kevin D. Williamson has an article "Newt's Right: Put Kids To Work". At first I thought it was a spoof, but then I realized it wasn't that at all. It was a call to eliminate the Child Labor Laws. His contention is that Newt Gingrich was right about allowing companies to hire children. Now I'm not going to take a look back at the bad old days of child exploitation before the Child Labor Laws. Instead I'm wondering how putting these children back to work will do any of the things we need for the 21st century. Take for instance  the fact that the jobs of the future will require specific skills that will, for the most part, require special educational experiences that the companies aren't willing to teach. They want their new hires to have those skills before being hired. This isn't to suggest that only colleges can provide these skills. Nearly all technology schools and trade schools teach these skills. I believe that some high schools should begin to offer these skills as well. Especially in poorer urban neighborhoods and even rural areas where the means to pay for additional schooling may not be high. I do think that companies need to work with such schools to be sure to provide the needed skills.
Mr Williamson suggests that half of all children just don't have the IQ necessary to benefit from higher education. Is that right? Is America truly a country of half dummies? And just who will decide which children will go to college? Will it be only those whose parents have college degrees? He never looks at the Trade Schools. One of our biggest problems is that other countries are ahead of us in math and sciences. Is he suggesting that somewhere around the 4th or 5th grades, I suppose, we select those who will attend college and put the rest to work doing janitorial work in the schools as Mr Gingrich proposed?  The second reason I find fault with Mr Williamson's thesis is that once trained to handle these menial tasks, will they be prepared to learn new skills as the old ones are taken over by technology like robotics?  What he doesn't seem to realize is that schools of higher learning will also need to train young people in how to think for themselves and to be able to reintegrate into new technology quickly. Third, the ideas he proposes will encourage dropouts from school at earlier and earlier ages. It would truly be the dumbing  down of America. An idea that would serve to bring back lower and lower paying jobs. Those are not the jobs Americans want nor is it what Americans deserve.

What News To Believe.

Farleigh Dickinson University just completed a poll that shows that people who rely on
FOX NEWS for their news, are less informed than people who don't watch any news at all. Now you might think this poll must be flawed if it weren't for the fact that last year the University of Maryland completed a poll that found nearly the same results. But how could this be? FOX NEWS runs 24/7. Surely some of what is stated and reported on FOX must be true, right? Well of course that's true. The poll doesn't suggest that viewers don't know anything. It does suggest, however, that if those viewers aren't also watching other sources of news, they may well be less informed than they think they are. To be fair, that's true of pretty much any news source. But even Jon Stewart's Daily Show, a comedy show that makes fun of news shows and politicians who say and do dumb thing, will keep you better informed than FOX NEWS. A comedy show? But how could this be? Well the thing is, it's a whole lot easier reporting slanted information that makes your side look better than it is to report the truth. That's because if you don't care all that much about the truth, you can make up your own truth. Now as it turns out, FOX NEWS is owned by Rupert Murdock. Mr Murdock is a very wealthy and powerful man who happens to be extremely partisan. That in itself isn't all that big a problem and there's no shame in being partisan. It's certainly far better than being disconnected from what our government does or doesn't do. The problem comes in when he allows his partisanship to spill over into and onto his TV network. Which he has done. Then it becomes a source for more worthless advise, slanted news and partisan rhetoric than news reporting. Again, there's nothing wrong with even that. So long as they make it clear that that's what they're doing. The same rules should apply to any other media outlet. Of course the chances of that happening with FOX NEWS or any other partisan media outlet are about as good as my chances are of winning the next Boston Marathon followed immediately by my seducing the most recent Miss Universe. My goodness is that the alarm clock?

You Voted For Who? or is that whom?

