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.