Adam, Did You Feed Rex Yet?

Whatta ya say we stop funding religious theme parks with tax money. Sound silly? Well in good ole Kentucky the state is giving $40 million to a "for profit" outfit partly owned by a church group to build a "Noah's Ark" theme park. I guess they already have one on creationism. Now if folks want to believe that Adam and Eve raised dinosaurs on their farm just outside the Garden of Eden, it's okay with me, and there's nothing wrong in having a park with an Ark as the attraction, but I'm not sure I'd want my tax dollars going to build it. Not even if it was legal to have the state financially support the project. Of course, I'm not strong on taxpayers support of any project that's owned by a for profit company. Not unless it was part of some sort of a loan. On the other hand, if the states are going to insist on grants to such things, then I'd like to get in on the gravy train too. After all I go to church regularly. Or do I attend the wrong church? Is there an official church that I don't know about? I mean should I change my membership? Hey, a buck is a buck. Didn't Jesus turn over some money exchange tables though? Hmmm. Maybe I'd better stay where I'm at. Maybe the state of Kentucky should take a second look at where and how they're spending the peoples money. Not a bad thing for every state to do. The U.S. too.

Republicans, Democrats.They're All Politicians.

Okay, the Republicans offered a proposal for a 2012 budget. It was a poor choice and I think many of them know it. But they've got a point here. The Democrats have not given any suggestion of a budget proposal. Not even a compromise from President Obama's proposed budget. So how come? I mean they used to bust the Republicans for not having any ideas when they were in the minority. So now with the Democrats in a minority in the house and a close call in the Senate, "Where's the beef"? You'd think the Dems would want to show the Repubs how it should be done. But they seem to be afraid to say a word, except to vote down the Republican plan. Which certainly is the right thing to do. Look. It's time to show a little honesty. It's time to tell the wealthy that they're going to have to pay a little more in taxes, or at least start paying taxes, for those who haven't paid any in spite of enormous incomes. I understand that it won't be popular with Republicans who will claim it might hurt job growth. Well, okay, put a clause in it that if a wealthy person has a business and creates some jobs, his taxes won't be increased. How hard is that to say? How hard is that to do? In fact it would probably be a very popular statement. And the Republicans would have to agree with it or look like real stinkers. Everybody seems to agree that some cuts have to be made, across the board. That is, everybody except the population. We haven't been asked. But if there needs to be cuts, then there needs to be some tax increases, because without both we're still not doing what needs to be done. Maybe the problem we're having here is because the ones charged with the responsibility of solving our problems are politicians.

Well? What's Your Energy Choice?

It makes oil companies sound a little desperate. They've been pretty much blocked from drilling in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico for safety reasons. And there's another push on to develop alternative sources of energy. Couple that with continued concerns over middle east oil stability for the future and suddenly, presto, we've found tons of oil right here under our feet in places like S.W. Texas.  Enough to rival Venezuela in output. Just one little problem. It's in shale, like the natural gas their drilling for around the country. Which presents another problem. See in S. W. Texas there's a continuing drought. To get the oil out of the shale they have to "Frack" it. That means forcing millions of gallons of water down each well, which they don't have any to spare, and there are poisonous chemicals in the "fluid" that is contaminating drinking water wells in spite of denials to the contrary. So! Here's the choices Americans have; We can suck it up and let them pollute our drinking water and Frack Baby, Frack, or we can keep buying from countries that don't like us, or develop new alternative energy sources, which will take time and money. You thought this was gonna be fun? The first two lead down a road that will never reach the destination we want, the second will hurt like hell for now. If none of these choices work for you, we could go back to my idea of burning political campaign signage to create alternative energy and offer Republican or Democrat electric. Come on. You've got ten seconds. Make up your mind.

Even Legislators Need To Obey The Law.