Guess what? The so called Super Committee failed in it's attempt to bring down the debt and deficit. Boy am I surprised. I was sure the Republicans would agree to higher taxes on the rich and the Democrats would go along with deep cuts to entitlements like Medicare. Well I guess ya can't have everything. But medicare is costing far too much and is expected to continue to rise dangerously. Taxing the rich or job creators would hurt job growth, if it weren't for the fact that the tax increases would by on net income. After business expenses. Like the costs associated with creating jobs. So it looks like both Democrats and Republicans have once again done us a disservice. Are you surprised at that? Did you think that political parties were intended for the public good? My goodness, you did, didn't you? Well that's okay. Being naive has it's benefits too. No actually, political parties are designed to work against the public good. No that isn't quite true. Actually political parties are designed to perpetuate themselves. It's that fact that works against the public good. I don't think it was always that way. Nor were they originally designed for that purpose. They just sort of evolved into what they are today. Now if you wanted Washington to be unable to accomplish the goals set for it and meet the needs of a society suffering from a monstrous recession with an official unemployment rate of 9% and a much larger actual unemployment rate, coupled with so many under-employed, high medical expenditures, global unrest, multiple unfunded wars and as host of other problems, if that's what you  wanted, then our current two party system is working out just perfectly. On the other hand, if you'd like Washington to intelligently address these and many other problems, ----- You're screwed. That's because our political parties are convinced that the only way to govern America is to destroy the other party, and for one simple reason: the other party is just plain wrong. And wrong headed. And as everyone knows, you can't convince those in that party to listen to reason. Why, all they want to do is band together and vote down anything we try, even though our ideas are in the best interests of the country. It's simple. We're patriots. They're not.

It May Be The Law, But We Can Change That.

Would anyone like to know how hard it's going to be to cut the Defense Budget when the Super committee is unable to accomplish it's mission? Just look at the Marine V22 Osprey airplane/helicopter. It's been 25 years in the making and now costs $70 million each. This despite even Dick Cheney when he was Defense Secretary for Bush 1, tried to cancel it. The Marines want behind their boss's back to push for it's continuance. So far there's 300, either in service or in construction. No matter what, we're getting them. Or look at the F35 Joint Strike fighter, the most expensive weapons system in history. Notice how it isn't referred to as a plane anymore? It's a weapons system. Really? A weapons System? Ya know why it's called that? Because it sounds like a more valuable product worthy of the more expensive price tag. Now I think we ought to have whatever we need to keep us safe and outmatch our enemies. But the question is, do we need these things or are they just the great toys that great leaders like to play with? Guess who got a ride from Washington to New York in an Osprey? Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. The Marines said it was the only way to get him there efficiently. Its that right? It was the best way? Or was it a sales pitch. Lemme give ya a ride in this great new luxury car. Don't worry about the cost. We'll work something out on that. So when push comes to shove, after nearly a year, or maybe even longer, congress hasn't figured out how to overcome their intransigence over our debt and deficit and so are hoping they can get the job done by following the rules they passed when they thought the rules wouldn't be needed, but now that they do need them, they aren't sure they like the rules they passed and so they're trying to figure out how they can do two things; change the rules and blame the other guy.

Hmmm! What Part Of Government Wastes The Most?

Well, first there was the Simpson-Bowles committee, then two others, now there's the Super Committee. What they've all been trying to accomplish is to figure a way out of our debt and deficit troubles. The Democrats want some cuts to entitlements coupled with revenue increases. The Republicans believe it can be resolved with cuts alone. No mater what you think, we do need to make cuts in our spending. As long as pretty much everybody agrees on that issue, let's look at ways to cut and where there is the most waste. Someplace where the government spends far too much money and accomplishes far too little good for the people. Of course there's waste in every area of government from new ships and airplanes for the Defense Dept that they don't need or want, to over-regulation of energy and many other areas. But to make it easy and to finally get started, we need to pick the one area that personifies the waste. My vote goes to congress. Nowhere else are there more highly paid nincompoops than Congress. they get paid a fairly good wage for very little work, they get the best set of benefits of anyone in the country. And should they get defeated in an election, they are warmly welcomed with even higher wages by lobbying firms to lobby the same folks they schmoozed with in the halls of Congress. They also have the opportunity to go on speaking tours where they can make even more. Then of course, there's the ever popular book writing trade where they can tell the world how great they really are and what a terrific job they did while in office. Yep, there's no getting around it, the country would be far better off without all the professional politicians. Even elections would be cheaper without them. The only problem is that we would still need some folks to lead us. Maybe we could take a cue from our founding fathers  who weren't professional politicians.They  were citizen leaders who came together to do a job and then went home and back to their jobs.            

Do You Want To Super Size That or Have Extra Cheese?

