You Have The Right To Remain Silent.

Can anyone tell me what the greatest danger from fossil fuels is? Global warming? No. Pollution? No. Well then, just exactly what is the greatest danger from fossil fuels? The big problem seems to be the nearly total disregard for safety on the part of the energy companies. You could even add nuclear energy to that list. The latest is a report on Massey Energy, the company that operated the coal mine where 29 miners died. They cooked the books. By that I mean they kept two separate sets of books on mine safety just like at the Gulf Oil spill where reports go to Washington claiming good honest safety records while the opposite is the case. Now, I don't mean to suggest that the corporate leaders of these energy companies would falsify reports, I'm merely saying that they would falsify reports. And the proof is in the reports. This isn't just an American phenomenon, look at what happened in Japan at the nuclear energy site where reporting on the accident to the Japanese government kept giving misleading reports on what was happening. Nor is it in energy companies alone. But with energy companies, the opportunity for major disasters is so much greater. Why is it that companies that seem to be making record profits every time you turn around, keep cheating? Maybe that's one of the ways they make the big profits. Maybe that's how we can keep track of them. As soon as a company sets a record for profits, maybe we should go arrest them. Because they're most likely breaking a law or at least endangering somebody.

No More Parties, No More Parties.

Have you heard the one about the Congressional Cafeteria Oversight Committee on Menus? It had to be disbanded because the Senators and Representatives were all loosing too much weight. How come? Because the oversight committee couldn't come to any agreement on a menu. Okay, so it's not a very funny joke, but then neither is congress' inability to come to an agreement on some of the most important issues of our times. Like when is the actual, drop dead, last possible minute for a decision on the debt ceiling. Let's remember that the debt ceiling has to be raised so the government can spend the money that congress has already spent. Congress has to give permission to spend the money that congress has already voted it must spend. So if you sign an agreement to repay a loan you take out to buy a car, can you then refuse to write the check and mail it for the first payment? Well, actually, no. Not if you want to keep the car or ever be able to borrow any money again in the foreseeable future. Well, alright. What would happen if we don't raise to debt ceiling? For starters, we'd have to begin to pay higher interest rates on the money we borrow from places like China. Why? Because we'd be considered a higher risk. And a small increase in the interest rate would mean billions more in interest payments. Well, if that's the case, then why doesn't congress go ahead and vote to raise the ceiling? Go back and read the first four sentences. The Republicans demand no tax increases, not even plugging loop holes. Democrats demand at least plugging some loop holes. So the question is, what's the drop dead last minute for a decision. The thing is, economists don't like to play chicken. And you wonder why I think we should outlaw political parties?

If Only One Side Didn't Know What The Other Side Was Doing.

When it comes to Washington, you can always find three sides to any argument. There's the left hand argument, the right hand argument and what's actually true. But that's not the question. The question is what argument is best for Americans. Generally speaking, it's never the first two. Take the most current discussions on the debt and the debt ceiling. You could, in a vacuum, argue that either the left or the right is the best course of action. The problem is that we're never in a vacuum. There are always side issues that throw monkey wrenches into the mix. On the one hand, severe austerity measures always hurt the most vulnerable. On the other hand run-away debt endangers the investments of the more affluent and therefore the entire economy. But if you take money away from the poor and middle-class, who will buy products that would spur growth?  Without protections the wealthy may fear to invest in growth. See? Neither side can win this argument. So, what to do? It's easier to say what not to do. What not to do is to just sit and argue, or even worse, walk out  on the discussion. What generally happens in Washington at this point is a lot of grand-standing, posturing and generally trying to make political hay. You know. Make the other side look bad. If the other side looks unwilling to compromise, then your base will dislike them. Which it already does anyway. If your side sticks to it's guns and promises, then your base likes that and dislikes the other side. Which it already did anyway. It's a pointless exercise but is one that seems to have to be played out regardless. So what's best for Americans? What would be best for Americans would be to ban political parties. But then, how would Democrats and Republicans keep score?

Fairness Is Always In The Eyes of The Beholder.

