No More Snowe For Washington.

Well, Olympia Snowe is retiring from the U.S. Senate. She's been a Senator from Maine since 95. But what's really important is that she has been one of the few Senators who is truly a moderate. She's been willing to cross the isle in order to help make things happen. Things like softening legislation from one side or the other in order to make it more palatable to the other side. How come she's quiting? She points out that the Senate has become more partisan then at any time she can remember. Well she ain't wrong there. The partisanship in the Senate has converted that body into a useless stage of posturing and finger pointing. They just don't seem to understand that they were elected to serve the people. They have it in their minds that the reason they were elected is to serve the party. Unfortunately, in most cases, that's true. But not only that, some think they were sent to Washington to disagree with everyone including their own party. I'm not sure how that helps. Imagine an army going to war with some units of that army deciding they don't like the plan of attack so they go off and fight their own way. Maybe even fight their own army. I don't mean to suggest these folks are prepared to shoot their fellow Senators or Representatives, but we are at war. In fact we're at war with a stubborn recession and a guns and bullets war in Afghanistan. How can being obstructionists help our country? So now we're losing one of our best leaders in Snowe. We used to have a "group of fourteen". Now there are only five left. Fourteen carried a big stick in the Senate. Five, not so much. If things continue down this path, they won't be able to even vote for their own wage increases because of partisan bickering. At least that would be a good thing. Maybe we could put them on a straight commission basis. You get paid for what you pass. Kidney stones don't count.

Mirror Mirror On The Wall, Who's The best Candidate Of All?

Ya know, I've been listening to Rick Santorum for some time now. I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt on as many issues as I can. I'm finding that I am able to give him the benefit of the doubt on fewer and fewer points every time he opens his mouth. That he doesn't trust women to know what's best for themselves is obvious if disconcerting. He doesn't seem to trust the men to know what's best for them either. It appears only he knows what's best. He doesn't think women should work outside the home, so he's a true nineteenth century man. Or is that the eleventh century? But this last week has sealed the deal in my mind. No matter how loudly our society, even our species, shouts, he's far and away out of hearing. He must be. How else to describe his latest statements. Now I'm a regular at church. As are most of my friends, but I can't imagine any of us would want our president to be led completely by his priest or pastor or rabbi or bishop or drinking partner. None of these folks should be making decisions for this country. At least not unless they get elected to do so by the majority of it's citizens. JFK was right to say he would not be led by the Catholic church. Certainly he was influenced by it, but not led by it. Then the stink bomb got dropped. Young adults, this one's for you. Don't go to college. You might be turned into liberals against your will, or at least against Rick's will. Don't become a snob. If you already are a snob, you might still be saved if you stay out of college. Now there's a formula for success for America. If we dumb down, maybe we can get some of those two dollar a day jobs the Chinese have. In fact, why stop there? Why not offer special credit for those who drop out of high school to start work sooner. We could send them down into unsafe mines for a buck a day. Of course those who currently mine can begin to build super computers, space craft and the like. Unless they already have a college degree. In which case, sorry but no work for over-skilled laborers. Who votes for this guy? Regular, moderate conservative Republicans wouldn't be caught dead voting for him. Of course Democrats are out of the chase in the primaries, but which Republicans would vote for him? If you can't read or write and don't like those who can, this candidate's for you. If you think he and he alone represents God, Rick's for you. Otherwise, why on earth would you vote for this guy. Id say he's a nut, but I don't think he likes trees.

What's An Honest SuperPAC To Do?

Would ya like to honestly know what goes on with SuperPACs and the candidate's own campaign committees? Well, yesterday there was an article in the New York Times that pointed out some of the most obvious misdeeds of these groups. Now mind you, the law states clearly that SuperPACs may not in any way coordinate any actions with the campaigns of any candidates. But there's one situation where  about six offices all at the same address where there is a campaign committee, SuperPAC and four campaign consulting firms all sharing the same facilities and are run by former campaign officers, but claim complete Independence. Now when a candidate's campaign committee pays the wife of the head of it's largest SuperPAC, $250,000 for strategy consulting and the husband is a former head of that candidate's campaign committee from a few years ago, doesn't that strike you as a bit cozy? Well if it's that obvious and if it's against the law, why doesn't somebody do something about it? Aha! I was hoping you'd ask that very question. Ya see, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is made up of three Democrats and Three Republicans. Do I need to go any further? Okay, I will. When American Crossroads SuperPAC asked the commission if they could air a certain political ad that included the candidate, the commission was deadlocked on a decision on the case and could not come to a conclusion. So American Crossroads decided to do as they pleased from then on. So do the other SuperPACs. It shows just how ineffectual the FEC really is. So you see, while there are strict laws covering what SuperPACs can and cannot do, nobody enforces the rules. Nobody seems to know or care what's legal or illegal. It's sorta like football with no rules. Somebody's gonna get hurt, but nobody seems to care. In the case of SuperPAC and campaign committee collusion, it's most likely you and I who will get hurt. You can be fairly sure the candidates don't care. You can be certain the SuperPACs don't care. And you can have even more confidence that the two parties don't care. That leaves only us to care?  Well do ya?