You're probably aware of the First Lady's push to make our children healthier. More nutritious meals, especially at school. The President made a decision to require school lunches to be healthier. More fruit and veggies, right? Well, the congress decided, with the help of the potato growers and the pizza industry, to agree with the president and better define "healthier". So in order to better define healthier, congress explained that potatoes and tomatoes are veggies and therefore healthier. So now, school lunches can continue to offer french fries and pizza on the menu. Now I love pizza and french fries. You can tell I do by my girth. But the thing is, girth is what Mrs. Obama was trying to shrink. I have girth, and while I rarely admit it, I'm getting older, so my girth isn't quite as bad as girth in a child. Girth is the problem. I don't mean to suggest that french fries and pizza should be banned from America. Rather, I think they should be reserved as  special treats. Daily consumption of french fries and pizza equates to girth while french fries and pizza reserved as special treats, equate to mirth. See! It's only a change of a single letter, but research shows that mirth is healthy, while girth is unhealthy. Maybe congress could offer a tax incentive for "m" and a tax increase for "g". But then some alphabet activists would probably point out that while a tax cut for m might be nice, it would be unfair to saddle g with an increase in  taxes. After all, "g" alone is not unhealthy. Look at good as an example. There are many honorable words beginning with g. Well, okay if taxing is out of the question, we'll just have to find another way to win the new "Battle of the Bulge".

The Great Wire Robbery.

Say, did ya hear about the super market robbery? No, not that one. Or that one either. This is the one where the robber fell through the ceiling and landed on the floor next to the checkout. So I suppose you think he was waiting til after hours to make the heist, right? Wrong. He wasn't interested in anything in the cash drawers or on the shelves. He was apparently stealing copper wiring from overhead. Maybe you didn't think copper was that valuable. Well I'm here to tell you it is. Maybe homeowners should start deciding what areas of the house they don't need electric service in. They could then remove the wiring to those areas in order to raise some extra cash. This is not a recommended endeavor for renters. But for owners, have at it. There is the problem that once the wiring is gone, you may not be ably to turn the lights on over the sink. I suppose you could wash in the dark, but gentlemen be careful when you shave. And no lights in the laundry room may account for all those mismatched pairs of socks. I don't mean to be a negative block to your social and recreational activities, but removing the wiring from the local super market is probably not the brightest idea you could have. Those suspended ceilings aren't all that supportive for your big feet. And then there's the part where you have to sell the wiring. Seventeen miles of used electrical wiring could be considered somewhat suspicious. Especially once the news media makes the theft public. Who would buy the wire anyway? And what do you tell the buyer? Oh I found it in the closet under a pile of dirty clothes. I suppose the dirty clothes part might be convincing if it weren't for the fact that the pile of wire probably wouldn't fit in any closet in even a mansion. And even if it would, it would hide the pile of dirty clothes. And besides, the electric garage door opener won't work without the wire so you can't drive the wire to the wire recyclers. And I doubt you have the skills to rewire it. No, here's a better idea. Get a tin cup and some pencils, grab your guitar and head for the courthouse lawn.

Where Do You Buy Your Wood?

Well, of all things, you won't believe who's got a big grudge against regulations. Gibson Guitars.
For those of you who are sitting there wondering, Gibson is a world famous manufacturer of fine musical instruments. Their guitars are owned by a good many music world enthusiasts. And antique Gibson Guitars are quite valuable. So what's the problem. Well, most of their guitars have very high quality, and in many cases rare wood in them. The problem comes in when woods that are not just rare, but protected and in danger of becoming extinct in their home countries, like Madagascar. So to help these countries and help our own Forest Products industry, the government began to regulate the purchase and sale of these woods. The regulations actually do help our Forest Products industry according to industry executives. Other guitar manufacturers stopped buying from those countries. Well, Gibson got caught with some of these illegal woods. Now they're crying to the Republican and Tea Parties, a big lobbying firm and at least one Democratic congressman. They want the wood back and they want to be allowed to buy, I guess as long as the seller claims it's not illegal. How does that work? If I steal somebody's watch and offer to sell it to you, how likely is it that I'll tell you I stole it? Do the Gibson folks actually think the folks they buy the wood from are going to tell them if they harvested it illegally? Boy would I love to have them as clients. There's this bridge I just acquired and have decided to sell to you at a very nominal price. The bridge connects San Francisco with the another area of California. It has a pretty good income and is known as the San Fransisco Bay Bridge. Oh and I assure you I came by it perfectly legally. My name is John Doe. Cash only please.

