Is That Money American Or Not?

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

The Stock Tax Two Step.

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

Tear Down That High Price For Oil.

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

What's All This With Iran?

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

Legislating As A Profession.

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

We Do What With Our Foreign Aid?

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

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

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

When Does A Lie Become A Truth?

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

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

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

These Feet Ain't Made For Dancing!

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, China's At It Again.

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

A Pipeline To Where?

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

Is That A Mark On Your Ear?

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

It's All Down The Royal Hill From Here.

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

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

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

There Are Always Suggestions. There Are Rarely Solutions.

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

Campaigns Are Tough On Everybody.

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

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

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

Why Bother Voting? Gerry Tells Us Why.

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

Matters Of The Heart And Mind.

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

Traveling The Highways And Byways And Back Roads.

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

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

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