Oh Yeah? Well My Dog's Bigger Than Your Dog.

My cousin and I are currently debating American energy issues. Now aside from calling each other names and all manner bad things, it really comes down the fact that he claims I'm against energy independence for America while I accuse him of believing that we can drill our way out of our troubles by burying our heads in the sand. In fairness, he thinks we need to do research in alternative fuels but the government should stay out of it. He claims he's against oil industry subsidies. He says Edison didn't need the government to invent the light bulb. What he doesn't admit is that subsidies allowed the oil industry to develop into our unchallenged transportation energy industry. In my remarkable and unquestioned rebuttal, I point out that so long as we devote our resources to a "drill baby drill"  mentality,  alternative energy research, in any real sense, will not take place. In a perfect world, if everyone accepted the facts that evolution is real, global warming is taking place and humans are at least partially responsible and the world is not really flat, then I would suggest that we accept some additional oil exploration, a great deal of natural gas production take place, and all coal fired energy generation be replaced by that natural gas in order to at least mitigate the pollution of our planet while simultaneously investing in the necessary research into electric autos and alternative energy sources. Secretly we would probably agree. Publicly we mimic congress. That is to say we act just like the we did when we were little kids fighting over who should get the ice cream cone first. In other words just like congress. In other words we're unwilling to admit the other one may have a few good points. In other words just like congress. So I guess that no matter whether my cousin and I can agree, until congress can begin to agree, we're stuck being at the mercy of countries that don't like us. And we'll keep giving them our money for that privilege

Bust Up That Union.

What's all this about Right To Work laws? I thought all citizens already had the right to work in America. Here's what's going on and why I think it's happening. Years ago, when a union was formed and tried to get companies to treat the workers fairly, and let's be honest, many companies back in those days did not treat their workers fairly or safely, but some worker decided not to join. For different reasons. Some because they feared reprisals and some just because they didn't want to pay any dues. But if the unions got better pay or benefits or working conditions, these workers wanted to participate in the improvements. So there were laws and or rules passed that said if you worked for a company where there was a union, you had to pay the dues. It seemed fair. If you want the good, you have to pay, just like everybody else. There was,  nor is, no option to continue under the old conditions. Now if you fast forward to today's situation, folks think, in many cases, there's no room for unions. They're unneeded, outdated. But history proves, that without some sort of protective shield, many, if not most, companies would slowly revert back to the bad old practices. Now of course any company would assure you that that wouldn't happen. Which is a lot like a cat assuring a mouse that if only it would come out of it's hole, the cat wouldn't eat it. True there are some laws that protect workers, but with the drive to cut the government down to size and eliminate many services, how long might it be before those protections will hold no real threat. Don't get me wrong, unions have done themselves a great deal of harm by becoming the bad guy by demanding ever more benefits, in some cases harming the very industries they need for their workers to continue to have jobs. The question is, do you do away with the safeguards that those union rules provided like the proverbial baby in the bathwater, or do you work on educating the unions to the realities of today's industry's needs? Frankly, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

I'd Like To Debate You On That Issue.

Well? Did you watch last night's debate? You do know that it may be the last debate of this primary season, don't you? This one made for a total of twenty. No not two hundred. Twenty. Did you manage to watch all twenty debates? Ya know ya get fries and a large cola with that, if you did. No substitutions though. Can you remember all the way back to when there were eight contenders? Now there are four. All this just for the right to debate with the president. That's right. More debates. But not until after the summer is over. No, not the campaigning or the attack ads. They'll continue right on through until well after the election and maybe not even stop then. After all, it'll only be four years until the next presidential election. Time is always short. And even more so in politics. But getting back to those twenty debates. What was the most significant moment in all the debates for you? For me it was the last word of the last debate. Now don't get me wrong, it's important to learn about the folks you must choose from, to lead this country. The thing is, there are times when you have learned too much about the folks you must choose from, to lead our country. I think it's fair to say that we've learned about all we want to know about every candidate for the office of president, including Mr. Obama by now. I know, I know, he hasn't taken part in any of these debates personally, but his name has come up several times during the twenty debates. So I think it's fair to say that we know how the candidates feel about him. In fact I think it's fair to say that we know how they feel about each other as well. My problem is not trying to decide which party will have the stronger candidate. My problem is why do we bother with parties at all. Which would you rather follow, a strong party or a strong leader? Well then, let me ask again, why do we need parties at all? Except New Years Eve.