Hey, remember last fall when the Democrat members of the Wisconsin Senate skipped town and the Republican members then passed a law basically attempting to destroy public unions. Well the Republicans made one mistake. In Wisconsin, you have to give certain notice before you pass a law. It's sort of part of their sunshine law. Anyway, a judge has struck down the law. The law stated that public sector unions couldn't collective bargain. Which turned those unions into not much more than social clubs. The law exempted unions for police and firefighters. Apparently the legislators felt there would be too much sympathy for first responders while there might be some animosity against teachers. They may have been right in that thinking. Although I can't understand why that should be so. What I really don't understand is why the courts didn't strike down the law based on the idea that it favored some while harming others. That seems to me to be discriminatory. Now, I get it that conservatives don't like unions. Unions generally help liberals in elections. And corporate execs especially don't like unions because they cut into corporate profits. The thing is that corporations feel, rather strongly, that the only thing that really matters is corporate profits. They and they alone should be allowed to decide on anything that affects that bottom line. In fact they don't feel that anyone else should even try to influence those decisions. My honest opinion is that if corporations had their way, the minimum wage would still stand at about one dollar a day, with no paid holidays, no vacations and no sick days. As I've said before, the healthcare plan they would prefer is a pink slip if you get sick or injured. Life wouldn't be much different from the feudal dark ages in Europe. I'm not sure America could have survived under those circumstances. This all proves that  the courts sometimes get it right.

Rand Paul vs The Patriot Act.

How much do you know about the Patriot Act? I have to tell you that I don't know much at all, except that I don't think I like it. Here's why. The government never just asks for only what it needs.It always tells us it needs much more then it really does. But then that's a natural human trait. That's not to suggest that our government is human, or even humane. That's not even always a bad thing. But when it comes to the "big brother" kind of thing, it's almost never a good thing. We're not talking about an extra two cents tacked on to our total tax bill. It's about looking into our private business. Now if that was only some impersonal, unemotional computer, then no big deal. But it isn't, It's about some person with some motive, supposedly well intentioned well thought out reason, for doing it. But what safeguards are in place? That's just it. I don't know either. So who am I supposed to trust? Maybe some guy who knows me who has some ax to grind? Far fetched, maybe, but what if? Just who keeps an eye on things? If everybody in congress was in agreement, then I'd have to figure it's okay. But back when it first passed, right after 9-11, not everyone was. There were a lot of Democrats who were unsure. The Republicans jumped all over them, the  Democrats caved in and voted for it. Not because they agreed, but because they were intimidated. Now the shoe's on the other foot and a new Republican, a Tea Partier is fighting it. Rand Paul, someone I would never agree with, has questions that sound familiar. He's getting bullied by a Democrat! But the arguments sound familiar. In ten years they didn't have time to look at this thing carefully and decide how to properly administer it and safeguard us. Now there isn't time. Who's kidding Whom?

How Come Education Is Getting It In The Head.

Education in America continues to have problems. Starting with New Jersey where the state supreme court has told the governor he can't cut funding to schools if that means cutting the educational opportunities for students, especially students at risk. But a number of other states have cut funding for schools in a variety of ways, all in the interest of eliminating shortfalls in their budgets. The question is this; Is cutting funding for education a good way to preserve the future for our young people? Will they be better off with a lessor education? We know that the wealthy will be better off, because otherwise the only thing left in many cases is to increase their taxes. But the thing is, if the young people are less educated for the future, will they also be less prepared as workers for the wealthy who claim to be the job creators? What does a lessor education mean in terms of earnings power for the future, for industry and it's need for more skilled workers, and for the government, when lower tax revenues from lower incomes will mean higher taxes or lesser services? I really can see no good coming from cutting funding for education. Now I understand the idea that more money doesn't necessarily translate into a better education, but as I've said, less funding doesn't translate into a better education either. In fact, I believe the opposite is true. My reasoning is that when a school district is forced to cut something, it isn't always where the harm will be the least, but rather where the more popular will be preserved. Schools shouldn't be about what's popular, but what will provide for the best education. Where we need to increase funding is where there can be independent thinking on the part of students. I'm convinced that's where we lack leadership in education. That and problem solving. Both of which go hand in hand.

