Who's The NRA Kidding?

       I still have a problem with the NRA.They keep yapping about the second Amendment's "Right To Bear Arms". But that was written by folks who were unaware of the potential future of "Arms" and the lethality of those arms. Oh if only George Washington had had a few dozen AK47s around Boston or any of the other battle sites. The Revolution would have been over much sooner than it was. Hey, if only the Republican South had been able to equip some of Lee's men with a couple of dozen of those Kalashnikovs,  the Civil War might have turned out differently.
       But for our fighting forces of the 17th and 18th centuries and much of the 19th century, an assault rifle consisted of a single shot, muzzle loading firearm that had a firing capability of about two a minute. Which, in a crowded movie theater, would have allowed nearly everyone to escape. Even a classroom could have emptied in that time.
       I think we should all remember that the stated goals and the actual goals of the National Rifle Association are two completely different questions. Since the NRA receives nearly 90% of it's funding from firearms manufacturers and sellers you need to take anything they say with more than just a grain of salt. About a five pound sack of salt might do the trick. For a day.
       The NRA is in the business of fostering gun purchases. Now there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legal business and is entitled to advertise and promote it's business. But let's not pretend the NRA is anything but a lobbying mechanism of the firearm industry.
       So the question of whether we should allow anyone to purchase an assault rifle with a 30 plus, round clip without even a background check, is a question for civilized thinking men and women, not the lobbying firm of the gun maker. Who for the sake of a few more dollars will say anything, blame anyone, to protect it's handlers.

Rewards Are Unfair, Punishment too.

       I admit it. Over the last three years I've poked fun at and found fault with a whole lot of people. Mostly because I think most of those folks have been rewarded for jobs not very well done. Ya see, my philosophy is that we reward the wrong people for the wrong reasons and punish other folks for the wrong reasons. Now it's true, we do reward some of the right folks for the right reasons, and of course we sometimes punish the right people for the right reasons.
       All of that is true, but if you think about it, why should some movie actor or singer or athlete or politician make untold millions, while a whole lot of soldiers get low pay and wind up with poor care, or teachers get dumped on because it's political hay to do it. Look at farmers. They work about as hard as anybody in the country, but for the most part, they struggle to make ends meet. Even though we need them a whole lot more than we need a good quarterback.
       Ya know, when ya think about it, politicians are given a job to do. In your state capital or Washington. When they get there, the things they worry about and fight for are not what the state or country needs. Not even what's wanted.
       Look at out Congress.  This last August they had a rating of just 10%. That a record low. Right now, in December, their rating is 18%, the second lowest rating at the end of a congress, in history. And yet the vast majority got reelected. How come? They can't even agree to protect women from abuse, or fair treatment for disabled around the world. They can't even agree to pay the bills they voted to incur. Who decides to buy something and then decides that even though they like it, they're not gonna pay for it? Our Congress, that's who.
       Look at the Senate. Did you know that the Senate is ruled by one person? One person has final say as to what gets done. That person could be any one of the 100 Senators. And he, or she, can do it in complete secrecy. Or the house, where a minority of congressmen can hold the House hostage by threatening any Congressman that doesn't do as he's told, with a primary fight. And where multi-millionaires control the purse strings of the campaigns of nearly all of the members of both houses.
       In the meantime the folks that make this country work, get laid off, cut to part time, threatened with less support, accused of being takers instead of givers, and forced to work two or three jobs just to put food on the table. Why is someone who can hit a ball with a stick, worth more that you are?

What's Not To Hate About Politics?

       I know folks are tired of talking about politics. But I'd like to talk about governing. And yes, I know people consider governing as political talk. And of late, that's pretty much the case. But the two are very different animals. In this era, politics is what makes governing nearly impossible.
       Anyway, what we now have is extremely poor governance. What we need now is good governance. So the question is, how do we get from where we are to where we need to be? One way is for either political party to concede and agree to all of the other party's demands. That's likely to happen the day after Armageddon.
       So what would happen if they don't agree? What's the big deal about the fiscal cliff? And isn't that followed shortly by the debt ceiling crisis? Well, if you're very wealthy, you will probably be very inconvenienced. If you're in the middle class, you could wind up in the poor class. If you're poor, not much more can go wrong for you, right? But for the country, things could get a lot worse.
       First the fiscal cliff would erode confidence in our country to handle it's affairs, then the debt ceiling crisis would confirm that opinion. So what? So, our credit rating would be further lowered and this time we'd very likely find it difficult to borrow the funds needed to pay the interest on the debt we owe at a price we can afford. If you or anyone you know has ever had their car or home repossessed, you know what happens next.
       Of course this doesn't need to happen. We could be hit with a severe case of good governance. In which case Washington would find a way to get things done. It's messy, it's politics, but it could happen.
       One thing's for sure. If you don't speak up, you'll be overlooked. And in this day and age, that's not a good thing. So go ahead and hate politics. Just remember it's politics that determines your future, to a large degree. And remember also, it took a lot of people to speak up to get the President reelected.

What's With Carbon Tax?

       Would you please tell me why it is that we can't have a carbon tax in America? The advantages would be enormous. It could be the answer to the fiscal cliff and yet conservatives seem to be dead set against it. Do you suppose they think that if they supported the idea of a carbon tax, people might think they believe in global warming?
       I just read an article in the New York Times about Ireland. They had the highest carbon footprint in all of Europe, nearly as high as America. Doesn't that maker you proud? Then they decided to place a tax on carbon. Guess what? It's working. It's working really great. The article pointed out that even Mercedes figured out a way to build big, powerful cars with low emissions rates like the small cars.
       Now, just because the Irish can do this sort of thing doesn't mean that Americans should, right? After all, creating new technology and the jobs that goes with those innovations is no reason to desert such old friends ac coal, oil and natural gas. Hey, even burning wood helps create heat. Just because it also creates lots of smoke and carbon is no reason to abandon these old trusty energy sources.
       And as long as we're talking about it, this whole thing on global warming is just another gimmick to get people to put windmills in their front yards and solar collectors on their roofs. It's all about tree huggers trying to hug polar bears and icebergs. It's crazy talk.
       Now if you ask me, we don't need a tax on carbon, all we need to do is eliminate food stamps and Obamacare and our problems will be solved. See the problem is that if you tax carbon, then people would stop using carbon. What would we do with all those oil wells and coal mines. And if people stopped using carbon, there goes our tax revenue, right?

Christmas In Washington.

       Hey, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Well? Did ya get that Christmas present you were hoping for from Washington? You didn't? My gosh, I'm surprised to hear that. You mean to tell me that you didn't get the cliff prevention bill you felt sure would be in your stocking this morning?
       I'd suggest you contact the delivery personnel responsible for getting that bill to you. I'd suggest that, but unfortunately they've gone on vacation. Yes, that's right, President Obama to Hawaii, and Speaker Boehner is back home in Indiana. And I don't think they have the phones turned on at either location.
       What's that, you think they're on the phone talking to each other about what to do and how to do it? I hear the golf courses in Hawaii are quite nice, and, oh, it's so nice to be back home where can kick back and pop a cold one open, take your shoes off and doze off with the newspaper covering your stomach.
       Well surely they have someone assigned to wrap that present for you, right? How can I put this so that you won't lose your belief in Santa? GROW UP! It ain't happening. There aren't any people in Washington capable of figuring out how to pass a law that will be fair to everyone. Not even fair to most of us. Well okay, maybe there is someone, maybe several, but the problem is they're more interested in making their team look good and the other team look bad. Nobody is actually interested in scoring the winning goal.
       See the parties run the country. But they can only run it if they make the other one look like losers. Scoring the winning goal is not really important any more. If you'r party is in the minority, then just keep on passing bills with no hope of becoming laws. If you're in the majority, just keep trying to pass bills that will humble the other side. But whatever you do, keep those blinders on. That way you can't see the harm you're doing.

When It Comes Right Down To It.

       What we have in America, or to be more specific, in Washington, well no, actually in all of America. Let's start over. What we have in America is a fundamental disconnect. See, here's the thing, both sides have the same goals. They just go about it in different directions.
       Look, here's an example of what's happening. Some folks think the way to solve our problems is to stimulate our economy with large infusions of cash. On the other hand, others believe we need to support our job creators so they'll do what job creators do.
       But the first group thinks that what the job creators do is pocket any and all support and launder the jobs to other countries. The second group, on the other hand, believes that spending money we don't have will cripple us and our future.
       There's a third group that feels we need to do a little bit of both. The first two groups frown on this group as being very naive. But these differences aren't the problem. The problem goes much deeper than just their differences.
       Each of these groups are represented by folks who were elected by their states, in the case of the Senate and by gerrymandered districts in the case of the House. They represent their states and districts and America, but mostly they represent the moneyed investors that financed their campaigns. In other words, the problem isn't their differences, the problem is, who gets the credit.

Six Guns In School?