Wouldn't Darwin Be Surprised.

More proof that the theory of evolution is, in fact, correct. I speak of a new breed of humans. This new breed thinks differently than the rest of us. It therefore acts differently than the rest of us. Where you or I might decide to vote for this or that candidate, or even consider sending in a check for five dollars or so, this new breed is either closely tied to a given candidate or doesn't seem to care at all about one candidate or the other, but might decide to send a donation to each. While much of that is the same in the traditional human and the new breed of humans, there are still great differences. For instance, you won't find these two groups associating with one another on any level, or nearly any level. Oh they may pass each other on the street or walking along a sidewalk, but that really doesn't constitute an associationship. No this new group stays pretty much to itself accept for professional relationships. Those where the traditionals serve the newbies. These Newbies are just simple folk who happen to be sitting on millions or billions of dollars in personal or corporate wealth who have decided to take a hand in deciding who will rule this country. Of course there are liberal newbies and there are conservative newbies. These are sub-classes of the newbie breed. The main difference between traditional humans, who also are divided into conservative branch and liberal branch, and the newbies  is that the newbies have the means to effect change or maintain the status quo. The way in which they effect these changes or no change is through the injection of capital on a grand scale that is not available to the traditional human. The facilitator of this new breed is the Supreme Court. It has allowed this new breed to mimic banana republics around the world, in that, the Supremes have allowed the newbies to purchase elections through saturation advertisement super bombing. If, as a traditional human, you're not familiar with this type of advertising, then your state primary date has not as yet fallen into the crosshairs of the campaigns. Beware the newbies. They bring a new kind of governance. One in which a dozen or two people on the planet will decide the fate, because of the U.S.A.s status as the only superpower in the world, of all the traditional humans in the world.

Poor Henny Penny.

Here's a really important question for ya. If Henny Penny were alive today, what would she be worried about? Do ya think she'd be worried about all those truckloads of illegal aliens coming across the border to have their babies? Or maybe President Obama's birth certificate? How about all those SuperPACs, are they receiving enough donations? Are there enough negative ads being aired? What do you think is the number one concern for Henny? Maybe she thinks there aren't sufficient laws on voter registration or maybe there should be more proof of eligibility required to vote. Is a Mormon a Christian? Can women use contraception? How about men? I'll bet she's worried about spending too much money on Education and the lack of tax breaks for the wealthy. She must be worried about welfare fraud and all those on food stamps who are buying soda and candy, and driving Cadillacs. I wonder if she worries about whether or not Osama BinLaden is comfortable? Maybe there's too many women in the workplace and not enough stay at home moms? Especially single moms. Do kids spend too much time in school or do they get too much homework? These are weighty subjects for such a fine, well bred, young chicken to have to contend with. Perhaps she worries that congress doesn't pay attention to these over-reaching questions. And, is congress in danger of losing it's insider trading advantage? Henny Penny will lose some sleep over that one, I'm sure. But what about ethics rules? Will congress be held to a higher standard? What about the Supreme Court. Will they be forced to adopt a standard of ethics? And what of Wall Street and the banking industry? Will they be required to stop betting against their customers? Next poor Henny will be asked to worry about the fact that the wealthiest among us are shrinking in numbers while the poorest among us are growing in numbers, and the unfairness of that. It's enough to keep me up at night. Well that and some of my favorite TV shows.

If I Needed A Job, I'd Be Mad As A Hornet.