Here's what I don't understand. If Republicans in congress are so against anything that even smells of a tax increase, they're against it, so how come they don't see cuts to entitlements as a form of tax
 increases on the poor and middle class? Look, if a modest family of four is currently living on ,say $20,000 a year which includes a few subsidies like a small amount of food stamps as an example, if you take that away, that family actually has less spendable income to live on. Now you can say what you will, but that's no different then an increase in taxes for someone else. Oh, I know, some folks believe we shouldn't be giving food stamps to anyone, but then how do you justify a special loophole in the tax code that gives a tax break to a corporation that has a jet plane for it's CEO to fly around in? I guess if I had to justify something, I think it would be a whole lot easier to justify some food for a family then it would be to justify a private jet for the boss. Buy him a first class ticket and a new set of luggage and let him struggle with the embarrassment of not having his own plane. And I'm sure I could make a case for eliminating the special treatment of hedge fund manager who pay a much lower tax percentage on the multi-millions they make each year then the average guy pays on his hard earned thousands. Why is it that some folks can't see the fairness in requiring those who have most , to pay most? That's why a flat tax is so unfair. If you set a flat percentage rate of tax on everyone, the poor would pay far more then they can afford while the rich would get away with paying far less then they can afford. Here's a simple example; if you assume a ten percent tax, a family making $20,000 pays $2,000 leaving only $18,000 to live on, but the family making $1,000,000 pays $100,000. That's a lot, but they still have $900,000 to live on. Most folks could eke out a bare existence on that. I'm not anti-success. What I am is pro-fairness. Now if there wasn't such a wide disparity on income between those on the top rungs and those near the bottom rungs, we wouldn't be having these conversations.

We Are Known By The People We Don't Even Associate With.

As a declared candidate for president, I'm a bit concerned about a couple of opponents. The thing is, politicians running for office are sometimes judged by the opponents they are up against. Now there are some in the race for nomination who might actually be credible candidates. But there are a few who don't seem to be of the same high caliber of the others. In fact, you might say they're of the Nerf gun caliber. One is a former Senator from Pennsylvania, another is a sitting Congresswoman and a third is a former Speaker of the House. I know, I know, I've said before that if you can't say something nice about someone, you shouldn't say anything at all. So here goes. To the best of my knowledge, all three have been kind to their respective parents. There now, doesn't that meet the requirements? Okay, so why do I feel they are of somewhat questionable metal? Well, for one thing, two think that evolution is an unproven theory and in spite of anything you may have heard, Adam and Eve never kept a herd of dairy dinosaurs. Oh and they think global warming is a hoax and the third doesn't think having a seven figure charge at Tiffany's is anything unusual. I don't mean to suggest they're out of touch with reality, but aren't they? And the thing is this. I don't want to be judged with that sort of company. If I'm to be judged, I'd like to be judged with the likes of JFK or The Gipper. No. Wait. Not them. They're both dead. If I'm going to be judged, I'd at least like to be judged with someone who's alive and in they're right mind. You know. Someone like, aaah, oh I don't know, someone like, aaah, hmmm, gee I can't think of anyone who measures up. But anyway, you know what I mean. I want to be considered a serious candidate. Someone like the governor of Texas. Someone who has suggested that his state should secede from the nation, or someone who pushed through the prototype for universal healthcare for his state before he was against it. Or someone who is a former or current governor who won't run or can't make up their mind, or doesn't have a mind. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I want to be compared to anyone.

Hey! Just Who's Hand Is In My Pocket, Anyway?

To quit the caves of Kandahar, to brave the backstreets of Baghdad, to triumph in the temples of Tripoli, to pander in the provinces of Pakistan These are the questions that try men's thoughts. They're also the questions that congress will comment on ceaselessly. Americans must gestate on the guilt and the guile of the generous germs of greed and grit. If any of this makes any sense to you, you are reading far too much into it. But the question of whether or not to continue to fight four wars, to continue to protect and serve Europe, the "near east", Japan and the "far east" are fair and honest. For instance, did you know that while we slug it out in those caves of Kandahar, Afghanistan, China is the country with the exclusive rights to all the copper in Afghanistan. But China isn't paying for any of the war effort. In fact they're loaning us the money to fight the war, plus interest. Now I don't mean to suggest that we should have been given first refusal on any natural resources, but shouldn't we? I mean it seems to me we've earned some consideration. I'm beginning to think this Karzai or whatever his name is, you know, the president of Afghanistan, is somewhat less than an honorable man. And even though I understand that his first concerns should be for the best interests of his own country, I think maybe his first concerns are for his own best interests. And I understand the real concerns about Pakistan and it's nuclear baggage, and the downtrodden in Libya and how much we've invested in the  building of a successful nation in Iraq, but shouldn't we be a little more concerned about building our own nation back up, and a little less concerned about the rest of the world. As I've said before,
I think Europe and Japan can afford to protect themselves without our stationing troops there. And no, I'm not suggesting isolationism. What I am suggesting is that we spend our hard earned money and the lives of our young men and women a little more judiciously. I think most Americans are willing to let Washington slip it's hands into our pockets to pull out the cash it needs to operate, we just don't like them thinking it's all theirs.

How Come Our Fourth War Isn"t More Popular?