Put Me Down For An Interest Free Account.

Whatta ya think of Newt Gingrich? Now, I've read two books about the Civil War by him and enjoyed them. Having said that, I also must admit that I admire anyone who can get a $500,000 interest free, standard revolving account from Tiffanys. That sounds a bit like a made to order ponzi scheme. Here, look at it this way. You buy, on credit, $500,000 in jewelry from Tiffanys. You sell it for, oh, I don't know, lets say half. $250,000 cash and all you have to do is pay the interest on the $500,000 which computes to about $0. I could afford those payments. Now if I could get a couple of other stores to work out similar deals, I'd be fairly well set. I know I could use Tiffanys as a reference. After all, I'm current on my interest payments. I called today to get more information, but nobody seemed to know who I was or who I should talk to. They kept telling me that such accounts are only for serious contenders for the presidency. Well, hey, I'm serious. If it means a half a million, interest free, you bet I'm serious. Wouldn't you be? And I'll tell you this much. I'm just as serious as Newt is. So he wrote two books. So what? I'm writing one too. Remember?  And I promise not to find fault with the party's budget proposal. In fact I promise to agree with any party that will nominate me. Hey. I'm a very easy going kind of guy. Another plus for me over Newt is that I already have an established PAC. It's P.I.M.P. in case you forgot. It stands for Put In My Pocket. Now if a party plays it's cards right, I might see my way clear to channel a little from my pocket to theirs, if you get my drift.

Juist What Isn't In A College Degree.

So what's the problem with our educational system? Well aside from some of the obvious things like no funding and the need for more dedicated teachers, there's college. I keep hearing how important a college degree is for young people to get a job. Huh. I know of a number of people with college degrees who can't get a job or can't get a job in their field. One family I know of has three children. One went to a trade school and has a great job. The other two have graduated from college and can't get jobs in their fields. The older one for over five years. I think the problem is that colleges are cranking out graduates in fields that are not in demand. The arts are important, in my opinion. Having said that, we don't need as many arts students as we need engineering or math students. But of course, engineering and math aren't as much fun and are certainly harder. If I were fresh out of high school and could choose between an easy course or a tough one, well you get the idea. What we need is colleges that look for areas where there is likely to be a need for qualified  graduates and teach in those areas. Maybe we should require that colleges charge more for courses in disciplines not in demand, and give more scholarships to those where the greatest needs are. Maybe the corporations that need those trained graduates should provide those scholarships. You can suggest that people should give greater attention to job prospects when choosing, but there needs to be some sort of clearing house otherwise lots of people can get fooled into thinking they've chosen wisely when they haven't.

Politicians Are Pretty Good People? Says Who?

Ya know, I may pick on politicians, but they're actually pretty good people, by and large. Oh there are some who should be in  jail and there are some who just aren't so nice and, yes, there are even some who are just plain stinkers. So, even though that doesn't leave too many, they're actually pretty good people. Well then, how come they don't seem to get the idea that the general public is about fed up with them? Here's the thing. Everybody has differing ideas about ideology. That's good. That's what makes America strong. Problem is, politicians think extremes for some reason. If some folks demand fiscal responsibility before anything, some politicians jump on it. If other folks think social concerns above all else, some politicians jump on that. Where the real problem is, is that there are too many politicians focusing on these extremes and too few are focusing on what's really eating folks. That's jobs. Take energy for instance. On the one hand if some get the idea of working toward clean energy for health's sake, others see great costs to existing industries which translates into huge job losses, but don't believe in huge new job opportunities in clean energy jobs. This is further supported by dirty energy companies who spend millions on keep the status quo. Now most everybody agrees that we're going to have to do it someday. They just don't see the advantage to doing it now as opposed to "someday". In the meantime, other countries are spending huge sums supporting these new emerging clean industries and we're falling far behind. Behind is not a place we're accustomed to being. I think that if we could get the corporate money out of the equation, we could actually get to the answer fairly quickly. Oh like that'll happen.