       I've been trying to reconcile a couple of things in my mind. Now I understand that conservatives are against unions and for understandable reasons. After all, unions generally support Democratic candidates while conservatives are generally Republican leaning. So it comes as no surprise that wherever and whenever the opportunity presents itself, conservatives will try to cut back on the influence of unions.That's clearly understandable.
       So, again, it came as no surprise when in Wisconsin and elsewhere, teacher's union have had their powers limited by legislative action. If they can limit or eliminate the power of such a powerful union, that helps conservative's causes. So what it boils down to is, don't let teachers picket or strike. That would pretty much destroy unions. No collective bargaining.
       But aren't teachers the most important people your children will come in contact with, outside the home? I think we should all agree an education is a most important opportunity to your children's future. The education they receive at home and at school will determine, to a large extent, how far they can go.
       What I don't understand is that we are hearing calls to arm teachers in the classroom. Now a teacher receives at least 17 years of education to prepare them to teach. How much time will these folks, who are specialists in education, be given in training to protect children and attach an armed and determined killer. Let's understand that facing a killer, in real life, and remaining calm enough to accurately put that killer down, without causing collateral damage, isn't the same as using a computer game. By the way, that collateral damage could be your child.
       So, if a teacher isn't worthy of fighting for his or her financial well being in collective bargaining, how is it that teachers must also be trained Swat Team members as well as classroom instructors? Now I know that the thoughtful conservatives who are recommending teachers have these skills, are also recommending they be appropriately compensated. My question is, exactly how much should teachers be compensated for taking such great additional risk?

Two Reasons Why No Jobs.

       Do ya know why millions of jobs won't be coming back to America, ever? There were two articles in the New York Times today that explains it very well. One is about Wal-Mart Mexico and it's brand of bribery. The other is about the factory fire in Bangladesh that killed so many workers because doors were locked and management wouldn't allow people to leave the building.
       First Wal-Mart. It has been using bribes to get its way and now the proof is in. Just $52,000 in one case allowed an official zoning map to be changed just before its publication, thus allowing a Wal-Mart store where nobody wanted it. But that's just one example of the dozens the Times has uncovered. And if the Times found that many, how many others weren't found.
       Then the fire in Bangladesh in the factory owned by a Mr. Hossain. No outside fire escape, no sprinkler system, locked doors and workers staging protests over non-payment of wages. The workers were inside at the time because they had to work double shifts to meet orders for multiply international brands of clothing.
       So on the one hand you have THE giant retailer showing its power to get its way, no matter what. Including from government officials and corporate suppliers. And on the other hand you have the suppliers demanding the lowest possible price for product from the factory irregardless of what it might take to meet those demands and, of course, taking no responsibility for any consequences. It was somebody else who did it, not us, certainly not us.
       They know they would never get away with such flagrant disregard for the rules in America. We have laws that will not allow such nonsense. And the question begs, do we even want such jobs? Do we want to go back to the 18th century, where human lives were considered to be of no value in industry except to produce? Where a worker who demanded fair treatment might well be considered a terrorist for just asking.
       It's easy to knock unions, and some deserve to be knocked, but without them, we regress. Given enough time, the laws we have to protect workers, and without unions, will disappear, one by one. The anti-union movement is taking us back to a future we won't like.

We All Already Had That Right.

       Well, whatta ya think of Michigan's new law creating a Right To Work state? Does anyone think Michigan residents didn't have the right to work previously? Do you believe, as many conservatives believe, that Unions are a relic of the past, no longer needed and a drag on the economy and on bringing jobs to America?
       If you believe the governor and legislature in Michigan did the right thing, then consider this; Almost without exception, whenever unions gave up benefits or lowered wages, the management's income increased and corporate profits increased. The only losers were workers. Whenever unions were forced out of companies, workers wages and benefits either stagnated or decreased and working conditions deteriorated.
       But here's a suggestion for ya. If you want Unions to go the way of the dinosaur that can easily be arranged. And there won't even be a fight from union members. If you want no more unions, just pass this simple law. If workers are asked to give up wage increases or must take wage cuts, then management must do the same based on their ratio to income. If benefits are taken away, so must management's. Part two: Corporate profits must be tied to worker wages and benefits.
       See, what I don't understand is why it has to always be the employees that have to lose. If profits go up, management and ownership is rewarded but workers are asked to give a little more so profits can continue to increase. But if profits go down, workers must compensate the company and management through cuts.
       We kept hearing about class warfare during the recent elections. Well what do they call this? Class peace? If we get the short end of the stick, that's peaceful, but if they have to pay any piper, that's war? It seems that some folks only see the good if it's directed toward them, and they always see the bad if the good isn't directed at them.

Just a Word On Gun Power.

       I suspect that very soon you will see, hear or read about the NRA explaining that the right to carry a concealed firearm or assault weapon would have saved the elementary children in Connecticut. Yes friends another conservative legislator will recommend that laws be passed to require everyone to carry a Kalashnikov automatic rifle everywhere but in the shower.
       This tragedy is no time to try to make funny, but neither is it time to hear the National Riflemen's Association push the gun manufacturer's agenda of more gun sales. Please don't mistake my anger at laws making some gun ownership and gun carry rights more prevalent with a sign that I'm against all gun ownership. I believe in the right of every American to own and use firearms, but with some notable exceptions.
       If you need to carry a handgun, you need to prove you should have that right and if you think you need to have an assault rifle, you probably don't.
 I think that if you're going to stand your ground, you'd better be prepared to prove you needed to. Not just because you felt like it, but because you truly were in danger. And can prove it. Such changes to the rules might not have saved the lives of these very young students who had their lives placed in all of our hands for safe keeping, but it wouldn't have placed them in greater danger. Not having such changes, does place young children and all of us in greater danger.
       

       There's an interesting article in the Washington Post today. Last year revenue from oil, gas and coal extracted from federal and Indian lands amounted to $11.4 billion. But companies who mine gold, copper and other so called hard rock minerals pay $189 to find a claim and then $140 per year for the mine after that. No royalties, just $140 per mine.
       The government claims it doesn't keep track of how much gold or copper or etc is taken or the value thereof. That's because there's no reason to, since we don't get royalties. But the last estimate, in 1993, with prices fairly low, was $6.41 billion. Of course gold was worth about $300 per ounce then and it's $1,700 per ounce today.
       My guess, and I assure you it's just a guess, is that we're getting screwed. Don't get me wrong, folks who scour the countryside in search of these metals should be able to make a profit off them. But as the landlord, I think $140 a year is just slightly less than fair. I mean, at those prices, I think almost anybody would be willing to take a chance at winning that jackpot.
       Ya know when these rates were put in place? The General Mining Act of 1872 set these rates and apparently nobody has felt the need to take a second look at them. Probably felt they were just too small potatoes to be concerned.
       So this one has made the news and will now receive a second look, after 140 years, but what about other little morsels? Anyone want to wager the family horseless carriage there are other sweet treats hanging around the nooks and crannies of Washington?

When Does $30 Equal $14?

       I disagreed with Joe Scarborough this morning. I agreed with him too. In one segment of Morning Jo on MSNBC they talked about the rebound of jobs being insourced. After several decades of increasing jobs losses to offshoring, they're starting to come back.
       But the reasons they're coming back to America is that our labor costs are shrinking. Unions are under attack by state governments with Right To Work laws which water down the union's ability to protect employees and the recession and stubborn unemployment means that folks are willing to take the lower paying jobs because they have no choice.
       So a job that paid $30 per hour in the sixties or seventies, now will pay $14 an hour. Here's the question you have to ask yourself? Is this really a good deal for America? Is it really a good deal for Americans? We know it's a good deal for the companies, their owners and management, but what about the rest of us?
       If you used to make $30 an hour and now make $14, doesn't that mean you can less afford to pay higher real estate taxes or any other tax? Doesn't it mean you can't afford to buy a new car any more? Won't you have to live in a less expensive home, take less expensive vacations, save less for your old age?
       We know the folks who are part of the two percent keep making out better and better, but we make out worse. The 2%ers still want lower taxes and more profits. But who's gonna pay for everything the government wants to buy or give us to stay in office? If you're a teacher, or a fireman or police officer, when will the ability of the school district or city or town to pay for your current pay or benefits for you now, and for your retirement, end. When will they be forced to cut your pay and benefits and tell the retired among you they can no longer pay for their benefits, either?
       When it comes right down to it, it comes right down to a struggle between the middle-class and the rich. In order for the rich to get richer, somebody has to get poorer. If the middle-class wants to get a little better off, the rich would have to give up some of it's riches. What about the poor? The poor don't have any wealth to give up. The match is between the rich and the middle-class. So put on your game face and get ready.

Who Should Pay?