Have you ever heard the old adage, If you can't say something nice about somebody, don't say anything at all? Well I've decided to follow that good advice and not mention the Supreme Court today.So, instead let me talk about war. Have you ever noticed how politicians relate to wars and the rumors of wars? When they talk about war, they tell you how terrible war is. How costly it is and how terrible the cost in human lives it is. But if you look at their actions and their votes, you begin to see a different picture. It's a picture that suggests that many of them are secretly infatuated with the thought of going to war. It's easy for them to feel that way because they know it won't be them doing the fighting. Of course there are some who have actually been in the trenches like John McCain, but those are in the minority.  Anyway, their actions show them to be somewhat bloodthirsty. At least that's true unless they get a sense that Corporate America is against it. See, the American people are mostly against war, but let's face it, Corporate America makes substantial profits off war. So it's rare to see companies that make a profit on something actually be against it at the same time. And as you know, whatever's good for corporations is good for America, right? You could say that our slogan is Fight Baby Fight.  All of which begins to explain why congress is not all that much in favor of our involvement in Libya. See we're fighting there, but we aren't using any ground troops. So while Corporate America may be in favor and the American people may not be so much against it, there's no American blood. Where's the glory for our politicians? There's no votes available in this. No campaign points. It's somewhat of a waste from the politicians point of view.

How's About Spreading It Around Some?

Have ya seen the latest on executive pay? I mean extreme pay? Well it ain't just Wall Street or the Bankers that are making exorbitant incomes. Nor is it Actors and Athletes either. In fact they make up a small percentage of the high rollers. No, the single biggest group of giant income folks are corporate executives. You know. The guys and even some gals who manage to beat down labor, spend fortunes on supporting politicians, frequent the exclusive golf clubs around the country, finance political campaigns and jet off to ski weekends in the Alps or lay around on beaches in the Caribbean. The guys who convince Supreme Court Justices that they need extra consideration in all manor of dealings with the public and labor. What's really interesting is that the differences between the elite tycoons and their employees, income wise, is very similar to what existed just before the Great Depression. I think that if a study could be done on the subject, you'd find that it's very similar to what happened just before the French Revolution. Ever wonder why the social elite look down their collective noses at the French? Well it's probably because some of their closest soul-mates got the ax by the commoner French. Well, in the good ole U. S. of A. the commoners are beginning to get good and fed up with the disparity. I do not hold with the French approach. But at some point some changes will need to take place. And I don't mean changing one money-grabber for another, but some real fairness and consideration of the folks at the bottom who actually make it possible for the folks at the top to live that high life. Because that isn't what entitlement is all about. Here's a question for ya. Who's gonna pay the taxes after the middle class is completely gone?

Who Needs Regulation Anyway?

In 1933, during the Great Depression, Pres. Roosevelt signed into law a bill that required banks to stop selling securities. That was nearly eighty years ago. It pretty much stood for seventy plus years. But with deregulation came the Great Recession. Now back then the banking industry screamed bloody murder claiming it would be the end of banking. Sound familiar? Yes boys and girls, regulation is the ruination of our world. Regulation will cause the cost of living to triple, at least. We'll have to have death panels and all that sort of thing if we allow regulation of anything, including sports and mom's apple pie. The thing is, we don't need regulation because banks and Wall Street and Corporations of all stripes know how to regulate themselves far better then any bureaucrat. And we see proof of that every so often when a peanut factory is caught selling tainted peanut butter and killing people, or giant ponzi schemes go undiscovered for years by companies who know it's happening the whole time. Yes, it's true, we don't need regulations. What we need is a new law that says any company that breaks the law automatically belongs to the government and all of it's management and board of directors go to maximum security prison. That should cover the subject. The problem is that for such a law to pass through congress, it would be saddled with  several thousand amendments all designed to make the opposing party refuse to sign the law into effect. But that's a topic for another discussion. Except that those amendments are also what's keeping regulations from being reenacted. Ain't politics grand?

How Much Faith Do You Have?