From War To Work, It's Still Government's Job One.

Say. How are those third and forth wars going for you? I mean, of course, Pakistan and Libya. Have we won them yet? Okay, that's a bit sarcastic. Maybe a lot sarcastic. Remember the good old days when we only had two wars going at the same time and didn't have to pay for either one? I speak of wars one and two. You know, Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan is our longest lasting war, with Iraq not far behind. So, tell me. What have we learned out of all this? Wait a minute. Are you telling me we haven't learned a single thing? Oh. I see. You mean the government probably hasn't learned anything from these wars. Well you're right, I'm sure. The thing is, I think the thing we need to learn from these wars and occupations of other countries, is that nobody wants us to tell them how to run their countries. Which isn't too hard to figure out. We didn't like England telling us how to run our country. In fact we have never learned how to accept anyone telling us how to run our country. Not even the folks we elect to do it. Actually, them most of all. We seem to elect people all the time for the wrong reasons. We like to elect people to try to run the way we live instead of trying to run the country. That's why we can't get people back to work. We're too busy telling them who they can or can't marry or how they should live their lives or why they're not good enough to get into our country, instead of telling those things to the companies that would hire us if they hadn't pulled out of our country. If government would actually concentrate on bringing those jobs back, or better yet, fostering new technology and making it more advantageous to manufacture that technology here, we'd all be better off. But that doesn't seem to be what our congress is interested in. It appears that our congress would rather fight then switch.

Where The Ultras Meet.

My friends, and you are my friends. I'm running for president and therefore I declare that everyone is my friend. Especially if they promise to vote for me. Anyway, My friends, I'd like to take this opportunity to let you know that unlike some certain, so called politicians, I don't intend to quit the race. Well, at least not unless I get a job offer from  NBC or FOX. Then I may consider dropping out of the race. No sirree bob, I'm in it for the long haul. Although I must say that my PAC, P.I.M.P. is not doing as well as I had hoped. Not one single $50,000 donation has been received yet. Although it's not too late to get your check in. That Lincoln bedroom has a nice fresh coat of paint, I'm told. And now with the best candidates out of the race, like Donny the birther Trump, and the only ones left are the likes of Newt the rotisserie Gingrich and Mitt, like healthcare or not Rommney, left, I feel I'm a shoe in. Oh of course there's still Michelle where's the revolution Bachmann in it and we could still see Sarah see, Russia's right over there Palin, but I'll bet I poll better. Getting back to Romney and Gingrich, have you ever seen two people dance better then these guys? I mean, they back-pedeled away from their past and present better then anybody I've ever seen. It's called the Republican two-step. Not to be confused with the Democrat One-step-forward, one-step-backward dance. That's an easy one, but you never get very far with it.  No, I like where I'm positioned right in the middle. No, I don't mean a moderate. See politics is like the world, it's round. You start at a moderate then go either way, left or right and eventually you meet up again. That's where I am. Right between the ultra wings of both parties.

You Can Now Agree With Everything I've Said.

Snowbeard's Indisputably Correct Dictionary says that, in the eyes of a conservative, the definition of a liberal is someone who wants others to provide for him at no cost to himself, and a conservative as someone who wants to keep what he makes for himself and give to the charities of his choosing. On the other hand, the SICD dictionary states that, through the eyes of a liberal, a liberal is someone who understands the needs of the less fortunate, often having experienced great need himself, and a conservative as someone who has never experienced great need or having experienced great need, never received help. Please substitute "her or herself" as the need arises. Do you buy any of this? I mean do you have to experience great need to be concerned about the needs of others? Do conservatives really give to charities? Do liberals always expect conservatives to pay for everything? I mean I once met a conservative who dropped a dime in the offering plate and another time I saw a liberal offer to leave dollar a tip after the conservative bought the meal. The thing is, generalities are often wrong, as a general rule. My answer to all of these questions is an unequivocal maybe. Some say yes, some say no. I agree.