       Here's a case for capital gains taxes. If you look at the way income has tracked over the last few decades, you realize the capital has increased it's share of income by double digits, which is great if you have capital invested. During the same period, labor hasn't done nearly as well. In fact labor has stagnated to the point that folks are earning roughly what they did in the early 1990s. But in those two decades inflation has grown, again, by double digits. So you're effectively earning what you did, or would have, in the 1970s.
       Now any proponent of capital will tell you that a lot has to do with offshoring of factories and jobs. They're also likely to explain that robotics is partly responsible. They just don't need as many people to do the job any more. And that's true.
       The thing is, though, that doesn't change the fact that capital keeps earning a larger and larger piece of the pie. People who are still working in high tech positions just aren't earning what they should be. How come? Because capital keeps getting better and better tax advantages, while labor keeps getting stuck with the tab.
       So if you can protect more of your capital, if you can keep more of your capital safe from taxes, that gives you more capital to earn you even more income. But if you have to depend on your personal labors, you don't get that same advantage.
       Two choices offer two different approaches. You can more heavily tax capital to share with labor, or you can break up the monopolies that allow for the creation of more wealth among a few, and you can raise minimum wage to a living wage.
     
But you still must take away the financial advantages of outsourcing, or job laundering, like tax deductions for the expense of shipping that job to China. And greater tariffs on shipping the finished product back here. And a tax on removing your income or wealth to a tax haven. One thing's for sure. If we don't reverse the trend, America will become a third world country that still thinks it's a world leader.

To Believe Or Not To Believe.

       It's not hard to visualize a time in America when a majority of people will believe that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. How else do you explain missing persons reports? A dragon ate them. Why do I say this? Because throughout the south, education is more and more inviting creationism into the classroom. Right alongside science. And in some cases there's an attempt to replace science. Especially with home schooling. That's a venue where, even if science is taught, mom or dad can laugh at science and poke fun at it. Those children will never believe anything other than that there is nothing that's older than about 7000 years of age.
       Now, there's nothing at all wrong with teaching creationism as a belief, a religious doctrine, but please don't confuse the issue. It ain't science, it ain't what actually happened. It's sorta like a metaphor. Like Jonah living in the belly of the whale. Maybe the lung, but not the belly.
       Even global warming is off limits for this kind of teaching. I suppose the day will come when folks in Florida, and Louisiana and places like that will need scuba gear to commute to school and places like Montana will be growing bananas and pineapples and raising native parrots. And the only orange groves will be in Alaska. Those sandy Florida beaches will be in fifty feet of water. They'll need a speedboat to ski in Colorado. But there'll still be no mention of Global Warming. 
       Now I suppose people should have the right to believe whatever they want. But, like I said, there's a difference between believing and science. And when the government is paying towards that education, it's science that needs to take the drivers seat. That's because creationism only has the ability to go into park.

How The Boom Got Into The Budget.

       There's something I've been wondering about for some time. How do or will the baby boomers effect our economic picture? Well low and behold, somebody actually talks about it in the New York Times today. Can you imagine? Blaming that group of retiring, special folk for our economic problems instead of the Democrats? Who do he think he are?
       But here are a few points you might want to consider, that is unless you don't care about facts. First, because folks live longer than at any time in the past, and with the baby boomers, there are a lot more retired people. Which brings up the point that expenditures for medicare and medicaid and et cetera are going up, up and away.
       On the other hand, nearly 200,000 are leaving the job market each month and retiring. That's a lot more than in the past, opening up more jobs. So when the government says it created 150,000 new jobs in a month, that is partly due to retiring workers which now outnumber new workers entering the workforce instead of the other way around.
       But the big thing for our economy and for our budget considerations is to admit that the costs of running the government increases with the increase in the number of retirees. We've already cut spending from growth of 6.1% of GDP under President Bush to growth of 1.4% of GDP under Obama. Unemployment has dropped faster over the last four years than anytime since 1995.
       The point is, if we have more retired folks, it's gonna cost more for the government. Our government needs to understand that fact and figure out, honestly, how to deal with it. And let me say, here and now, our government has difficulty honestly figuring anything out.

Me And Thee And I Have My Doubts About Thee.

       Let's see if I understand the Republican party. In 2008, they lost the Presidency to a strong Obama win. In 2010, they took back the house with a very strong assist from the Tea party. In 2012, they got whipped again by a strong Obama, lost some seats in both the House and Senate.
       Obama campaigned on taxing the rich, and inclusiveness. But the Republicans campaigned on excluding a bunch of demographic voters. They offended blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, women, especially young single women, and managed to lose seats that never should have been in contention by fielding some of the strangest candidates I've ever seen.
       Who would think that women can shut down the fertilization process if, and only if, they were legitimately raped. I guess the woman must have to appear before a council of old white men and present her case in the hopes of having the rape be pronounced legitimate, or not.
       But since the election the Republicans have, variously, realized the mistakes they made or, blamed the whole thing of crooked Democrats or incompetent candidates. Now when they claim to have realized the mistakes they made and claim to have begun the process of correcting those mistakes, you have to feel good about that process.
       You have to feel good, that is, until you see them vote against a treaty that all our friends and allies and even our enemies agreed to. What was this dastardly piece of paper about? It requires other nations to treat disabled people as good as America treats its disabled. But has no power of enforcement. So now the Republicans have alienated disabled voters too.
       What other demographic groups are out there that these conservative elected officials can tee off on? Well, if I were you, I'd keep a low profile, because the Republicans don't look like they're finished alienating people yet.

Just How Small Is Small?

       When it comes to taxes, especially on the top 2% of income earners, you should remember why the taxes were lowered in the first place. Back in 2001 and 2003, the reasons that were given for the tax cuts were that we had to big a surplus. We did have a surplus back then, but the reasons for those surpluses were that we didn't have two wars going on at the same time and we hadn't given away the keys to the safe yet.
       Well, now we did fight in two wars at the same time for an average of 10 years each. And most of that time we weren't taking in enough in taxes to pay our way. How do I know we didn't pay our own way? Because now, instead of a surplus, we've got a deficit and a $14+ trillion debt. And we're still in a fiscal hole.
       But we shouldn't raise taxes, right? Well if we don't raise taxes, how can we get out of debt? Cut spending. But not defense. Not Social Security or Medicare either. Of course if we did cut defense and Social Security and Medicare we still couldn't begin to get out of debt. But we can't raise taxes on job creators. Does that mean we should raise taxes of job performers? Anyone but Small Businessmen.
       Here are some facts about the, so called, job creators. Like President Obama is considered a job creator and a small businessman. So are a whole lot of Congressmen and Senators, because they've written books. That qualifies them as small businessmen. It also includes nearly every lawyer and every hedge fund manager. Small businessmen aren't the local diner owners or dry cleaners. Just because you own a small town boutique or barbershop doesn't mean you qualify for the title of a 2%er.
       If you're one of the wealthiest taxpayers in the country, you're almost surely considered a small businessman. In fact, just about everybody but the "too big to fail" are small businessmen as far as the IRS is concerned.

When They Say The End, What Do They Mean?

       I keep hearing about the Mayan calendar and December 21 of this year. That's the last day of the 5000+ year old Mayan Calendar. That's the day lots of people seem to think the earth will end. On the other hand lots more people think its just plain silly. Then there are the few who hadn't heard about this story yet.

       Next, I saw on the news yesterday that two people robbed a Victoria's Secret store. It was captured on video surveillance. What they stole was dozens, or maybe even more, ladies panties. Now it looked like two guys that were stealing these items of apparel. Exactly what do two men do with that many women's undergarments? Do they consult with a "Fence"? Who would be a pantie fence? 

       These two items in the news, Dec 21, 2012 on the Mayan calendar and the theft of ladies panties, don't seem, at first glance, to be connected. But what if they are? What if you will need fancy pants to be saved on the 21st? What if? But how many girlfriends do these two guys have? Or is it just wishful thinking? Do you walk up to an attractive woman on the street and let her know that she can be saved on the 21st of this month with these special panties? How far will that get you?

       Personally, I don't think anything extraordinary will happen on December 21, but if you want to wear fancy pants, there's a fence out there somewhere that can get you a good deal on some Victoria's Secrets undergarments. No questions asked.

One Day Soon Political Ads Will Be Coming To You.

       Remember how much you hated those campaign ads? On the air nearly every ten minutes. And 90% of those ads were lies by one side or the other, remember? And remember how you wished you could make them go away? What do you think about the prospect of having to start listening to them again beginning next year?
       There was a time when we didn't have to listen to them. What finally made it possible for all those ads was the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that allowed Super-Pacs and tax exempt organizations to advertise with unlimited funds from individuals and corporations. And the constitution allows anyone to lie all they want with no fear of retribution.
       But there was another time when ads were more limited and equally distributed. Back thirty years or more ago, there was a rule that TV and radio had to follow, that required equal time for rebuttal by opposing view. Which meant that if you placed an ad on TV that called your opponent a drunk, he had the opportunity to come on the air and call you a bigger drunk.
       Then came Ronald Reagan to be president. He appointed people to the Federal Communications Commission. Then the FCC eliminated the equal time rule. That's about the time that FOX News came into being, and MSNBC and other overly biased networks.
       So everybody wants to somehow override the Supreme Court's decision. But the Constitution only offers one sure way to do that. It has to do with a change to the Constitution. But to do that is a big deal and one that two thirds of the states must ratify.
       But there is another way to skin that cat. If such an FCC rule were in place today, again, it would take away the advantage of the big money of mega rich individuals and Corporations. That's because every time the Koch brothers placed an ad against some lowly congressman or a presidential candidate, that congressman or candidate would get equal time. For Free.
       It would make it possible for even a poor man or woman to run for high office. And that would just kill the likes of Carl Rove. And it wouldn't require a change to our Constitution.