Here's the problem we have in this country. We have very high unemployment and we have very high debt and deficits. However, having a two party system of government where neither are able to agree on how to solve these two areas of difficulty, we have no solutions at all. The one side feels the only way to solve both problems is to reduce the debt while the other side would like to believe that putting folks back to work is the solution to both problems. Now in order to reduce the debt, there will have to be cuts in spending and increases in income, or taxes, and no tax cuts. That side refuses to consider any tax increase, even though we are at the lowest rate of taxes percentage/per capita in more than thirty years, but wants those tax cuts.  The other side won't admit that for their plan to work, they will have to continue spending well beyond our means to pay, for the near term. That's because they'll have to do another, more focused stimulus of substantial size. The American people want tax cuts and don't want a stimulus unless they get a piece of the action and the banks and Wall Street don't. Of course they don't want Wall St or the banks to get the tax cuts either. The thing is, the side that wants to cut the debt and cut the taxes has the most appealing argument. Hey, who doesn't want all the goodies? The thing is, that plan cannot work and if implemented will only put us in a worse place financially. Most people realize that. They just hate to admit it. And as long as there are politicians out there assuring them it will work as long as we cut entitlements and Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Now that's where the fat hits the fire. Even people who won't be affected for years don't want any part of that formula. In the meantime, nothing of real value or substance comes out of Washington. Of course debt is not a good thing, or at least too much debt is not as good thing. On the other hand we were in even worse shape right after WW11, but because there was strong job growth, we worked our way out of trouble. To do that again, we'll have to have confidence in this country. So I guess the real question is, do we?

Quit Whining About Weiner And Get Back To Work.

From what I understand, the congress can't seem to get any work done because of this Wiener thing. I think it's just an excuse. After all, they never seem to get much work done. What with two gyms open only to members of congress. Did you know that they won't even tell how much it costs to operate these two gyms? I mean ,come on. It's taxpayer money. Somebody was quoted as saying it's a matter of national security. National security? Give me a break. How is providing a gym for Tony Wiener to photograph himself, a national security issue? And getting back to congress not getting much work done, even when they do get  something passed, they often get it wrong. Or tack on so many special interest earmarks, that it's overladen with pork spending. I tell ya it's gotta stop. Now when I'm president, you're gonna see some changes. Those gyms are gonna be turned into homeless shelters. That should shake up congress. To have a homeless shelter so close to where they live and work. I doubt they've ever seen anything like that or anyone like that. They'll think there's been an invasion of poor folk. Should scare the be-jeepers out of them. Anyway, getting back to congress getting sidetracked by a wiener of a wiener, couldn't they just sit down at their little desks in the House and Senate and start to do some honest work? It would be so novel that it would surely catch the eye of the media. The media is always looking for something new and different to report on. After all. When your talking to people 24/7/52, you hope, beyond hope, for something different to talk about. I know my eyes glaze over after a few minutes of a Blitzer assault.  And I no longer even try to watch a report from some of the, so called, reporters. I think that's why Heraldo doesn't show up much anymore. Anyway congress, you're never gonna get any relief from illicit issues unless you actually get back to work. And then stay there. You know, nose to the grindstone. You have heard that expression, haven't you?

More Campaign Nits And Lice.

I'm continuing my campaign for president and have noticed that many, many successful politicians have participated in illicit relations. As a long time photographer, I've decided to venture into that arena. That's right folks, good news indeed. My only problem has been to get someone to review the photos. I finally got an art critic to agree to take a peak, but the price was quite steep at $5 per photo. That problem was  quickly solved after she got a look at them. Her response was that no amount of money could compensate her for looking at any more. Obviously I was pleased that she thought so highly of me and my physique. I found a new looker to check them out. Although she spelled it with an "H". One look though and she upped her price to $1000 per picture which has priced her out of the market. But it's good to know the value of them, anyway. I, nevertheless, remain hopeful.
I must say, I'm a bit disappointed that I wasn't invited to participate in Monday night's Republican Presidential candidate Debate. Especially when you consider that one person wasn't even a declared candidate until after the debate began. I speak of course, of Michelle Bachmann. It may be because she is the only female in the running. I know that to be true, because I tried to fill that position myself, but was turned down on the flimsy excuse that I wasn't female. It seems that the lame stream media is out to get me. Or perhaps they're out to ignore me. Which would be even worse. Well, as soon as my photos are released to the media, that will change, I'm certain.
My PAC, P.I.M.P. is doing well and I can tell you now, that there are only 240, prime cherry blossom time reservation nights left for the Lincoln bedroom, so you need to get your donations in quickly if you want to sleep over. I plan to change all the art work in that room with some of my best photos. Poster sized. It should add some real class to a room that has been neglected for far too long.
As for my platform, I've added jobs creation, including that of official photographer. And photo critic. Don't forget that one. Another plank I've been considering is war. War isn't all it's cracked up to be. People going around shooting off their mouths and guns. One of these days somebody's gonna get hurt, mark my word, and then watch out. And what if one of these times we don't win? Huh? What then? You'll find hawk feathers all over the place. No photos are gonna solve that little problem.

It's Your Money, Spend It The Way You Want.