Hey folks, we've got a problem in America. No it's not political. Well okay, we do have some political problems, but that's not what I'm talking about. We've got millions of people out of work. Many because industry has fled to cheaper labor markets in countries like China. But now some companies are coming back and some of those who stayed are beginning to need more workers. So that's good, right? No. There's a problem here that too many people don't understand that the jobs that used to exist just don't anymore. Unskilled and low skilled labor doesn't cut the mustard anymore. These factories are automated now. Ya need to be able to program the machines now instead of just operating them. Folks that used to just run them don't understand the process now and young folks just entering the workforce from high school don't either. So? So there are something like 600,000 jobs going begging while, what, 11,000,000 are out of work. So manufacturing won't cure our problem of unemployment, but it's a pretty damn good start. Here's another thought. Suppose there are other manufacturers that are considering moving their operations back to America. They all talk to each other. Maybe they won't make that move if they don't think they can get enough qualified workers. All right, what are we supposed to do about it? Well, we should do like some progressive companies have done. We need to contact public schools and maybe even private ones too, and colleges, especially two year institutions, and then talk to industries in need of workers and put them together to train people how to do the work needed. Do you realize how much better off a young high school student will be if he or she can get a good paying job, even higher than those in the engineering and design departments of these companies? How about the guy who has been out of work for a year or two? So, how much work could a worker work if a school district school schooled? All it takes is for politicians to work together to make it happen. Oh boy. We're screwed.

Let's Flack The Check On Political Lies.

Have you been enjoying the political attack ads yet? Well if you haven't, you soon will be and if you have, aren't they great? I mean they're masterful in the way they twist what candidates say or use comments out of context in order to make it sound like the opposite of what the candidate actually said. And all the candidates use them, both parties. To watch most of these ads they would lead you to believe the candidate is out of his mind. Which is, of course, close to the truth, but that's not the point. We need to see the candidate and what he actually said and meant. I think there ought to be some sort of award along with a little statue, maybe made of lead, not gold. That way the makers of these ads could wear it around their necks when they go swimming. But they could be for the ad that least portrays what a candidate said or did. Anyway, there's a new website out, or maybe it's just new to me, but it's FlackCheck.org. That's flack not fact. The idea is to get TV stations to refuse to air deceptive or misleading ads by third party groups like SuperPACs. Apparently the stations must air the ad if it comes directly from a candidate. In other words the politicians can lie through their teeth, but let's at least stop the anonymous groups from airing lies. In other words, we need to get TV stations to understand they have the right to do this and, and they can still get paid for ads. They just have to require that the ads be true. On the other hand, that would probably cut third party, SuperPAC, campaign ads by about 99%. Wouldn't you enjoy that a lot more than listening to and watching all those ads when you have no idea if there's any truth to them? Until and unless this happens, the only advice I can give you is if it's negative, it's a lie. And I'm right about 99% of the time on that.

How Do You Like Yours? Red Or Blue?

Here's something that might interest you. It's a column by Paul Krugman in the New York Times. In fact there are several things that I find interesting. First, according to Gallop and Aaron Caroll of Indiana University, the ten states that rank as being the most conservative, are the states that receive the most "safetynet" help per citizen.  It goes on to state that although these states have a higher concentration of people who need more financial help, they continue to elect representatives who are more likely to curtail that very help these folks need. It also mentions the fact that the conservative legislators of today are the most conservative of any conservative group since 1879. That's as far back as records of such stuff goes. So we have an ultra conservative group of legislators representing the most needy people in the country. Does that make sense? This "Red State Blue State" business in which these ultra conservative legislators accuse the regions of the country that are represented by liberals of sucking up the wealth of the more affluent is all mixed up. In fact, the opposite is true. So, if you're on food stamps or medicaid, and you're getting ready to vote for whichever Republican wins the nomination, Why? Actually you should vote for the Democrat and the ones who aren't receiving any help of any kind from the government, including Medicare, should vote for the Republican. No, but really, the Red Blue mix is all mixed up. But why are red states voting conservatively if they need social programs and why are blue states that don't need that help, voting Democrat. None of this seems to make any sense. Maybe the Reds are ashamed that they need the help and maybe blues want to get in on the action. All I know is that things are a mess and the red/blue split doesn't help.

Europe Doesn't Realize It's Pointing The Other Way.

It's time to look at Europe again for insight into economic strategies during a downturn. Okay, how's Europe doing? Well, countries like Portugal, Spain and Italy have heeded the advise from the International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank to cut spending in order to receive financial help on their debt. How's that going? Not so good, as a matter of fact. They cut spending to the degree they were told, but something unexpected happened. While they didn't take on any new debt, their ratios of debt to Gross Domestic Product rose. Which means that while the debt hasn't increased, because their economies shrank, they're less able to pay the debt service on the debt they have. Hey I didn't mention Greece. Right. That's because Greece is balking at making such huge cuts in spending. They've been watching those other countries and now think maybe cutting spending ain't all that great of an idea after all. The most important things to do is to spur the economy and cut waste. To spur the economy, you need to figure out how to increase the number of jobs. The reason for that is because those folks wind up having to pay taxes on the wages they earn. With the emphasis on 'job' and 'earn'. Of course Greece has to learn how to actually collect the taxes due, a problem they have in that country. But now we need to look back at America. Half of congress wants to slash spending and lower taxes in order to boost the economy and reduce the debt. Really now, doesn't it make better sense to cut waste and spend on infrastructure to help create jobs, something that that half in congress claims government can't do? But I can assure you that the 'market' or 'private interests' won't repair or upgrade the infrastructure unless and until the government says to and funds it. That would translate into tax paying jobs. Increased taxes from those jobs translates into our ability to pay down the debt. It may not be pretty, but it's what we've got.