NRA And Terrorists Go Together Like Sun And Shine.

Now here's an item for my famed website "SneakyLeaks". Secretly lifted from the pages of the NYTimes. Did you know that first responders at the Twin Towers on 9-11 who need medical care as a result of working at ground zero, must first be checked against the "terrorist watch list". Not only that, but you remember that the list is consulted before you can board an airplane. Well thank goodness you don't have to have your name checked against that list when you want to buy an assault rifle. Or even a couple of dozen assault rifles. Not even at any gun store in the country. Boy does that make things easier. After all, good honest upright terrorists are tired of being tested and checked every time they want to do something menacing. Yessiree bob. It's a relief to know that somebody cares about terrorists. After all, they just might be members in good standing of the NRA. And we all know that if you are a paid up member of the NRA, you should be able to buy any gun you want, any time you want, for whatever purpose you want. And here's another good reason to be delighted. You don't have to have your name checked against the
"terrorist watch list" to join the NRA. It's like that old "Monopoly Game" card called GET OUT OF JAIL FREE. You can go past GO and collect your $200 or a gun of your choice. Let's hear it for the NRA and Congress. Hip Hip rat-a-tat-tat.

A Buck Private Here And A Buck Private There, Adds Up.

Did you know that right now. This year. We're taxed lower than at any time in the last thirty years? That's a fact. But we're whining about it more then at any time in the last, oh I don't know, probably since the Whiskey Rebellion. Not that there isn't reason to complain. We do spend too much. Especially on the military. Now I'm a strong believer in being ready to defend ourselves, especially against terrorists. But a huge standing army can't really do that any more. And I can assure you that continuing testing on advanced weaponry that doesn't work and that we really don't need, isn't in our best interest. So. Why do we need a huge standing army? In order to protect the world, presumably from itself. Does Japan really need our protection? I certainly don't see Japan as a military threat to us, and I think they could raise their own defensive force in order to protect themselves. Same goes for Europe. I don't think the Pentagon knows the cold war is over. Somebody suggested we turn some of the less combat related jobs in the military over to civilian workers. I'm not sure that would be a cost saver. Well at least somebody's thinking. So what do we need? We need a highly trained, extremely well equiped, rapid response, set of strike forces ready to meet the needs of a twenty first century superpower. If we need a more conventional military force, we have the Marines. What we need from the Army is that special forces kind of force. Maybe we need to increase our reserve force. Our National Guard. They can do the kind of disaster relief work they've always done and be prepared for the combat that might pop up, but may never. What we need most is for Congress and the Presidents to stop thinking that our military is the answer to everything that happens in the world. We're lousy nation builders. And ya know what? If we stop looking belligerent, maybe the rest of the world would stop being so belligerent. It sure would save a lot of money. And lives. Then we can get back to doing what we do best. Complaining.

Clean My Foot! No, I Mean Clean My Foot.

Hey, have you heard the latest from the oil companies? Well, okay the price of oil has just dropped below $100. But no, I'm talking about the "clean" oil they're beginning to tell us about. Now, when have they ever mentioned that their product isn't clean?  Right now they're talking about oil sands. It's actually tar in sand buried in the ground. To get it out, you dig it up. When you dig it up, some is going to spill out on the surface. And if you pay close attention, they're really saying that they can make it as clean as the regular stuff. Which isn't all that clean. Otherwise why would they say they can make it as good as? So, this stuff must be a lot dirtier. Well of course it is. It's tar. Have you ever heard that kind of blarney before? Yep. King coal. Coal companies are always saying they can make coal clean. They haven't yet. Neither have the oil companies. So, why isn't it clean? I mean either one of them? Because there's a whole lot of poisons in them. I don't mean to suggest that it can't be done. In fact, I'm certain that they can remove the poisons from both coal and oil.  Trouble is, whatta ya do with the poisons after you take them out of the fuels? I mean it's not like you can wrap it in a dirty diaper and put in the garbage. We're talking about millions of tons, based on the consumption of oil and coal in this country. We haven't even figured out how or where to dispose of spent nuclear fuel yet. Look at it this way, if you take a clean bottle and you pour in a cup of ink, that's one thing. You can pour the ink out and wipe the bottle clean. But you still have the ink.  No matter where you put it, it still shows up as a stain.