The Real Economics Game

       I'm sure you've heard it said that if we raise taxes on the rich, they, the Job Creators, will stop investing and stop creating jobs. Well let me give you an example of the real world. Virtually every industry in America has sales reps or contract with independent manufacturing reps.
       What most people don't know is that these reps work on commission or salary plus commission. But they are also required to meet quotas in order to make those commissions. So what, right? So if the rep meets the quota this year, next year the quota is higher, but the base pay is the same or only slightly higher. In other words if you sell 100 this year, next year you might be required to sell 110 just to make the same amount.
       But if next year you still only sell 100, you take a cut in pay. If you have too many years of lower than quota, you wind up looking for a job. Now, if you want to make more income, you have to sell more than the quota. Except that if you sell more this year, you will be expected to sell that many or more just to make the base pay the next year. Follow me so far?
       This has been going on for many decades. Industry realizes that it works. It is an incentive to get people to work harder to make more and to keep  from making less. Job Creators know this works. Job Creators use this principle every day.
       The thing is, they don't want you to know it, because then you would realize that they are willing to work the same way. If we raise taxes, they'll work harder so as not to wind up making less. How do I know this? Because for fifty years it worked. We had higher taxes on those job creators and they kept performing better and working harder every year.
        But when taxes were cut, they made more money without having to work harder. They liked this new approach. Now they'd like even lower taxes so they can make more money and work even less. The problem is that the rest of us wound up making less and paying higher taxes. It's time to reverse this trend. Any sore loser Job Creators can and will be replaced by hungry entrepreneurs.

Uncle Rick's Bedtime Story.

       Guess who's back in the news? Do you remember Rick Santorum? Yep, you're friendly neighborhood ultra-ultra-con. Now there's nothing wrong with being conservative. In fact there's nothing wrong with being a bit of an ultra-conservative. Well, maybe that's not true. Being ultra anything isn't good.
       Well anyway good ole Rick, the ex Senator from Penn's Woods, has found something new to be against. Right now his pet peeve is folks who are disabled. Actually to be fair, he claims not to be against disabled people, he's against a Treaty that nearly all U.N. countries have signed on to and which the U.S. is in the process of ratifying. The treaty says that other countries must upgrade their laws to closely conform to the Americans With Disabilities act.
       The Treaty doesn't come right out and say that. What it does is parallel our law. So what's his problem? Huh. Sen. Santorum rarely needs a problem. He creates his own. He claims this is a "direct assault on us." Except that the assault he claims this treaty would cause is expressly forbidden by law.
       Not to worry about minor details, Rick sees monsters under the bed and United Nations conspiracy theories in anything that comes out of the organization. See, that's one of the ultras in his con. Again, to be fair, not every single idea expressed at the U.N. is always a good thing for us or even the world. You have to consider the source when studying any recommendation  But this one is accepted by nearly everyone, friend and foe. Hey, it first came up under George W. Bush's tenure.
       None of that matters to Mr Santorum. What matters is that he's keeping his profile and bona fides before his base, just in case he decides to run for another position in government. Is there such a position as Federal Dog Catcher?

More Taxes For Everyone, Including Politicians.

       Taxes are a touchy subject. Almost as much so as religion. In fact for some folks it is religion. But here's the thing. If America doesn't do something, and soon, we'll be in very serious trouble. We've got to cut spending, which everyone approves of, so long as it doesn't affect themselves adversely. The other thing we've got to do is increase taxes, which nobody wants, unless it's the other guy that has to pay.
       Mostly people want to hit up the rich guys, some want to give additional tax cuts, mostly for the rich guys, again. But there are some who think giving tax cuts is the opposite of what we need, which is additional income to apply to the deficit. But what income? That's the question.
       Well there's some movement toward the capital gains tax. Everybody else has to pay 28% or more. But capital gains tax is 15% The president has suggested 20%, but others have preferred 28%, just like the tax on wages. They claim that would raise $300 billion. Not enough, but a very good start.
       So who would that hurt? Most multi-millionaires make most of their income that way. But so do retired middle-class workers with savings they've invested. Capital gains is money making money. As opposed to hard work making money. My question is, why should money get a tax break but not my back?
       Let's remember, America needs extra income. You can't get anywhere near enough from the poor. You can't get enough just from the multi-millionaires alone. There's a saying about having skin in the game. Well cutting entitlements will hit the poor and lower middle-class. That only leaves the upper middle-class and the wealthy. So don't look so surprised. After all, you're the folks who profited most from the good times. And it was those good times that caused us to have the problems we have now. At least in part.
       To be fair, I think elected officials should be required to pay an extra percentage for the problems they've caused. Something along the lines of 100% would be fair.

If Science Is A great Mystery, Who's The Villain?

       I'm not a scientist, man! Huh. So says a young man with a political future that just might include a run for the presidency in four years. When asked how old the world is, Marco Rubio of Florida and a U.S. Senator, explained "I'm not a scientist, man." Ya know what? I'm not either, but I do know that it's billions of years old and not a few thousand years old. I also know, as I've said before, Adam and Eve never kept a herd of dairy dinosaurs.
       Now to be fair, Senator Rubio is a politician. And politicians never want to insult a potential voter. And especially if you're a conservative politician who must run in a conservative party that is so inclusive that it accepts and invites people like evangelical extremely ultraconservative zealots, and no tax under any circumstances right wing libertarian type extremists.
       If you aspire to higher office. In any party. Even a party that invites and accepts ultra liberal tax and spend zealots. You just can't disagree with these types of people, either right wing or left wing, without the chance of losing some of their votes.
       I understand that. But if you feel that strongly about getting votes, should you feel strongly enough about science to sit on a science committee? It seems to me that you can't sit on a science committee and yet turn around and make a statement like the one Marco made. You're either for science or against it.
       If there's a scientific statement made that I disagreed with, I guess I should look it up. You know, like research it? If I don't have enough interest to do at least that much, maybe I shouldn't be on such a committee. It's not so much that I don't think he should be on that committee. It's that I think he should repeat elementary school before he serves on the committee.
       Now maybe he actually does know, but fears the loss of votes. It's truly unfortunate that a smart man has to act dumb to get nominated. What if he was a scientist? What would he have said then? Just remember, he needs votes.

Taxes Are For Those Who Pay Them.

       I recently had a discussion with a friend who claimed that the wealthy, or in other words, the two percent, were paying 75% of the taxes already and that it was unfair that they be expected to pay any more. It caught me a little off step until I realized that that same 2% of the population is earning about 85% of the income. Soooo, if you earn 85% of the wealth and only pay about 75% of the taxes, you're making others, most likely folks nearing poverty, to make up the difference.
       Now I've never met anyone who wanted to pay more taxes, unless it meant that they would be making a whole lot more money. Most people think they're paying more than their fair share in taxes now. And ya know what? Most people are. As many as 98% of the people are paying more than their fair share. It's the 2% that aren't lifting their part of the tax burden.
       Let's look at it this way, if you're making one million a year and you're paying 15%, that's $150,000, while someone making $40,000 would be paying $6,000. Except that the guy making $40,000 is most likely paying 25% or $10,000 The rich guy is paying 15 times as many dollars. But he's making 25 times as many dollars.
       What we need is for everyone to be paying the same percentage, in actual dollars, without special discounts for being rich. The only discounts should be given to the poor, who are making so little, they really can't afford to pay anything. Unless they give up some luxury like food.
       Then comes the argument about taxing Job Creators. If they get taxed more, they won't be willing to create more jobs. Two things; remember the taxes are on the net income, after all business expenses, like creating jobs, and secondly, if they don't create those jobs, some other energetic entrepreneur will. It's called supply and demand. It's called the marketplace. It's a market economy.
       Only a sore loser would cut off his nose to spite his face. It would be sour grapes.

Smart Or Photo ID?