Bad PAC. Bad PAC. Worse Super PAC.

What's a PAC or two among Friends? Political Action Committees were originally designed to speak out for or against policies that special interests favored or disliked. The idea was to provide a voice for those special interests that might not otherwise be heard. Wow, did that open up the floodgates to big money and bad boys. It didn't take long before these PACs were hauling in the big bucks and the politicians could see all this money that they couldn't, no that's not quite correct., that they weren't supposed to have any control over. Then came their big break. The Supreme Court decided a case called Citizen's United. Now big money could spend all they wanted on any subject, even individual candidates and they could raise the money secretly. That's right nobody had to admit to donating to a PAC. Not even a foreign country, or presumably, a criminal organization. Now do you get the idea? Yep, Bad Boys can play bad boy games with our political and electoral systems and do it legally. Now they call some of these things, Super PACS. Don't ya just love it when your vote doesn't really count anymore? Back in the "not so good" good old days, political machines sent their henchmen out to gather names off headstones in cemeteries so they could go back and vote multiple times. They also paid voters to vote for their "man". At least the lowly voter got something out of that. Now, with these PACs and Super PACs, we don't get anything. Not even a fair vote. Why do I say that, you ask? Because they can lie about anything they want in order to confuse people into thinking their way. Bad and incorrect information can cause bad and incorrect votes. And that can cause bad or incorrect candidates to get elected.

It's My Turn. No It's His Turn.

Hey gang, tonight is the 400th debate in the Republican Presidential Campaign in just under 100 days. Now, I'm making fun of a process that I think is actually a good format. Whenever you have as many people watching a campaign as closely as this one is being watched, I think it's a good idea to get them up on a stage and let them have at it. Why? Because it allows you to quickly weed out those not fit to be on the stage. The problem is that time after time, most of the candidates have shown they are not quite ready for prime time. In fact more than a couple aren't ready for Saturday morning cartoon time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting I could do better, but then I'm only running for President in a more unorthodox way, using only my blog, Sonwbeard Speaks. By the way keep those contributions coming in to my PAC, PIMP. There are still some reservations open for nights in the Lincoln Bedroom. But getting back to tonight's debate, the new front runner for second place is Newt Gingrich. It had to be his turn someday and today looks like the day. If you haven't seen him perform before, watch him as he gestures grandly. One can easily see why he considers himself to be the greatest mind of all of Romney's opponents. Which is a lot like saying he's the greatest mind in an old silent movie of the Keystone Cops or the Marx brothers. Never-the-less, he will expound magnificently and magnanimously on the wonders of his boundless knowledge in order to lavish his extraordinary understanding of all things related to all things.Meanwhile his mere human opponents will continue to muddle along under the spell of his brilliance. All the while tripping over their own tongues. The only real question is exactly what will it be that will trip up the greatest cerebral hemorrhage since time began?

Alternative Horse Energy.

Well, funding for alternative energy sources is at an all time low, except for when there was no funding and before the term was invented. If you know the history of Alternative Energy, you know that President Jimmy Carter instituted funding for it when he was president back in the late 1970s. But after Reagan took office he dropped the funding. Now more recently I've heard it said that it just doesn't make sense to spend the money now when we don't have the money to spend and when it'll take decades for research to provide alternative energy sources in sufficient supplies to make a difference. Gee, that must mean that if we had continued research over the last three decades, we'd already have it. So does it make sense to ignore  it now, so that three decades from now, we still won't have any alternative energy sources? Based on that kind of thinking, back toward the end of the nineteenth century, we should have been saying that oil was just too expensive and there wasn't enough supply to warrant research. After all, horses were much more reliable. So today, we could have been commuting to work in a surrey with fringe on top. If we don't get serious about research on alternatives, the day will come when we'll all be walking and using candles, which would be okay if it weren't for airplanes. It's gonna be tough to devise coal fired aircraft. And the Navy will really struggle with sails for their aircraft carriers. All that is doable, but what about submarines? A sail won't help them much. There's always a reason not to do something. And we're very good at not doing anything about potential problems. If it hasn't jumped up and smacked us in the face and isn't threatening to take away our toys, we know how to keep putting it off until it does smack us in the face and takes our toys. Then we know how to blame somebody else better than anybody. I don't know about you, but I think the best time to do something is when you realize it needs doing. Of course if you believe some folks, there will never be a need to do anything because we will never run out of fossil fuels and global warming is a hoax and there is no such thing as polution, just like evolution. And the unproven idea that the earth is round and circles the sun? Well, we all know the truth about that.