It's That Texas Textbook Again.

I don't know if you remember my telling about the Texas state School Board coming up with a new history textbook? Well as it turns out the guy who is responsible for it is David Barton. He's a math teacher/ high school principal/ ordained preacher. He has no history degree. He claims to have widely read much literature and writings from the first century of our country. Especially the founding of the country and it's founders. The thing is, he's a fundamentalist who is convinced that America was supposed to be a Christian country.  Problem is, the founding fathers, who were very explicit on nearly everything, also explicitly left that out of the constitution. He claims that it wasn't left out of six of the original states' constitutions. Now I think that if it was in the states' constitutions and they left it out of the National Constitution, there must have been a good reason. No matter which came first. And there was never a decision by the founders to make any change to agree with Mr. Barton. Never the less, he advises conservative presidential contenders. Seems to me that Mr. Barton is a novice who cherry picks words and phrases to suit his agenda. I mean no disrespect, because most everyone does some of that  kind of thing. But of course, most everyone isn't in a position to influence the whole country's policies. Or change history to agree with our opinion.
He likes to point out that most, if not the whole country's schools are buying his history textbook. However, because Texas is the single largest buyer of textbooks, publishers choose that one to print. Anyone who wants anything else is pretty much out of luck. It's a take it or leave it deal. Sounds like nothing to crow about.

National Bullying Awareness Campaign.

Here's the scene. A 9th grader stands in front of the Principal's desk. The principle says" what do you have to say for yourself, young man". The boy says "my dad says it alright for me to do it". Don't give me that. No parent would tell his child that it's okay to bully. Well, that's what he said, only he doesn't think it's bullying. He did not say any such thing. Yes he did, he said he does it all the time at work. Young man, no employer would allow bullying in the workplace. Well his does. In fact he got a promotion for doing such a good job of it. That can't be. You shouldn't lie to me like that. I'm going to call your father, what's his phone number. You can't call him right now, he'll be busy bullying somebody. Well then who does he work for. I'll call them and register a complaint and then call the newspaper to report them. He works for the U. S. Government.  WHO??? I said the... Never mind, I heard you. Are you telling me that he bullies people for the government? Yes and he doesn't get in any trouble for doing the same thing I did.  Which was to push the kid's head into the toilet because he wouldn't tell me the combination to his locker. Exactly what is it that your father does for the government? They call it enhanced interrogation. Only he uses a piece of wood somehow. But that's called waterboarding, That's torture. Not if you're asking questions and the person you're asking won't give you the answers you want. That's patriotism. My dad said so. The Government said so.

Maybe We Should Pay Attention To Who We Vote For.

Would you like to know what's keeping America from developing more jobs? Well here it is in all it's wondrous glory. Our workforce is too well educated and were striving to make it an even better educated workforce. Say what? See, what corporate America wants in an American workforce is a poorly educated, docile workforce capable only of being trained to push the right button at the right time to enable the robot to do the work. You think I'm wrong? Then why does corporate America continually send jobs to third world countries? Because labor is cheaper? Well of course it's cheaper. It's workforces are docile, poorly educated, but capable of being trained to push the right button at the right time. I had a conversation with a  conservative friend of mine the other day. He told me about his friend who ran a company some years back. The friend laid off people when the minimum wage went to $5. years ago. He decided he'd rather loose money then pay such an exorbitant wage. If corporate America had it's way, they'd still be paying American workers three dollars a day for twelve hour shifts. The workers would still be living in company homes in company towns. We'd be back in a feudal society. There would only be the poor worker class and the wealthy landlord/company executives class. Oh, and a few wallstreet hedgefund managers.
Healthcare would consist of a pink slip if you got sick. 18th century France tried that. It worked so well that many of the rich got so caught up in it that they lost their heads over it. The thing is that here in
America, corporations are rewarded for shipping jobs overseas. It's just an added incentive. Who would do such a thing? The guys we voted for.