       Go figure. The Pennsylvania legislature and the Governor felt so strongly about voter fraud that they passed a law that required voters to obtain a photo ID with approved information. It was put on hold for the late election, but could be implemented for the next election. Now comes news that the state's legislative Budget and Finance Committee appointed a commission to look into the possibility of fraud perpetrated against the Department of Public Welfare.
       It seems that they've finally gotten around to thinking about welfare fraud. But the recommendation is that photo IDs are too expensive. It's recommended instead that, so called, smart cards be used. They don't have the photo. That way, instead of it costing the state $8 each for a photo ID, they would only cost about $1.50 each.
       So let me see if I understand. Photo IDs for voting, where there is almost no proof of fraud is okay, but welfare checks can be protected for $1.50 each. Now whether or not there's fraud in welfare aside, why would you want to spend more than five times as much for voting IDs than for giving money to people.
       Ya know what? If I wanted to commit fraud, it seems to make sense that I would commit fraud where I can get some money. But maybe the folks in Harrisburg know better than me. Maybe there's a lot more illicit money to be made by voting twice than there is by getting a bunch of welfare checks.
       The question is, who do you have to know to get in on this voting money? I have to say that nobody ever offered me anything of a financial nature to vote an extra time or two. Of course, to be fair, I never asked around. And since I don't quite qualify for welfare, I never asked about a couple extra applications there either. Have I been missing out on a sure bet?
       Then again maybe it's not about extra money. Maybe it's about electing my man. But if the race gets that close that my one extra vote makes the difference, then maybe it should be about money. What am I saying? It's already about money. It's about deep pockets shelling out millions to elect their guys. And I don't get ta play in that league.
























 

Boy Do They Love To Cut Discretion.

       Well, as my old boss used to say, it's time to fish or cut bait. By that I mean congressional leaders and the president have reached the point where they really can't put it off any longer. They've got to address the budget and by that I mean they can no longer agree to disagree and put it back up on the shelf. The time has come to do something about fixing the economy and cutting the deficit and who knows, maybe even the debt a little bit. Well, okay probably not the debt, but at least the deficit.
       I'll get back to the debt, but for now let's concentrate on a budget that begins to address the deficit without destroying things like education. The easiest thing to cut, I'm told, is so called discretionary spending. You do that at home all the time. Discretionary spending means things you really don't need, but are fun to spend money on. But in hard times, you cut out that trip to the movies or dinner out at someplace where they actually come to your table and ask you what you want.
       That's easy, except that's not what it means to the government, as you might expect. Discretionary spending means Pell grants, Head Start for low-income preschoolers, grants for research, weather satellites, border security and on and on. Most discretionary spending by government, other than waste, is pretty important to most people.
       Actually almost all spending by the government is discretionary when you come right down to it. In fact you could say all spending, but I suppose some would say that things like bridges that go to an uninhabited little island somewhere in Alaska are essential.
       The thing is, the last time the congress did any real cutting it was to discretionary spending, exclusively. Maybe this time they could display a little backbone and a cranium filled with something besides pork. Maybe this time they might consider cuts to a military that's more costly than that of the next ten largest countries in the world, combined. And since we're ending two major wars, maybe congress could find a way to do a little cutting to that military.
       Then there's taxes. In the eighties and nineties taxes were much higher, and the economy was humming along at a much higher rate. The rich were getting richer and the middle-class was doing much better too. Then came the tax cuts of the 2000s and the economy did a lot worse and the rich got richer and the middle-class didn't do so good. Does any of this give you any ideas?

On Patrol, Protecting The Dike.

       Is the day coming when America will have a Chief of Eliminating Muskrats? Well the Netherlands have them, sorta. After Hurricane Sandy, folks are looking at the Dutch who have some experience with protecting low lying lands from storms from the sea. They built a dike system that protects lands that are below sea level even during calm seas.
       However, one problem the Dutch have with their dikes is that pesky muskrats keep digging deep into the dikes for nesting. That practice has a way of weakening the dikes, they claim. Therefore they have patrols of men to search out, capture and dispose of, humanely, these creatures.
       How does all this talk of muskrats affect us? Well, Dutch experts in protection of land from storm surge have been advising America about how and what might be done. Obviously the question will come up as to who has first priority, muskrats or humans.
       Actually that won't lead to the controversy. What might though, is the cost of paying those legions of rodent inspectors. Even more to the point would be the costs involved with the building of those dikes. The Netherlands have somewhere around 50,000 miles of dikes. Can you imagine what it would take to build dikes for all of America? What about rivers? You'd have to protect cities and towns against rivers near where they empty into  the ocean.
       But suppose we decided to go ahead with such an undertaking, would they have to get colleges to offer courses in Capturing Muskrats 101, or Filling in the Burrow 201? Would it be a two year or four year course of study? Would they be federal, state or local employees? Would they be allowed to keep the muskrats they catch? Would muskrat fur find it's way into the fashion world?
       I don't mean to make light of the serious matter of protecting people who live in areas likely to be exposed to the danger of flooding. But I'm not sure we need to spend too much time on the idea of dikes except for, perhaps, a few locations clearly in danger. It is nice to learn, however, that some people are at least giving some thought to the problem.

Take A swing At Global Warming.

       Not-withstanding House Speaker John Boehner's opinions on Global Warming, science is quite obviously convinced that people like you and me are, in large part, to blame for the increasing severity of that Global Warming. In other words, every time you jump in the car, or in my case, strain to bend over enough to get into the car and then strain to straighten up enough to drive it, we spew more of those gases that are doing the polluting.
       If you turn on the lights, heat, air-conditioning, TV or any of the other stuff we do and desperately need, we put more of those gases into the air, causing more global warming. When you cook a meal, go to the movies, grocery shopping or pretty nearly any activity you can think of, we put more stuff into the air.
       Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think we should be chastised, nor do I think we should curtail all these activities, although most of us could do with a little less groceries, a little less TV and turn our couches into items of curiosity.
       The thing is though, we really can't do without many of the activities we know are to blame for the pollution. In the winter we really do need some heat, in the summer, lots of folks really do need air-conditioning and we all really do need food to sustain ourselves. Because of the way our society has dispersed around the country, we really do need cars.
       So what we need is cars and trucks that use less fuel and houses that use less energy, or at least use less energy that comes from fossil fuels. Here's where people like Speaker Boehner have a valid point; we are nowhere near the point where we can depend on clean energy. And are unlikely to reach that point within anyone's lifetime.
       But centralized solar or wind energy isn't the answer. I think the answer is in converting as many residences as possible to individual solar or even wind power with centralized energy as backup, is not only possible, it's doable. That's technology we already have. All we need is to begin to financially support the conversion. I say 'all' as though that was a small item. The costs would be very high, but the benefits would be far-reaching.
       Here's what it would mean: far lower energy bills for everyone, thousands of jobs in manufacturing and installation, even a stronger push for electric cars and less pollution.
       The difficulty would be in getting the Boehners to go along, get the fossil fuel industries to go along and a very large minority of the public to go along.
 

It's Hard To Tell Who Won. Or Not.

        Well, the elections were nearly a week ago. Since then some of you thought there would be nothing for TV, Radio and newspapers to report about. Is that true? Is that you? Oh you foolish, hopefully naive soul. Since last Tuesday, we've heard how Republicans miscalculated, Democrats were right. What Republicans need to do to become relevant again. What Democrats must do to remain relevant.
       We've also been told that Democrats have a mandate and must remain firm. We've also heard the Republicans have been reaffirmed of their mandate and must remain firm. We've heard from pundits from both sides of the isle and from the isle itself.
       President Obama should, variously, continue the approach he used in his first term and to do exactly the opposite. He should solidify his legacy by firming up his accomplishments of the past or, on the other hand, work on accomplishing new achievements.
       We've also heard that the country is now irretrievably lost or that there needs to be armed revolt. A march on Washington to take it back. Or perhaps a march on Washington to show support for the President.
       We should do away with entitlements completely, do away with entitlements partially, or not at all. Raise taxes on the rich, businesses, the middle class, the poor or nobody. We need to stimulate the economy or starve the economy. And lets not forget abortion, gay marriage and pot. All of which are acceptable or not depending on who you talk to.
       The problem is the damned conservatives. The problem is the damned liberals. The problem is the damned politicians. To this last, I have to admit there is a bit of truth. Oh, well, okay, there's a lot of truth to this last. But the real problem is that there's just not enough truth to any of it. And the reason is that too many folks don't take the time to look for the truth.
       Ya know what else people don't do? People don't listen to what the other person is saying and try to find a way to compromise. If you're not willing to compromise a little, don't expect much to change.
 

Yee Gads, We're Out Of Coffee.