Here's the thing. Corporate America is enjoying record profits at this moment. Corporations hold a record trillions of dollars in cash. Ya know what? That's exactly what their job is. Corporations are supposed to make as much money for their investors as they can. That's what they get hired to do, that's what they get paid to do. Nobody disagrees with these statements. So, if it's true, then why should they create jobs? Jobs cost corporations money. That takes away from the profits and that takes money out of investors pockets. It just isn't in the best interests of corporations to create jobs. That is, unless there's a profit to be had in creating those jobs. What would cause that profit? If there was a demand for the corporation's products beyond their present capacity to manufacture them, then there would be an incentive to create jobs. Then it would make sense to create jobs to meet this new demand. The real question then, is how do we create that demand? Answer; put money in the hands of people who might buy the products the corporations manufacture. How do we do that? We could put more money in the hands of millionaires and billionaires, but there's two problems with that. There aren't as many of them and they're not as likely to spend that money. The other suggestion is to put money in the hands of the middle class and the poor. There are loads of these people and they very likely will spend the money. So how do we put the money in their hands? Either just send them a check or maybe a better way would be to spend loads of money of our infrastructure. Lord knows it needs work done on it. That would put loads of people back to work which would solve another problem. Namely unemployment. Then they'll be paying taxes on their income which will help on the debt and deficit issues. Now why didn't I think of this before? Why didn't congress think of this? Isn't that their job?

Watch Your Step. You Might Have To Decide.

Where I live, the potholes are so bad that you can't even avoid them while walking. Okay, they're not quite that bad, but it does point out the seriousness of the problem. No I'm not talking about potholes. I'm talking about our infrastructure in general. Our country is crumbling from the inside out. And yet the government, both state and federal, seem unwilling or unable to do anything about it. It takes money to solve these kinds of problems and that's something our legislators, both at the state and federal level aren't willing to part with. To be fair, part of the problem is that we are already deeply in debt and there's the very real danger that we could default on some of that debt, and even if we don't default we could be downgraded from our AAA rating to something slightly less in our creditworthiness. If either happens, we're done for. On the other hand, if we ever hope to get back on track, we're going to need the overhaul of our roads and bridges and water supplies and power grids and sewers and everything else including education. There's no use looking back and wishing we had spent more or less on stimulus. We are where we are. What we do now will decide for a very long time where we will be. Either a third rate country or a leader. Not spending right now can easily push us down even deeper. Not spending now could save us.  You can hear both sides every minute of every day, thanks to 24 hour news TV. The one thing still remains a fact either way. We desperately need those upgrades in order to prosper. Maybe by doing the work, we'll put enough people back to work to solve the unemployment problem, which would go a long way toward solving our debt crisis.

Isn't Seven Part Harmony Wonderful?

Who knows what seven part harmony is? No, it's not some new musical group or even some new music. It's all about education. It's who's responsible for education to be exact.  If a young person is failing in a subject there are usually one of two people to blame, so the thinking goes. The first person people usually look at is the student, but the first person to get any blame is the teacher.  If you think about it, there's seven directions to look in.  The student and teacher are in this group, but aren't necessarily the guilty parties. There's also the parent(s). But that's not all. Anyone think it could be the administration at school? Yep, that principal is every bit as responsible for each and every student as the student. No kid should get even close to failing a subject without a flag going up that sets in motion a series of events to get that student some individual attention before it's too late, no exception. And then there's the school board. Think their hands are clean? Think the only reason for having a school board is to get your kid a job in education after college? Think again, because any student that fails any subject is an inditement against the board as well.  Okay so that's five part harmony, but what about the other two? Well, the state and federal governments make up the sixth. I lump them together because they're cut from the same stripe. They're politicians. Their interests are more intuned with the more important issues of our day. Like getting reelected or getting a good lobbying job, then with education. As long as there's testing going on, they don't want to know any more. Well then who's left? Tax payers, that's who. Instead of worrying about why school taxes are so high, worry about whether or not their kids are getting their money's worth. No one group is going to improve our education process alone, but no improvement is going to happen until each begins to accept some responsibility and does something constructive.

There's Zealots At The Roots Of The Problems.