Education Instead Of Politicians, For Corporations.

While everyone is focused on the Bin Laden story, I'm looking at the future of America. So, with states and the Federal government trying to figure out how to cut back on education spending, I've come to the conclusion that we need to spend a whole lot of money on alchemy research. Cause we're gonna need to start turning rocks into gold. Problem is, with that much new gold, it'll probably not be worth much more then the rocks. Really. We need to figure out how to spend more on education, but we need to figure out how to spend it all, wisely. I think we should double down on taxes on all corporations. But then give them big tax cuts for working with high schools, colleges, universities and trade schools. If they hire teachers and buy equipment in the areas of expertize needed to manufacture their products, we cut their taxes by 60%. Of course this will only work if the corporations actually pay taxes. So toward this end, all tax loopholes for corporations would need to be done away with. Harsh yes, but necessary. Probably the first loophole we need to do away with is the idea that corporations are persons. Sorry Supreme Court, but this is too important to skip. After all, it's not like corporations have souls. Next we do away with corporate sponsorship of politicians and their campaigns. Once we do that, campaigns can be run on a twenty dollar bill. With enough left over to buy a cup of coffee and a doughnut. Make mine glazed, like my eyes.

Bin Laden's Demise Is Good For Us.Life Goes On.

Well by golly Bin Laden is kaput. There really isn't anything to laugh about in this. He was an enemy, he killed Americans in a cowardly way, he has hid from justice for a very long time, he's been killed. Our forces did the job they were asked to do. Not much else has changed. We'll still face the threat of terrorism, we'll still have politicians bickering loudly, and there'll still be lots of material for comedians to use. The price of oil will continue to rise and people will continue to find reason to complain while driving. Food will continue to rise in price and people will continue to gain weight while overeating. Politicians will continue to complain about the deficit and the debt while increasing their pet projects. Political Action Committees will continue to lie about their mentor's opponents. And we still won't allow politicians to touch our Medicare or Social Security. There's a lot of comfort in these things. And that's to the greater advantage of politicians. Because when the electorate is worrying or complaining about things like these, they aren't watching legislators closely enough. That's when politicians are most mischievious. If you're not watching all the time, legislators legislate. That's not good. Whether it's a corporation or a government, someone has to keep an eye on them. Either a uniom or a government inspector or a news reporter, but someone. Otherwise, no good will come of it.

The Truth About Politicians And The Wealthy.

If you ask me, I think there's a conspiracy going on here. I mean look at the fact that we can't increase taxes on the rich or even the super rich. In fact we can't even step back to the Clinton era tax rates when we were enjoying a surplus. So who was and is to blame for that? The Republicans, that's who. Now, along comes Timothy Geithner, President Obama's man at the head of the Treasury Department. He's from
Wall Street. He has decided that  there's no reason for oversight of a $4 trillion a day derivatives business. You know, the kind of business that caused the financial disaster that led to the Great Recession. It's not as risky as some other markets, says Mr Geithner. Not as risky as some other markets? What does he describe as risky? If somebody walks into a market with a gun, is that risky enough? These people don't use a gun, they use a calculator and a computer. So who's to blame for this? It would appear that the Democrats are. This confirms my suspision that you can't trust a Republican, but you can't trust a Democrat, but you can't trust an independent either. About the only thing or people you can trust, is that rich people will find a way to buy a politician and get even richer. Heck, the reason you can trust rich people to buy politicians is that they've been doing it for years. Why do you think so many jokes are told about it? Here's one for you; A rich guy walks into a bar and meets a politician, the politician says "not in here, let's go out back". Oh! Wait! That's a true story.