       Did you hear the news this morning? It's UGE, as Donald Trump would say, UGE. And it's caused by global warming. That's right folks. All those nay-sayers who have been arguing there is no such thing as global warming or that it doesn't matter or that it's not our fault and can't be stopped anyway, all those folks will be sorry they didn't listen. Because in just sixty eight short years, there will be no more coffee. That's right, no more Mornin Jo. No Java. None of those fancy cafe drinks you can find at Starbucks. They're all gonna be gone.
       By the year 2080 there will be no place on earth where the coffee plant can grow naturally. Of course now there'll be those who breathe a sigh of relief because if coffee can't be grown naturally, maybe it can be grown unnaturally. Who cares if we all glow in the dark, as long as we can have our morning fix of caffeine, right?
       Besides, glowing in the dark isn't all that bad. We wouldn't need flashlights and when you wake up in the middle of the night, you'd be able to tell the time even if your clock doesn't glow in the dark. Walking along darkened highways in the middle of the night would be safer too.
       It's that waker-upper that's still the problem. What if those unnatural coffee beans don't have as much caffeine in them? What then? And how on earth would yuppies be able to show their bone-fides without that special frape' with cream floated on top. I tell ya it's gonna be just awful.
       People will be walking around with bloodshot eyes looking ever so slightly like zombies. Or maybe they'll look like they just had a good night's sleep. That is assuming the world hasn't gone to Hades in a hand basket as some folks are convinced, or we're not all under water by then anyhow. We can laugh about it now, but just you wait. Global warming is happening and coffee is in it's sights.

Maricopa County. Sorta Has A Ring To It.

       Have ya ever heard of Maricopa County? Sure you have. How about Sheriff Joe Arpaio? Well, that's his county. Anyway Maricopa County is in the news again. This time it has to do with uncounted provisional votes. Like people who registered to receive mail-in voting forms and never got them, to newly registered voters who for one reason or another didn't get their vote counted. So what's the big deal? Well there are 631,274 uncounted provisional votes in Maricopa County. Now doesn't that seem like a lot of votes that are supposed to be of questionable repute.
       Well you may think that's not all that big a number for a county with a major city in it, but consider the total population was 3,817,117 in 2010. But an even more important number is 1.5 million registered voters in 2010. So if you've got 1,500,000 people registered to vote and 630,000 provisional votes, wouldn't you begin to think that something fishy is going on? Hey, Maricopa County isn't even considered a fishing mecca.
       I hate to pick on Sheriff Joe, and I realize that he's not supposed to have anything to do with voting except to campaign and vote himself. But he's in a close fight to retain his job this year. You don't suppose??? Naw, I don't think that at all.
       But there are those 630,000 votes just sitting there, uncounted. And it has been over three days since the election. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett expressed concern and there are growing calls for the Justice Deparetment to investigate. Because those votes are still just sitting there.
       Gosh, if Sheriff Joe gets beat, who's gonna tear down his tent city jail? What will all those county Sheriff deputies do if the new Sheriff decides not to stop anybody who might look like an illegal alien? If that happens, there'll be little green people running all around Maricopa County.

Craftsman May Not Be Craftworthy.

       Now here's a real life example of Job Laundering but with a different twist. In this case, a Pennsylvania inventor came up with a wrench that was unique. He patented it and began manufacturing it. Sears bought into the idea and offered it last Christmas time. This year Sears, the company Americans can trust the most, is offering a knockoff that's made in China. The inventor has sued Sears, but in the meantime has been forced to lay workers off. So jobs that used to be American jobs have been sent to China. That's Job Laundering and in this case it might even be illegal.
       So how does a company that claims such patriotism as to say it is the one we Americans can trust, how does such a company have the nerve to send jobs to China, or any other country? Now if you asked Sears, they'd tell you they didn't send any jobs off shore. they just decided to buy a cheaper product from a different source. But they put their own name on this new cheaper product. They call it a Craftsman.
       Ya have to wonder how many other times Sears has played this game of Job Laundering. Now, you can ask almost any big time executive and he'll tell you this is just the way things are done. He'll say not to think about it, just accept it. Which is to say, this is the way things are done, but it ain't right.
       Ya see, if somebody tells you not to give it any thought, what they're really saying is, please don't upset the apple cart. Well you can be certain I won't upset that cart. I won't have to. The inventor of that tool is working on doing it instead. But I will say he's got my vote.
       No question Sears is an old and trusted name in tools, so why would they be willing to sell that trust for a few extra dollars in profits? Well first off, it's more than a few dollars in profits and secondly its extra profits. There's a third reason as well. Extra profits means more dollars in the pockets of executives at Sears. And stockholders. So hey, what's in a name anyway? Job Laundering is profitable and fashionable.

No Partisanship There.

       In a clear expression of  bi-partisanship, a Florida Democrat tax collector candidate and an Alabama Republican County commissioner candidate who both won their races, have been dead for at least three weeks. How do you list these men on the rolls? Exactly who will sign checks for that tax office and how will that Alabaman vote?
       Who would vote for someone who is already dead? How do the losers feel about being defeated by a dead man? "It was a hard fought fight, especially right down to the last three weeks." I mean, it must be bad enough to lose to a living breathing opponent, but how do you explain to your supporters they didn't pick the wrong guy? What if it had been a tie and there had to be a runoff? How fast would a guy have to run to beat the dead guy?
       With all the problems facing our country, the folks in these two different counties are also facing another set of questions. For them it's somewhat important. For the rest of the country, you've got a Speaker of the House of Representatives stating that Washington needs to begin to work together, while the minority leader in the Senate says he'll never work with the President. And both from the same party. Let's hope the President has the good sense to do everything he can to work with both parties in Congress.
       I haven't heard any response from that third party, the Tea party. If they have spoken since the election, I must have missed it. Let's hope this third party is also willing to work together with the other two parties and the President. We can hope, but I'd like to see it before I extend any congratulations.
       There is just a very faint possibility that party rancor is dead. I say faint even though Senator McConnell isn't willing to jump into the pool. But frankly the only thing we know for sure that's dead, is two elected officials in the south. We should say a prayer for both and then brace ourselves for the worst.

Who Is 15 Year Old Malala Yousafzai?

       A headline in the Washington Post today states that the mastermind of the terrorist's shooting of that young girl in Pakistan for wanting schools for girls, is hiding in Afghanistan. So I guess we have al-Qaeda hiding in Pakistan and they have Taliban hiding in Afghanistan. It's a shame we can't just trade terrorists so we'd each have our own.
       I know, I know, it's not a funny business to have terrorists anywhere and when you are forced to deal with them, it's even less humorous. But the thing is, the allies and Afghanistan and Pakistan should be doing everything they can to root these bad guys out. Instead, Pakistan doesn't seem willing to seek out bad guys in the Tribal Areas and the Allies or Afghanistan don't have enough forces in a few of the border provinces where the mountainous terrain makes it too difficult to find them.
       So this guy, Mullah Fazlullah, is able to slip back and forth with relative immunity. Just like so many other terrorists. But here's the thing. U.S. Intelligence Operations consider him a "person of interest." Osama BinLaden was a person of interest right up until he was a person of deceased interest. And Fazlullah is well aware of that fact, would be my guess.
       Some one of these days, when everybody has forgotten all about this extremist, when no reporters are writing about him, some intel officer will pick up some info on him and he'll become someone of deceased interest too. Which would then increase the interest in him by reporters but would decrease the interest in him by both Pakistan and Afghanistan. And the interest the U.S. Intelligence Operations had in him would cease.
       Ya see how things have a way of working out in the end? My mother always told me a little patience goes a long way. If the hunter has some patience and good eyes, he's always got the better odds.

Ahhh. Cometh The Lie.

       What I have to say right now will in now way affect how anyone has voted. Not even me. But in the New York Times this morning there's an OP-ED by Kevin Kruse of Princeton with a title "The Real Loser: Truth" He's a history professor and he reminds us of the fact that Aaron Burr, as a sitting Vise President killed Alexander Hamilton. So you know that political opponents can sometimes dislike their each other.
       He also points out that for many years the news media was required to "present multiple viewpoints" on contentious issues, a practice known as the "Fairness Doctrine." Remember that? Well, it seems President Reagan appointed members to the Federal Communications Commission in 1987 that abolished the rule. From then on we've had the rise of the Radio and TV talk shows and even so called news networks that are strictly biased.
       These made it easier and easier for candidates and parties to say and advertise big fat lies. To the point where one campaign pollster stated "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers." And that statement didn't even sink that candidate's campaign. If you don't think things are so bad, consider that the respected factcheck.org organization gave Mitt Romney 19 "Pants on fire" to Barrack Obama's 7. Pants on fire being reserved for the worst, flat out lies.
       We need to think about what these lies that are now spread by Candidates, PACs and SuperPacs of state and national parties as well as of the candidates and of so called independent groups and organizations are doing to our electoral process. If we can't tell who's lying and who's telling the truth or for that matter if anyone is telling the truth, how can we be expected to vote intelligently? Actually the reason for all this lying is so that we can't vote intelligently.
       So what? Is there nothing we can do to change this situation? Does anyone care? If you do care, there's still not much you can do. You can contact your legislators and complain. And then keep doing it. Until they start to listen. Same for President, whoever that may be.

Here's The Problem.