Just what is the problem with the economy, anyway? Well, nobody agrees on very much at all. But one thing they all agree on is JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. Well, DUH. I mean if everybody had a job that wanted one and they were all good jobs, there wouldn't be a recession now would there be? Why, people would have money to buy things and go places. They'd be paying taxes, and the debt and the deficit would begin to fall. So if jobs is the biggest problem and it would solve most of our other economic problems, why isn't our government concentrating on Jobs? Uh huh, in some respects, they are. All the politicians talk about jobs. So if talking could solve the problem we'd already be on easy street. But talk is about all they do. Then again, it's what they've always done best. The problem seems to be that they can't agree on how to "grow jobs". The Republicans believe that we need to reward the wealthy because they're the ones that create jobs. The Democrats believe it's the middle class and poor that create the need for jobs by buying the products creating demand. Well I'm here to tell ya that they're both right. The wealthy are the ones to create jobs. But only if there's demand for their products. So how do we reward both? I mean, we can't even affords the four wars we're supporting, never mind NATO. What we need is for the government to come up with some compromise, not just a one sided deal, but real compromise and then all sign on, even if they don't agree, they still have to sign on and not find fault. You know. Become cheer leaders. But there are too many in congress that wouldn't agree that the sky is blue and the earth is round. Therein lies the problem. There's too many politicians finding too much fault with any and every idea put forward. Where are the citizen legislators? You know. The ones who are there only because they're patriots and want to help any way they can. Not zealots for one side or another, but patriots. It's political parties and their zealots that are ruining this country. It's the political parties that are causing the economic problems we face. Ya know what would work well? A constitutional ammendment to outlaw political parties. Can 't ya just see the politicians signing on to that one?

If We Leave, What Do We Do With Our People?

Ya know what our policy in Afghanistan is now? Well let's start back a few years. Like eleven. Our policy has been to wipe out Al Qaida and the Taliban and build a strong central government to protect the country. That was then. Now our plan has gone from there to, forget the central government because there's no hope for it, so let's concentrate on the regional and local governments. Well tell me, how is that working out? Not so good. Our current strategy is "see what's good enough". Like, give it a try and whatever happens, "good enough". Now I'm not speaking of strictly military action. There our goals are still the same and we still keep taking out the opposition forces and leadership. My question is, if our goals are "good enough" when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the people and their leadership, and the best we can get is "good enough", isn't it time to say "good enough" and pull out?I mean if we can't help them build a stronger government to protect them from incursion and subversion, then why are we wasting our time and riches and people for no reward down the road. I've heard projections of anywhere from ten years to never, when it comes to building a government able to protect it's population. Can we afford or justify that kind of commitment?  Cause if we can't, what are we doing there? I don't suggest the kind of retreat we saw in Viet-nam, but we need an orderly removal as qiuckly as possible. Then we need to reaccess our policy on the middle east. And on the military. And on how we decide when and where and how to go to war. Here's another thing. When we bring all those troops home, how many do we keep in the military and how do we train those who will be leaving the service? The reason I ask is because we already have all the unemployed we need and then some. We don't need more unemployed  people whose training happens to include killing the opposition. We need to train them how to perform a more useful trade.  Has anyone given any thought as to how to do this?

What Global Warming?

GLOBAL WARMING! Not much brings more concern to the table then global warming. Not much brings more arguments to the table either. Why is that? I mean it's pretty clear that science is saying it's a fact and we're a large part of the problem. Yet there's still  a bunch of people who claim it's just a giant hoax. Or that it may be happening but we had nothing to do with it. Or that even if we did, there's nothing we can do to stop it. Or that, and I love this one the best, it would just be too costly to do anything about it. Have I missed any arguments? Ya know what's funny about these arguments? Often they come from the same people. It's not happening, we didn't do it, it's too late, it's too expensive. You'd think these folks would make up their minds. Now, of course, for some folks it's strictly an economic thing. By that I don't mean they think it would be too costly. What they really mean is that they have a lot invested in the current energy systems and don't want to have to scrap those systems without substantial rewards for doing so. So if I own stock in an oil company, and we stop buying oil, who do I see about a refund on my stock? Or if I'm an electric company and folks all go out and buy wind generators, who's gonna replace my profits? Or if I'm employed by one of these companies, who's gonna hire me? Well the answer to the first two need to be, YOU. The third answer is YOU GO OUT AND RETRAIN YOURSELF. Although I do think the government needs to begin to better fund the retraining process so folks can do it. I guess what I'm saying is that we need to stop thinking of ourselves first and start thinking of ourselves, first. Or, leave out the "I" and start thinking
"WE" for a change.

THE MIDDLE EAST EXPLAINED.

Israel thinks Syria has ulterior motives in their complaints over some border clashes. Do ya think? When it comes to the middle east, every country has ulterior motives about everything that happens. I remember they once lived in harmony. Then Cain slew Able. It was all downhill from there. If you wonder why they can't come to some solution where all it's neighbor recognize Israel and Israel gives up the lands it took in the various wars it had with it's neighbors, then you don't understand the middle eastern mind. Basically, these folks don't like each other. In fact there's some reason to believe that they don't like themselves any more than they like their neighbors. In most parts of the world neighbors get along with each other. Take North Korea and South Korea as an example. Well, no, don't take them, let's instead take Nepal and China, no wait, that's not a good example either. How about Turkey and Greece? No, not them either. Okay, how about America and Canada. Wait a minute. America is a continent in which Canada is one country. Well I meant the United States and Canada. Okay, that's better, those two countries do get along pretty well, except when the U.S. forgets that it doesn't own Canada. Canada isn't the fifty first state, ya know. See, it's not so much that the middle eastern countries don't get along so much as that most countries don't get along all that well. The difference is that most countries have decided to get along to go along. In other words, if you can't stop fighting, you're never going to progress. Well in the middle east, they believe that fighting isn't so bad and progress isn't all it's cracked up to be. Come to think of it, progress isn't all it's cracked up to be. But then, neither is fighting.