How Much Do Elections Cost? If You Have To Ask------

Well, Congress is up in arms over some of the decisions of the Supreme Court, as well they should be. The big one was the court's decision in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission. It basically said the sky's the limit, when it comes to campaign financing. Now election campaigns are no holds barred and no money refused, oh and no ad too big of a lie. And can you believe, of all people, the Congress of the United States Of America is dissatisfied with that decision. Harrumph, who isn't. Except for the big daddy's who are spending the money to rip politicians apart. Now that's okay with almost everybody, as long as it isn't their favorite politician getting dismembered. Anyway, Congress has a plan to fix the problem, and put the Supremes in their place. They never liked the Justices anyway. Wouldn't ya just know, this is the one thing Congress has found bi-partisan support for. Now they, meaning Congress, has some thoughts on how to handle this concern. They're considering a bill that would give Congress the right to regulate spending. Hey, they're even considering a constitutional amendment that would state that Congress shall have the say on campaign financing. Is that the best thing to do? I mean putting Congress in charge of who can spend how much? Congress is part of the problem now. Just imagine what it would be like if they made all the decisions on the subject. Who's guilty of breaking our laws? Well I can tell you, it ain't us. It must be that opponent. Not the incumbent. Horror of horrors. String em up. No, I think I'd rather turn over the control of election campaign finance to somebody with a little less to gain from it. How about the Federal Election Commission? They don't have anything else to do these days since the Supreme Court decided they couldn't oversee elections anymore. Maybe they'd be willing to keep an eye on campaigns. Naw, I doubt the Congress would approve of any outsider looking over their shoulders.

A Smile A Day Does Something Or Other.

Well class, today we're going to study faces. Smiles in particular. Which includes the mouth. And usually the eyes, although not always. It involves the cheeks too. Yeah, I guess it involves the whole face. Which is why we're studying the face as opposed to the ears. Now there are many different looks that we can put on our faces, some intended and some not so much. The best way to study faces is to look at faces. Lots of them. Memory is helpful in studying faces too. If you can remember what people looked like as they walk through the mall or the office or wherever you spend time outside your home you'll remember that some folks look like they're in a trance while others look like they'd rather be anywhere but where they are. Have you noticed some folks frown and some smile? Have you noticed the different kinds of smiles? There's the thoughtful smile. You know. When they think they've just solved a problem, but aren't completely sure. How about the ones that look like they were glued on. Actually I don't think they really use glue. Too obvious. More likely hairspray. That way if someone gets really close and notices it, they can claim they weren't paying attention and their hand slipped. Pretty hard to claim your hand slipped and you got glue on your face. Then there's the dopey smile. They look like they don't have a care in the world or thought in their head. Then there's the one who just heard a dirty joke and can't wait to tell someone else. How about the kid who just played a prank on mom? How about the forced smile on mom  as she grabs junior by the scruff of the neck and ushers him out to the car. Or how about the one who just saw someone do something dumb. Or the one who did something dumb and is embarrassed about it. That's a good smile. I guess my favorite is the one where the person just left the doctor's office with good news or got a great report card. That's about as good as it gets in the smile department.

The School Of Schools.