       I was talking with a friend this morning and we sort of wandered to the idea of what would happen if every Congressman and Senator in all the states and Washington were suddenly voted out and replaced by all new ones. Ya know what we decided would happen? Nothing, nadda.
       See, it's not so much the people who hold those offices as it is the offices themselves. Oh there are some unsavory people holding office, to be sure, but by and large our legislators start out with good intentions. But ya know what good intentions will get you? That's right. As soon as folks get to Washington or state's capitals something changes.
       It must be that they like it too much. It might be that those jobs are too cushie. Maybe the answer is to make it so uncomfortable to hold office that they can't wait to get out. Maybe we need to make them all four year terms and hope they stay that long. Then anybody who decides to run for a second term, we can automatically find them guilty of insanity and put them away.
       Now I've heard the arguments against term limits, but they just don't hold water. Like the idea of not being able to hold onto a good person. Two things; first remember we're making it impossible to serve too long and second they could always hop from house to senate or vise-verse.
       There's another argument against term limits and that is we'd lose continuity. But isn't that the whole idea? Also, who do you think preserves continuity now? Its the staffs of those offices, that's who. No Congressman or Senator knows what they're voting on now, unless a staffer has brought them up to speed.
       No, the more I think about it, the more advantages I see. Another would be that we could eliminate special healthcare for the legislators and retirement plans. And absolutely no lobbying before, during or after serving. I also dislike political parties  

Well, To Tell You The Truth....

       How has lying helped us in this election? Well, if you're truly informed, it allows you to get your blood pressure up. Getting angry is sometimes good for your health. It also affords you the opportunity to have a good laugh, also good for your health. Because let's face it, some of the lies are so patently false as to be ridiculous.
       But what if you're not that well versed? Then these lies tend to deceive you into believing false information. There are fact checking organizations, the vast majority of which are accurate. But then some candidates suggest you not consult them.
       What's worse is most candidates understand that if they tell those lies often enough, some folks will actually come believe them. After all, if you see it on the TV, it might be true and if you keep seeing it on TV, it must be true. So good honest people are tricked into believing things about an opposing candidate that simply aren't true.
It's not one side or the other alone that's responsible for these untruths. Both Democrats and Republicans are doing it and with the advent of the Super PACs and the Citizens United decision by our Supreme Court, the lies are bigger and more outrageous all the time.
       Take only the latest example by the Romney campaign, and again I assure you both sides are telling whoppers, the ad claims that under Obama, the auto companies are sending jobs to China, meaning Americans will be out of work. But if you look at the facts, the claim that Jeep is moving it's entire production to China. Actually no American jobs will be lost. In fact 1100 jobs will be increased in America.
       They will begin manufacture of Jeeps in China because like all world car makers they can't ship them to China economically. That's why so many foreign companies like Honda and Toyota built here. Or that Obama caused GM to lose 15,000 workers. But the reason GM fired those workers is because they had to downsize and eliminate several brands like Pontiac and Oldsmobile.That or go bankrupt and fire everybody.
       Now, what if there had been a law in place that anyone who told a falsehood had to go to jail and could not continue as a candidate. What if then all the ads you saw on TV actually were completely truthful? How would that have affected the election?
       So getting back to the original question, has lying helped us in this election? Well, has it?

What's The Problem?

       500 years ago, or so, John Calvin was one of the people who were instrumental in developing capitalism, even though he was a church leader in Switzerland. He also recognized the potential for corruption in the church. So he initiated reforms that included lay leadership. Folks who were not professional leaders of the church, should have a greater say in the leadership of the church. Many of his ideas helped to create our own form of government.
       One of his ideas is one that is sorely needed in this country today. That is lay leadership, what we might call citizen leaders.  We have opted for professional leaders in Washington. We elect, over and over, people who become so ensconced in their positions in Congress that they feel entitled to those positions. They forget they're hired to represent the citizens of the states and the country. Instead they represent the party they belong to. Or worse yet, they represent a single individual who requires them to sign a promise to never do, or always do, what he wants. Then they lie, cheat and steal in order to keep that position.
       There are a few ways to curb these infractions. Term limits and open primaries are two of the ways to accomplish this. Another would be to make it illegal for any elected official to sign any document requiring them to give up the right to vote for or against any legislation. Make it illegal for both the signer and the author of such a document. Provide for strong consequences.
       It's not that our leaders started out as bad people. Actually many start out with the very best of intentions. Their goals are most often to clean up government, solve difficult problems and serve their neighbor. It's just that once in Washington and a part of the power structure, it's difficult to give up that power.
        And once elected now-a-days, they must immediately begin to run for the next election so that their whole attention is always partly on doing what is necessary to stay in office. At first it's to enable them to continue to serve their neighbors, then it's just to get reelected. John Calvin would not approve of our leadership today. Neither should we.

Leadership Is What Counts.

       America needs the leadership of a strong person. Someone who is able to see clearly the needs of the people. At times it is necessary for such a leader to be able to change long held perceptions as he finds reasons to do so.
       Former Governor Romney has shown his ability and willingness to make those changes of mind on most important issues facing Americans today. Unfortunately, we also need a leader who is able to perceive the answers we need in a timely fashion. In emergency situations, there isn't time to take six months or so to consider a change of heart.
       We need someone who can make those swift decisions when they're needed. Most often, in foreign policy as well as a laundry list of domestic concerns, we need those correct answers now. Six months from now might very well be too late. As leader you can't keep changing you stance every time you face a different demographic.
       True leaders find the right answer and stick with it. Popular or not. What's important isn't how many big deals you made as a CEO, it's how well do you handle the big problems that crop up suddenly and demand swift action. Those actions must be the right ones. The first time.
       President Barrack Obama has shown the ability to make the right decisions in a timely fashion, without great fanfare, but calmly and with laser focus.   Please do take the time to vote next Tuesday. Please give these points due consideration as you cast your ballot.
       Then party. Show yourself a good time. You deserve it. You exercised your rights.

Now It's The 95% v 5%.

       Honest, this is no lie. There is a bill in the Pennsylvania legislature that states any company with over 250 employees can keep 95% of all the withheld income taxes they collect. So if you work for one of these companies, when they deduct, from your pay, for your income taxes to the state, the company gets to keep all of it. Well all but five cents on the dollar.
       The five cents goes to the state, the 95 cents the company can keep. If this bill passes and becomes law, how long do you think it will take for smaller companies to demand the same special treatment? And what do you suppose these company's execs will decide to do with this money? Does anybody think they'll give it back to the employees as a year end bonus? How about year end bonuses for the execs?
       I'm sure that somebody woke up in the middle of the night, having wet the bed, and said "I just had a brainstorm", then fell back asleep. However this came to pass, the mental giants of the Pennsylvania legislature, or at least the majority leadership felt this was worthy of consideration.
       But here's the problem. If the state gets 95% less in taxes, where will it make up the difference? Increase the sales tax by 95%, or cut 95% of the state budget for education, roads, state employee benefits, police and medical assistance? You can bet it won't come from the legislator's income and perks or gas drillers, that much you can count on.
       Ya know what's scary about this bill? The scary part is that you can laugh at the idea at the same time our legislators are taking it seriously. And if they can take it seriously, then why cant or why won't other state legislature also consider it. Hey, I'll bet there are those in Washington D. C. who are keeping a close eye on it with thoughts of taking this law national.
       It's unlikely that any corporate leaders will try to discourage such thoughts. If you ask me, and I realize that no legislator would ask me, I'd say these folks are certifiable.

Back To The Court.

       I still don't understand the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case. They said that allowing corporations, unions and millionaires to spend unlimited amounts in elections won't affect elections or cause any unfair influence, real or imagined, so long as legislators require openness. Legislators? Require openness? Let me see. What are the chances that politicians will be willing to out their donor lists?
       If a politician is running for office and a donor says "I'll give you ten million, but I don't want anyone to know", what politician would you suggest would refuse such an offer? Oh yeah? Well what if that donor said "then sorry, I'll just have to give it to your opponent." What then? Then take the example of a donor who says it's okay to let people know who I am, but when you get elected... If you get elected and that donor shows up at your celebration party, who thinks he's not gonna have a sheet of paper with his wish list on it?
       Let me put it another way. Who thinks that any donor giving millions to a campaign isn't going to expect some consideration? Doesn't that sound like the Supreme Court was just ever so slightly naive? But Thomas Edsell, in an editorial in the New York Times today, suggests that another problem created by that decision is that the political parties will cede influence to individuals. Unwillingly, but cede never-the-less .
       Now I'm no fan of political parties, but I'd be even less of a fan of billionaires selecting candidates for high office. If you want to talk about abuse of power and influence peddling, just try that idea for a few election cycles. They already have supported the most radical candidates of this years crop. How did you think former Senator Rick Santorum and former speaker Newt Gingrich managed to compete? Just four billionaires very nearly upset the primary season this year, Shelden Adelson, Harold Simmons, Foster Friess and William Dore, nearly blew up the election this year.If these four were to put their heads together, it's fairly certain they could own an election. Especially if you threw in the Koch brothers.
       Now you may feel that the person they selected would be fine with you, but what does that do to democracy? And what if the next time around, you didn't like their candidate? What then?

Inaccurate Predictions Are Illegal.