Talk Taxes, Get Pepper On Your Tongue.

Is your friend a Republican? Or, is a Republican your friend? Now you can ask the same two questions about Democrats. Or even Independents. And I'm not talking about the guy that lives next door or that person sitting in the next booth at the local diner. I'm talking about the politicians. In that case, you might say the answer is a resounding "NO" to all the above questions. But what about the philosophy of the three groups or parties? Now the first, the Republicans, have come to stand for no new taxes of any kind. Not even something that is some abstract formula that might come to suggest a tax increase. It's now dogma. Many politicians are almost forced to sign a pledge of no new taxes. If increased taxes are absolutely necessary to save the state, county or town, or country, better to allow it to go down the tubes then to vote for a tax increase. And a fellow named Grover Nordquist and his organization has made it his business to back that statement up with proof by getting politicians booted out of office for breaking that pledge. Virtually every national Republican serving in office has signed that pledge. Ya know, making promises of one kind or another is a good thing and you should always strive to keep those promises unless it turns out that keeping it would actually be harmful. Not so, says Nordquist, a promise is a promise. It's a warning not an opinion.

Taxes Aren't As Bad As You Think They Are.

It's Sunday June 5, 2011 and I just finished reading Nocholas Kristof's op ed in the N.Y. Times. It should be requiured reading for anyone who believes we're going too far in an attempt to reduce taxes . It should also be required reading for anyone who believes we're paying too much in taxes. He claims that all the countries in the world that have very low taxes are exactly the countries we would never want to be. That is, unless you happen to be super rich. It's as I've been saying about the drive to cut education costs. Cutting education doesn't harm the wealthy. They send their kids to private schools anyway. The same goes for college. State affiliated colleges and universities are not the destination of choice for wealthy young people. They're headed for exclusine private colleges where the entrance exam includes a family financial report. So as far as the wealthy are concerned, cut away till the heart's content. Same for infrastructure. What does a rich man care about infrastructure? If the state doesn't supply infrastructure, he can provide for himself. So let everybody else fend for themselves. Need electric? He can install his own generator. Need paved roads? He'll buy a helicoptor. Need police protection? He'll hire bodyguards. And as far as the wealthy are concerned, so should everyone else. It's a sort of a "let em eat cake, proud to be an American" attitude.

Politicians! Can't Live With Them, Can't live With Them.

So what else is going on in politics? Well, let's see. Some Senator has decided that if the Energy Secretary doesn't allow more permits for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico he will block any pay raise for the Secretary, Ken Salazar. My guess is that this Senator represents the state with the largest block of Mafia, or is one himself. Then there's the campaigners in chief. Those are the folks who are running for office but can't help either lying or are so confused they really don't know what they're talking about. Topping this list are Sarah Pailin and Newt Gingrich. I include Ms Palin even though she's not officially a declared candidate. She is trying to get a whole lot of publicity. Mainly, I think, so that she can be a king-maker. You know, she'd like to call all the shots, but from behind the scenes, so to speak. I know, I know, it doesn't seem to make any sense, but since it's Ms Palin, it makes perfect sense. She wants to be the head of the show, and make a big splash, but doesn't want any of the drudgery that goes with leadership. A neat trick if you can do it. She thinks she can. Which is something else she's mistaken about. Now as to Newt, the rotisserie, Gingrich, he keeps changing his position so often and so quickly I doubt he has any idea what his position is from one minute to the next. The bad thing about these distractions is that they don't allow for any real, honest discussions about the monumental problems facing our nation. I mean there are discussions, but they all seem to be about anything but the truth. And they don't seem to be looking for real solutions. Then again, they are politicians.

Is No Government Better Than Good Government?