There are two schools of thought on schools. One school thinks that failing schools should be replaced by private voucher based schools while the other school thinks that if we are to continue to provide  free schooling to all American children we cannot abandon failing public schools. So what school on schools do you belong to? Personally, I like to look back into our history to a time when school was for only the wealthy. Then it was decided, or perhaps I should say that it was recognized that if we wanted to have a successful democracy and if we wanted to have a competitive advantage in the world, our society needed to have a well schooled workforce. That could only happen, it was realized, if we had a public school system. Ya see, school is where young people go to learn. Previously the only schools available were private and above the means of the average person to pay.  Fast forward to today when the answers to modern schooling is to abandon poorly functioning/achieving schools for charter schools and the like. Now our heritage has always been to make things work. If it didn't work, we were always able to figure out how to make it work. To improve it not discard it. . Well actually that's not quite true. Usually we make better models that work better, and that's great for a car engine, but that almost always means more expensive. To the buyer. But that was the whole idea of public schooling. To require that every child must receive free schooling. So let's look down the road to see where vouchers lead to. The better the school, the higher the tuition and that leaves out the less fortunate who will be forced to attend the less productive schools. That's because higher achieving schools always want the best teachers. They're willing to pay more to get and keep better teachers. Same with facilities and equipment. But that's what we're complaining about now. There will always be high priced private schools for the wealthy, but our goal needs to be, not to close under achieving schools. Our goal needs to be to do whatever it takes to make underachieving schools as good as the best. In America, the one school of thought that has always been successful is the school of thought that says, we can do it. I think we need to adhere to that school of thought and fix schools Whatever it takes as soon as we can. And that means we need to stop defunding public schools with vouchers. It may be true that more money alone won't make a school better. But I think I can assure you that less money certainly won't make a school better. Paying greater attention just might. So here's the question. How much schooling could a school district school school, if a school district school, did school?

Guess Who's On The Public Dole? Guess Who Doesn't Care?

Whatta you think about all the attacks on social programs of the government? You wouldn't happen to be one of the folks that have been complaining about all the lazy deadbeats who won't get a job so they jump on the government feeding trough they call a safety net are ya? Boy doesn't it beat all how so many poor folks just don't even try. They just suck up all the government money and spend that money on wasteful things like food and shelter. Well the truth has finally come out about them, and them is us. Now I know it may be hard to own up to the fact that most people receiving government largess in the form of social programs like earned income returns and food stamps are in the middle class. Yep. The hard working folks from middle America. Not the poor? Nope, not the poor. Oh the poor get help too, but most people on the public dole, are the people. People who are working full time. Some holding down two or more jobs and still needing help to survive. A lot of them are the folks who have been complaining the loudest and who are some of the folks getting government help themselves. Maybe that's so other "good" folks won't know they're getting help. Pride can be a heavy burden. But when your kids are hungry or cold or need a new pair of shoes to go to school, you shouldn't just take and then badmouth others for the same problem. That's exactly the right time to stand up and defend a service that you know helps you too, or that at least it's ready to help you if you need it. There's no shame in needing help. There's only shame in refusing to give help when and where it's needed. The thing is, we could cut out a lot of unnecessary things from our own budgets and our state's and federal budgets without hurting the folks who truly need help. If you vote to cut these safety nets, then shame on you. If you accept help and don't support the programs, what's wrong with you? If you're well off and don't need this help, then why do you despise those who do need the help? Shame on you.

Investing In Investments.

America would like China's investors to look for opportunities to invest in American companies to help spur jobs. Hey, China has a bunch of money. We know because a large chunk of it came from us in the first place. We sent our jobs to China. China makes cheap knock-offs of American products and ships them back here. We buy the cheap products sending our money back to China. It seems to me that it's only fair that they at least invest our money in American businesses, so we can get more jobs, create more new technology which can be sent to China to make cheap knock-offs to send back here. See how it all works to everyone's satisfaction? But then Chinese investors aren't satisfied with just investing in cheap products. They'd like to buy our energy industry. They'd love to ship our fossil fuels back to China and they would love to invest in our high tech industries. Especially our secret military technologies. You can bet on that. Why would they need to buy our military high tech when they can easily steal it by hacking into our Internet sites? Diversification. See they know that they won't be able to find everything out by stealing, any more than they could find everything out by investing, but by using both strategies they can get pretty much everything. What they can't get those ways, they can get with subscriptions to Popular Mechanics and Popular Science and a few other magazines. I guess my real concern is that one of these days they're going to invest in the media and there goes the Jersey Shore technology. I'm a little worried about the reruns of all those old "Friends" and "Seinfeld" and "Three's Company" shows. Whatever will we do without them when they get shipped to China. Oh well, maybe they'll remake them as cheap Chinese knock-offs of "South China Sea Shore", "Comrades" and "Longeld" and "Six To A Room" shows and ship them back to America. Complete with subtitles.

Apples And Oranges. They Don't Get Them Either.