How Come The Poor Are So Poor?

Fareed Zakaria, an opinion writer in the Washington Post this morning has an editorial about the lack of upward mobility in this country as compared with Canada and most European countries. The most important statement in the editorial was a quote that said "The ZIP code you're born in shouldn't determine your destiny, but too often it does". He also points out that, surprisingly, our welfare state spends very little on the poor - who don't vote very much - lavishing attention on the middle class". Do you agree with that? I mean, just listen to politicians grumble about the professional poor.
They're just lazy. Living on the government. The thing is, all the poor I know, which is only a few, I admit, are hard working people who just can't seem to get a break. I guess I don't know the right poor. But the point is that the poor stay poor, the middle class stay there and the rich still stay there, for the most part. So if that's true, then how come? Well, experts say it has to do with lack of good nutrition, good health care and good education. It seems we're not doing so well in these areas. See, if a rich child needs extra help, they can hire legions of tutors, if a middle class youth needs extra help, the family scrapes together the money to hire a tutor, but if a poor child need extra help, ???. Not only that, but rich folks can afford to send their children to exclusive private schools. Middle class families live in middle class towns and neighborhoods where they have the best equipped public schools and best teachers. But in the poor neighborhoods, the tax base doesn't allow for the best of anything. In fact for the most part, try as those districts do, they can only afford the bare minimum. The problem with that is that you wind up with a welfare state or a large criminal element or more likely, both. That is expensive for the rest of society. It would be cheaper in the long run, to provide the excellence in all categories that the rest of society has become accustomed to. Now I haven't joked around in this entry, but that's because it ain't very funny.

My Poll Is Better Than Your Poll.

I keep hearing in the polls that 75% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. Okay, I can buy that. But just what direction are they talking about. Is it that there is more polarization in American politics than at any time in many decades? Because I agree with that. Is it possible that  people feel our foreign policy is wrong? Because it looks to me like that's the one bright spot. Maybe it's our financial industry that seems to have screwed up the country while profiting immensely. To go with that we have done so little to place strong checks and balances on banks that are too large to fail and even banks that aren't too big to fail. Likely folks are mad we haven't been successful at creating jobs. Well, that's true. Or how about the fact the we've allowed much of the rest of the world to leap frog ahead of us in education? That's part of the problem with jobs. Is that the direction they're upset about? Because if it isn't, it should be. If folks are mad about that, they're right to be mad. Is it the debt and deficit or out of control spending? Or maybe it's immigration or the courts, or too much money in politics or global warming or alternative energy or food prices or the speeding ticket you just got or more on education, or even all of the above? Don't ya just love pollsters who don't ask the questions that would be helpful? Saying people are unhappy about the direction and stopping there isn't kidding me. They either don't know what questions to ask or they have an agenda they're afraid the answers might not support. Hey pollsters, did you know that America isn't actually moving at all. It's still right here in the same old place in North America? So if you're going to ask if we're headed in the wrong direction, let's find out what direction that is. And then let's find out exactly what direction people would like us to head in. Because you're not helping. You're just taking up time and space. And frankly, we have better things to do with our time and space. And, if you're trying to help politicians, be advised, politicians really don't pay any attention to polls unless they favor the politicians in question.

Boy Do I Love Flat Taxes.