There's a big push on for smaller less expensive government. A majority in congress seem to be in favor of this. Well, except for those who represent folks that have been hurt by a variety of calamities. If your constituents got clobbered by the Mississippi river flooding or by tornados then you might feel that smaller government is the right direction to move in but not where your district is concerned. Then and there, you want the biggest government ever devised. You want it now and you want it continuous. presumably until the end of time. Now don't get me wrong, I feel the government's most important role is to protect and serve. Unlike Rep Eric Cantor the house majority whip (I think that's his rank) who said it's okay to help those folks so long as we can cut out some funding for other people or programs to pay for it. But no tax increases, that's an absolute line in the sand.
Now we hear that because of that flooding, there is expected a record breaking increase to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, already hit by the Gulf oil spill. So what? Well it means that nothing will be alive in that area but algae. So what? That means no fish or shrimp which hurts those industries around the Gulf. The Chesapeake Bay faces the same kinds of problems, but there the EPA has stepped in and is requiring states that have drainage into that body of water to reduce the runoff of Phosphorus and Nitrogen into the bay. But the nine states mostly responsible for the Mississippi problem haven't been told to shape up. So what causes those two elements to run off into the river? Farming. Nitrogen is from fertilizer and Phosphorus is from animal manure. So if you live down stream from the farms, and a whole lot of people do, and your city gets it's drinking water from the river, and a whole lot do, then you're drinking, well you can guess what you're drinking. Not to mention what it's doing to the oceans and bays and gulfs around the country and around the world. Ya know what the farmers' answer is? They claim that since 1980, they have increased production by 80% while only increasing those pollutants by 4%. Boy that's a great record. Except that it's still an increase. I thought the idea was to decrease the output of pollution. By golly, smaller government with less oversight sure sounds great. Right?

Bills, Debt, Truth and Politics. Like Oil And Water. And A Sinking Feeling.

Ya know what I'd like to talk about? I'd like to talk about how we can get better jobs back into America. I'd like to talk about that, but our congress won't let me. Don't get me wrong, It's not that they are out to get me personally. Heck, they don't even know me. And it would seem that even if they did, they just don't care. They'd rather play political gamesmanship then govern. See, the last few years, or even longer ago, the congress's and Presidents committed  to certain debt. It's money we owe. Like your light bill and mortgage payment. If you don't pay, they shut off the lights and kick you out of the house. But congress, that is to say all the Republicans in the house and about eighty Democrats voted, basically, not to pay the bills. Yep, if we don't raise the debt ceiling, we stand the absolute risk of not being able to borrow any money from then on. In other words our credit rating would bottom out. And in a shaky world economy like now, it could happen just by the congress's playing around. These folks don't care though. It's election campaign time. Hey, it's always campaign time. Never mind that it's money already spent, they want to talk about what we might want to spend tomorrow. Well that's an important topic for conversation, but first things first. Unless you don't care about the country, only your reelection. These people would have us think they really care about you and me. But if they did care about you and me, they'd pay the bills, or more precisely, they'd raise the debt ceiling, so we can keep the lights on. See, with the lights on, we can see who we're talking to about getting our debt down. It's the difference between transparent governing and translucent governing. I'd like to see the truth clearly instead of having it blurred. They seem to prefer that we not see what's going on. And the truth is not in them. Or to put it another way, they speak with forked tongues.

Exactly What Is Light Sweet Oil?

Be careful what you wish for. Now there's an old saying that's certainly worth listening to. We keep having fits about terrorists picking on us. Especially Islamist Fundamentalist terrorists. Why are they bothering us so much? They want us out of the Middle East. Be careful what you wish for. What we really need to do is give them what they want. If we did, it would mean we had found an alternative to Arab oil that was cost effective. If we found that, it would mean the rerst of the world would quickly have it too. That would rob the Arsab world of all it's income. In the meantime they keep flying around our heads like a swarm of honeybees and we keep smearing honey all over ourselves to get rid of them. We want them to stop. Be careful what you wish for. Getting them to stop would be easy. Just get out of the Middle East. Problem is, to do that we'd have to stop buying their oil. Now you'd think that we could just get out and still buy their oil. Well not the good ole U.S. of A. No sirree bob. We have to be there to look after our future investments. We feel the need to protect our interests. Only the oil isn't our interest until we buy it. Of course not in our eyes. To our way of thinking, it's ours until we decide if we want it or not. If anybody else in the world acted that way, we'd have a fit. So, anyway, what would we have to do to get them off our backs? Stop buying their oil. How would or could we do that? Ahh ha. Here's where the fat hits the fire. We'd have to come up with some alternatives. No. We can't use their oil without buying their oil. We can't have their oil without having their oil. And since we can't find enough oil at home to meet our needs, we need some other energy sources. Okay then, what's the problem. The problem is that there's a fairly large minority of people in Congress who won't admit we need to do something. Or even if they're willing to admit it, they're not willing to do anything about it. How come? The oil companies are afraid they'll loose their profit margins. So they contribute enough to those skeptics to get them to block any significant funding of research. That's  the honey in the oil. That's why they call it "light Sweet".