You've heard the old adage that an apple a day keeps the doctor away, right? Well in Apple factories in China, it's not necessarily the apple that keeps the doctors away. In fact it's probably unlikely that workers get many apples at all. What's more likely to keep the doctor away is the management at the factories. At the very least they're keeping safe working conditions away. I think I've mentioned before that working conditions are abominable, and then there's the living conditions. See, workers live in dorms and since the companies go 24/7, they only need half as many beds as there are workers. We had those kinds of conditions in this country, but that was something like a century ago. In the coal fields in the east. Workers and their families lived in "factory towns". They lived in factory owned houses, bought everything at the factory store and paid even for the tools they used to mine the coal. Near the end of the pay period, there was nothing left until payday. So the women were put to work in silk mills and lace works in order not to get deeper in debt. Well, it looks like China is taking a page from our history for their most modern factories. And they're taking one more step beyond. Do you suppose they have the wrong calender? I mean do you think they think we're just rounding the corner into the twentieth century? You don't suppose they're emerging into the industrial revolution do you? Well of course they are emerging from a rural, farm based, poor worker class, into a modern industrial giant. I suppose this is a first step on the road to prosperity for all. Well, except that these apple workers aren't really any better off than they were down on the farm. There is one bright spot in all this though. At least Apple gets to have a really, really cheap labor force. And they can't get that in America. Or anywhere else. Now you know why their Ipads have low prices, right?

Let's Not Argue, Let's Compromise.

There's been a great deal of rhetoric over the rules covering contraceptive coverage in the Affordable Healthcare law, more often called Obamacare, and the requirement that religious organizations must provide it, free of cost, to their employees. Now both sides of the issue have, for the most part, stated their willingness to compromise. Hmm, if that's so, then I have two questions. Why are so many screaming about it and secondly, why haven't they sat down and done it? Compromise, that is. Of course it's not supposed to take effect until 2013 so there's no real big rush. Hey congress never does anything until the midnight hour. They don't believe in rushing to get things done by the eleventh hour. Now I have a suggestion, but some will think it's harsh. Oh well, I'll tell you anyway. My suggestion is to give in completely to religious concerns and remove that requirement for them. But with one provision. That is that since this is a separation of church and state question, that we separate church and state and agree that the church (es) never threaten any legislator with any retaliation over how they may or may not vote for any legislation. That means no excommunications, no refusal of any services. It's all about separation of church and state. I was at church this morning and we talked about our congregation and it's expectations. I pointed out to the pastor that while he's looked upon sort of as our cliff notes, for most of the congregation, his notes are only needed once or twice a year. We'd all be a lot better off, if more folks came for his and other's cliff notes a lot more often. And then practiced what they heard. See, it's not that I don't like churches, I do, and I think there should be room for many areas of differences of thinking. I don't think anybodies got a lock on all the answers. We may go about things differently, but we're all headed in the same direction. I hope.

Step Right Up And Buy Your Congressman.

I must be honest with you. Ya gotta be careful when a politician says something like that to you. But I'm not speaking as a politician right now. Maybe later, but not right now. See, here's the thing, as you know, I tried to form a SuperPAC, but nobody told me ya hafta register the things and make reports to the government covering donations. Well at least major donations. Now there are ways to conceal these donations through dummy corporations etc. And no I don't mean to imply that these dummy corporations are dumb. They're actually quite clever. Well anyway, my SuperPAC, PIMP (Put In My Pocket) hasn't been quite as successful as I had hoped and I don't have enough to pay to register it. Not to worry though. I've hit on an idea that should start the cash flowing from some of those big corporations. I've decided to change the name of my SuperPAC. No, not the acronym, in fact I'm only going to change one word of the name. Instead of "Put In My Pocket", it will now be known as "Politicians In My Pocket". I feel this will not only more accurately describe the function, but will also encourage more legislators to flock to my support. Now comes the pitch. So if you represent a major Corporation, especially if you are the Chief Financial Officer, I'd like to talk to you about the opportunities we have for you in our little family of investors, oops, I mean donors. If you are a legislator, especially on the national level, I'd like to talk to you about the largess we have for you. Slightly less on the state level, of course, but still very generous depending on the state and party. I feel these changes in our plan will better represent the needs of our members, donors, investors and recipients. Well, mostly me.

I Can Smell That Diesel From Here.