What is it about flat taxes or the 999 proposed by Herman Cain that some folks like so much? Well let's look at the 999 first and that'll answer some of the flat tax questions too. The 9-9-9 proposed by Mr Cain reduces corporate taxes from 35% to 9%, but in fairness it eliminates many loopholes. It changes personal income to 9% from anywhere from 0% to about 28% but it eliminates most loopholes too. Then it adds a 9% sales tax on everything. So, for example, in Pennsylvania where we have a 6% sales tax, it would go to 15% total. So what? Well, a sales tax comes down hardest on the poor because both poor and rich pay the same for a quart of milk or a loaf of bread. So it takes a far bigger percentage of the wages from the poor then from the rich. Now you might think then, that a flat tax must be fair, right? Wrong. If I make $20,000 and pay 9%, that leaves me with $18,200. Hardly enough to live on. But some one making $500,000 would have $455,000 left. Even someone making $100,000 would have $91,000 left. Now I don't know about you, but I could get by on $455,000 easier then I could on $18,200. I could even squeak by on $91,000 easier. But what about the person making even less than $20,000? It has to do with fairness. The more you make, the more you should pay, as a percentage of your income. And here's the thing, the wealthy, like it or not, are the only ones with the where-with-all to pay more. Well why not cut the size of government? Of course there is waste, but nowhere near enough to make the difference needed. And it's beginning to prove out that  outsourcing jobs to private contractors doesn't help. In Michigan they're finding that the switch to private contractors paying much less for the same work, leaves the savings showing up as costs in other parts of the budget. Like unemployment, food stamps and medicaid and the like.

You Be The Judge Of Judges.

Well guys and gals, this Tuesday is election day. I hope you vote. It's all about locals. Which doesn't excite the press, but it's really important. Consider facts like judges are, more and more, being bought and sold on the open election market. Now you may find that hard to believe, but if you haven't been watching ads on TV against one judge or another, you've missed out and you're in a much better position to select a judge then the average voter. Here's the problem. Special interest groups are spending money to fight for or against the election of judges. But judges aren't supposed to be in favor of the desires of special interests. Nor are they supposed to be against the desires of those special interests. Judges are supposed to follow the law. If a special interest doesn't like the law, they need to support change in the law, not the courts. I don't know why judges are elected anyway. Or rather, I think a non-partisan committee, for state and federal courts would be better. The committee picks two people it feels would be best for the court. Then the people vote on those two. The only question then is, who picks the committee members? All I know is that it would need to be almost anyone but a politician. Seriously. Judges are not supposed to be Republican or Democrat. When it comes to their decisions on the bench, they're supposed to think neutral. They're supposed to be impartial. If they have a friend involved in the case, they're supposed to requse themselves. How come? Because they're supposed to be neutral, remember? In fact there should be a law that any judge who gets a dime from any person, special interest or political party should be disqualified from trying a case that in any way relates to that person, special interest or party. It's not that I don't trust people, it's just that I don't think people can be trusted.

My Friends, As A Politician, I Asure You.

Here's an example of how well our government is working these days. You recall the so called "Super Committee" set up last Summer to come up with a plan to decrease our debt and deficit? Uh huh, well to spur them on toward success in that effort, it was decided that if they were unsuccessful, perish the thought, then automatic cuts would kick in. But not just to the favorite whipping posts of one side or the other. Nope, it would cut from the favorites of both sides. Social Security and Medicare on the one side, defense on the other side. Well, we're fast approaching the game time and neither side of the "Super Committee" is being super. In fact they're being the same old, same old. But don't let that concern you, because a slew of bills have surfaced in the House and Senate to replace military budget cuts with budget cuts to other "unspecified" programs. Notice how the other "Unspecified Programs" aren't specified. That's because they'd like to make those decisions after the vote. Less debating and they can sneak in whatever they want. And you thought they were dumb. See, the thing is this, just because the congress said it would do one thing, doesn't mean they'll do it. It could just as well mean they'll do something else. Most likely the opposite of what they voted to do. The nice part of being a politician, especially in Washington, is that you do or undo just about anything you feel like doing or undoing. That's why you should always trust a politician to do what he or she promises to do. It's like the old joke: Ya know when a politician is telling a lie? When his mouth is open. Now that's a bit unfair. After all, there are politicians whose word is good. It's just hard to figure out who he gave that good word to. Well, actually that's not true. You can bet that whoever gave him or her the most in campaign donations and who is most likely to give even more is the one that will get that good word. My guess is that it won't be me. And I'll bet it won't be you either.

Don't Ya Just Hate Computer Geeks?