       Whatever you do, don't let any state legislatures, anywhere in the country, hear about the latest court ruling in Italy. It seems a judge there has found seven scientists guilty of not knowing what would happen in the future. Before the April 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila in central Italy, in which 309 people died, theses scientists had predicted, based on sound science, that there would be no quake. So now they're guilty of manslaughter.
       Can you imagine a state like Florida and all the others that have stand your ground laws, hearing about this? It might turn out to be a case of standing your ground and the stander dies. And then the one who didn't predict it gets a prison sentence. In Italy, scientists are already quitting their jobs with the government over this ruling.  Here in America I can see police getting in trouble every day. By not predicting the local bank would get robbed today, the cops get a ten year stretch in the local state prison. Or how about not predicting that someone would die in a shootout with a dangerous criminal? The criminal is dead, but the cops get life.
       The possibilities for change are limitless. I'll bet that thoughtful state legislatures across the country could find ways to get nearly anyone. What's that you say, you were in a fender-bender? Don't you think you should have known it would have happened? Even if you were in the store at the time? You should have known not to park in that preferred slot at the far end of the parking lot. Doctor you predicted my husband might live as long as two more days but he just died. You are guilty of manslaughter. My lawyer assured me I could win this case against an intruder even though I invited him in and then shot him in the back, with witnesses. So my lawyer will be my cellmate. Well, okay, maybe this one is fair.
       The point to all this is that our legislators, at least on the state level, are all too willing to think up stupid things and then enact them into law. Come to think of it so is our Congress. But don't quote me on this. It is not a prediction.

Voter Fraud? What Voter Fraud?

       Republican elected state legislatures around the country have been enacting Voter ID laws to stem the growth of voter fraud. But when put to the question, nobody has been able to show more than one or two cases of actual voter fraud in history. In fact, in Pennsylvania, the leader of that state's legislature stated the purpose was to allow Romney to win the election. Now comes news of a Republican related firm specializing in voter registration, holding contracts with more than a dozen state Republican parties and the national Republican committee. The news is not good news for the Republican party.
       Strategic Allied Consulting owned by Nathan Sproul, stands accused by a number of states of registering dead people and falsifying voter registrations plus destroying and or discarding voter registrations, among other charges. Mr Sproul is a long time activist in the Party and is former head of the Arizona Republican party.
       It would appear that the only fraud taking place in America, pertaining to voting, has to do with one company attempting to defraud states of fair elections. By the way, that also means that the company is attempting to defrauding the American people of a fair election.
       Has anyone heard where any state has begun to pass any laws about such practices? It looks like a number of states intend to be very strict about stopping a non-existent form of voter fraud, but had hired a company to approach the fraud issue from a different perspective.
       Now, I'm quite sure that the states in question didn't hire Mr. Sproul for the express purpose of fixing any elections, but it does seem strange that those states worry about a non-issue more than they do about real live crime. To be fair, Florida and Virginia have charges pending while Colorado and Nevada are investigating allegations of wrong doing.
       So a word to the wise poll workers; if Abe Lincoln or George Washington show up at your polling place, you might want to check their registration carefully. And if Benedict Arnold shows up or Charles Manson, you might want to make a 911 call.

Pro Life Or Pro Rape?

       This election year has brought us what can only be described as some rather strange information from some even stranger individuals. What's worse is many of these strange individuals are running for Congress. I could say that one is running for President. I say strange for him because he seems to be for or against whatever anyone wants at any given moment. Another is a gambling tycoon with too much money for his own good.
       But the really strange people have chosen to run for Congress. A couple are in the House and running for the Senate. There are five individuals who I would classify as completely without mental capacity. One talks about legitimate rape victims being able to magically stop pregnancies. Obviously illegitimate rape victims do not have this power.
       But he is not alone in being pro life to the point of being willing to put everything on the line to stand up and, in their dazed condition, explain that either women who get raped are easy to rape, or that God wanted it that way.
       To these men we can attribute the newest demographic within the borders of America. It's a demographic that these men have recognized and now place their hopes of election to high office with. Yes folks, this is a demographic that Democratic and most Republican candidates have missed entirely. How else to explain the lack of attention to this portion of the electorate?
       Now I know the suspense to know what this demographic truly is must be mounting. At this point, please take two pencils, one in each hand, and give me a drum roll. Ladies and gentlemen, the name of this newly recognized demographic is PRPL or Pro Rape/Pro lifers. I can foresee elections of the future when candidates will show xxx rated films to attract members of this demographic. So let's have three cheers for these pioneer candidates.
     

Capital Gains.

       Ya know what rich folks biggest worry is? Its that somebody will come along and figure out that capital gains should be taxed the same as labor income. Now lots of folks, some who aren't even 1% ers have a little capital gains income, but the really wealthy have lots or even most or all of their income as capital gains.
So the argument they use against higher taxes on themselves is that this is money they already paid taxes on.                           How dumb. And to think we all buy that argument.
       But see, it isn't the money they already paid taxes on that should now be taxed. Its the income from that money. Look, if I dig a ditch and get paid to do it, I pay taxes on that income. But I can't then say that since I paid taxes on that work once, I should never have to pay taxes on any income from my work again. You pay taxes on the income from your work every time you work. And if your money does the work for you instead of your back or your brain, then you should pay the same tax on the money income as the labor income.
       I wish I knew who it was that decided that their money is more important than my back. Since when is labor less valuable than money? Just wait till your toilet doesn't work. Then we'll see which is more valuable. Or how about when you get hungry and the farmer says, "sorry, but my produce is no longer available because my back is sore"? Then we'll see which is more valuable, your money or his back pain.
       Just imagine if the situation was reversed. If income from investments were taxed higher than income from work, don't you think there'd be a great uproar by the wealthy? Rich folk get a lot of perks that just aren't available to most of the rest of us except for special occasions like vacation trips or the like. But this lower tax rate is one time, and one perk, the wealthy just don't deserve.  

What's The Deal With Gas?

       Has anybody wondered what the heck is going on with natural gas drilling? Here's what I think, and it has the advantage of being true. But first a little history. Here in Pennsylvania, when they first started signing up leases, the offers were for around $27.50 per acre and folks were told they better sign up quick or there'd be no offers at all. Then things dried up for a while.
       Then came the offers of $2,700 per acre signing bonuses and if they dried up, they were never coming back. Then they dried up for a while and then offers came for up to $5,750 per acre. Then they dried up again for a while. Now I don't think they'll come back a whole lot higher than that $5,750 per acre, but anything is possible, I guess.
       The reason things keep drying up is for several important developments. One is that companies run out of funding temporarily and have to get additional investors. Another reason is that they wind up with much more land than they can develop quickly or add pipelines to get the gas out. But the biggest reason is that gas prices fluctuate.
       See, if the price of gas drops, it becomes less inviting to invest in gas exploration. On the other hand, if the price goes up, there's more interest in investing in leasing. Same is true for drilling. But once the well is drilled and the gas is being piped out, then it flows no matter what the price. Then the trick is to find new customers to buy it.
       That's when coal fired generation plants will find it a better alternative than trying to make clean coal. That's because clean coal is an oxymoron. Coal is dirty, is dirty, is dirty. Gas is a pollutant too, but nothing like coal. So natural gas is a real blessing and for many, a real boon.
       But for many others, natural gas is a real big headache. That's because it brings problems. Problems like polluted water wells, roads and highways ruined because of rough hard traffic and too much of that. And drillers who are none too careful with their workmanship. Not all, mind you, but a few bad apples, oh you know.

Ever Hear Of Job-Laundering?

       We all know that money-laundering is against the law, as it should be. But what about job-laundering? Now you may not have heard of the term job-laundering, but its where a company or individual takes a company that's viable as is, and sends those jobs offshore. His company makes more profit because labor is cheaper in places like China or Bangladesh. Enough so to even offset shipping.
       But then, he doesn't pay taxes on those profits because the company is making those profits in another country and, presumably, paying taxes there. Or, he keeps those profits in an offshore account so he doesn't pay taxes on it. Sometimes, even if he's supposed to.
       Then you have companies who begin to specialize in helping other companies to do the same thing. Now you can call it anything you want, but it's job-laundering. Some people think unemployment is all about the Great Recession, but most of the problem is that jobs have left and gone overseas or have just become obsolete through mechanization or robotics.
       But when somebody claims they can get those jobs back, in most cases that just can't happen. Even if a company should decide to return to America, it's most likely because they see ways to do the job with fewer jobs. But here's the problem with job-laundering and promising to bring jobs back; when you launder those jobs, chances are they're never coming back and when you promise to magically bring the jobs back, you cause people to think it can be done with no effort on their part. The unfortunate thing is that jobs can come back, but our workers are going to have to be better educated to do those jobs and that's gonna take more effort, especially for older workers and more educational years for young people. K-12 just doesn't cut it any more and this country needs, at least K-14. Assuming we'd like to continue to be a world leader.