Why is it that computers and computer sites and engines et al, think that by changing their formats they have reinvented themselves? That they then have a fresher newer better product or service? They need to take a cue from automobiles. At least in this respect; No mater how much cars change, in America, they always have the steering wheel on the left side, but you always drive on the right side of the road. No matter what. Well, no matter what except the postal service which has it's steering wheels on the right. And look at the shape they're in. No, with cars you turn the ignition or push the button to start the car. You put it in reverse to back up and in forward gear to go ahead. Why do computer people always think that it isn't change unless everything changes. So that the way you used to do something no longer gives you the same effect. When this happens, you can email the service staff who will help you by emailing you a list of forty seven answers, none of which is the one you need. Then a sentence pops up to ask if this helped. No damn it, it doesn't help. When you finally get someone, they email you to do something you've never done before, and they expect you to know how to do this new step. Then they tell you to frag it. Frig the Frag, I want to know what to do. No, actually I want to do what I used to do. But the new format will allow you to do so much more. Will it make my bed and run the vacuum? Will it pour my coffee? Because that's what I need. I don't need or want it to do all those other things. I don't need it to inform me when the last train for Yuma leaves the station. I'm not going to Yuma. Maybe I'm an old geezer. But I'm not the only old geezer. How about making a computer for old geezers? Huh?

Inequality Makes The World Spin.

Ya know, I don't often agree with David Brooks, the New York Times conservative columnist. But in today's column he talks about inequality in terms of two different terms. On the one hand, there is the inequality between the 1% and the 99%, he says. That's the Wall Streeters and bankers and CEOs against the rest of us. But the other type is the inequality between the college educated and those less fortunate. And that's the group with the greater disadvantage, the greater inequality. Brooks points out how much easier it is for the child of a college grad to get into college, get through college and finish with far less debt to deal with. If your parents didn't get to college, the chances are you won't either. That's where this country is in trouble. And it's why this country is in trouble. Because we have a shortage of college educated workers and an over abundance of non-college, untrained workers. And until this country figures out a way to change that, we're going to continue to have a problem. Now some of the problem can be solved with trade schools. The thing is though, some children of less educated parents should go to college and some children of college educated parents should go to trade school. Here, the problem is that college folks often tend to look down at trade schools as being for those not smart enough to go to college, while trade school folks often look down at college folks as not being able to fix a light because it needs a new bulb. This is the IT era, unless the computers are down. Manufacturing is better done with robots, unless the robots don't work. Or that new house won't get built unless a skilled worker builds it. And none of the equipment will get designed unless that engineer designs it. So we have not only a problem of inequality, but a problem of lack of respect. From both sides. In fact, if there were more respect, there would be less inequality of any type.

To Gift Or Not To Gift.

Getting away from politics for a day, I've been wondering about something that came to my attention the other day. Here's the question, if I give you a gift, can I assume that when the time comes that you no longer have need of or use for that gift, I have the right to reclaim it? It seems to me that if I do, then it really wasn't a gift, but rather a loan. If that's true, then why do those who want gifts back still insist on calling them gifts. And act as though they had gifted someone. Now if it's a loan, perhaps there should be some sort of loan contract signed and, depending on the value, should also be notarized. Let's say, for the sake of argument I give you a toaster oven as a Christmas gift, then I think ownership should pass to the recipient, you. Otherwise, I should ask for a signature on a promissory note that states possession must revert to the givor, me,  upon any decision not to use it any more or to get rid of it, by the givee, you. This way, the givee clearly understands that this is a loan and that there are certain understood principals that must be followed. Like proper maintenance, periodical cleaning using an approved method, regular inspection by the givor and perhaps, again depending on the gift's value, proper insurance coverage. In other words, if I give you a set of earrings that are imitation silver, although not of great value, they never-the-less must be properly cared for and my investment must be protected, if they are to be on loan. Now you may feel this is not a proper discussion to have on an open blog, but let me tell you that several presidential contenders have already weighed in on the subject, and I want to resolve the problem before it becomes a political a football. I believe the seriousness of this business and the widespread practice of loan-gifting needs to be addressed. I await your recommendation as to the naming of this practice and expect you will be in complete agreement and accord with me. If, on the other hand you disagree, I will expect your legal brief on my desktop no later that the third Friday of November, 2011.