You might find this interesting. A "landmark study" on diesel exhaust and whether or not it relates to lung cancer in deep mine miners that was started about twenty years ago, is still being held up by a judge who allowed the mining industry and a house Congressional committee to hold it up and keep the Health and Human Services Department from releasing the findings. See, they use diesel engines to operate much of the machinery and vehicles used in mines. Now think about that. If you're a miner and you work in these mines five or six days a week with these vehicles running 24/7 in most cases, what do you think the chances are that it's going to adversely affect your health? Uh huh. that's what the mining industry thinks and if that's what the report says, then suddenly they're going to start losing lawsuits left and right. So you can see why they want to look the report over before it goes public. And I do see the importance of diesel engines in all of our transportation industry as well, but don't we still have the right to read this report? The House committee, chaired by a Republican, has been lobbied by ??? guess who? So they want to take a peek at the report too. I see two questions here. First, what will they do, require that the scientists who did the work change the report and say that what they found to be true, is no longer true? Second, since when has it been up to congress or an industry to decide what health related scientific research report should or should not be made public? If that's true, then what other health reports are being kept secret from the public and for what reasons? I don't know about you, but we taxpayers are paying for this and any other reports not being released and if we're paying for them and they point out a serious problem to our health, why are we not allowed to know it? Is that really the job of congress? To keep secrets from us that if released could help save our lives? And even if they do have that right, shouldn't they be stripped of that right? And what about the mining industry? Who gave them the right to stop this report from being released? Some judge in New Orleans, that's who. Do you think this has a bad smell to it? So do I. I think it smells as bad as a diesel engine that's upwind and I can't for the life of me figure out why a federal judge would think the mining industry should be allowed to do this. Maybe the Circuit Court, which is hearing the appeal of it, will be able to figure out that the people's rights are being trampled on. This has been going on for twenty years. I think it's time to see the report.

There Are All Kinds Of Textbooks.

Here's an idea worthy of consideration. In Afghanistan it has been decided that the best course of action in education is to develop a history book that does not mention the past forty years. At all. Yep, it doesn't mention the Russian war. It doesn't mention the mujaheddin or Taliban. Hey it doesn't even mention the U.S. military presence. So I guess the last four decades didn't even happen. Happy New Year, 1972. Is that a good idea? I mean the reason they give is to not widen any disagreements between ethnic and political groups. Ya think they're likely to not remember that American GIs are there? Or that they don't like the folks in the next village? Or that the Taliban didn't cause any problems? Or will they forget how to raise poppies? Now we all know that Afghanistan has been a little slow in approaching the new century, but which century are we talking about? On the other hand, hey, maybe they're right. Maybe forgetting the bad things that happen is the best plan. I know I'd like to forget the Republican nominating process this last year and a half. In fact, forgetting the lead up to almost all elections would be a real blessing. The question is how in the world would we be able to get everyone to agree on it. As if that wasn't bad enough, try forgetting the last forty years yourself. Well, some of us have already done that, just not by choice. But what if we had to vote on whether or not to forget the last four decades? How would you vote? If there's a marriage in there or a new baby or a graduation or an incarceration, well maybe you'd just as soon forget that, but how about your first new home or, oh well, you get the idea? I'm not sure I'd want to forget the whole four decades, but if I could selectively forget some of it, I'm in. Otherwise, I'm going to give some thought to that. I just want to be careful that they don't decide to forget me while I'm thinking about it.

Insider Trading And Legislators Go Together Like Wine And Cheese.

Let's have three cheers for our congress, because they're writing bills that begin to ban insider trading by congress, senior staff and executive branch senior staff. From now on there will be no closing their eyes to what goes on behind those closed investment doors. That's right, no closed eyes. Although there will still be a lot of winking goin on. At least there will be unless the Senate and House tighten up these proposed laws. Of course, we have to ask the question: do they feel that such laws are in their best interests? Let's face it. If they pass strict laws that say they can no longer profit from insider information, will that adversely effect their portfolios? Would it mean that they would then have to break the law in order to profit from that special insider information? Understand, it's not so much that they would find breaking the law to be a practice they would necessarily shy away from, so much as it would be an added inconvenience trying to hide the practice. Far better if they can somehow word any legislation in such a way as to leave the impression that they have forever outlawed the practice, while still allowing for using the practice under certain circumstances. I believe they may have found that wording. It's still too soon to say definitively and it will take a battery of tax attorneys and constitutional scholars to determine if the wording is clouded and cloaked in legal boilerplate in sufficient bulk to cloud and cloak the actual illegality of the legislation. In other words, will anyone notice that the legislation is a sham? Well, if nothing else, they're convincing most people that they've heard the hue and outcry and have acted responsibly toward it. I for one am grateful that our congress still listens to ordinary folks like us. That is I was, until I realized that it wasn't ordinary folks like us they are listening to. No sirree bob. Ya see, the one percenters feel that with this insider information congress and it's bureaucracy is holding an edge that, on occasion, hurts them, the one percenters. They're the ones who raised the outcry that congress heard. Congress feels it's better to receive outright grants from their wealthy benefactors than from any insider trading. Well unless they can get away with both.

Oh No, They're At It Again.

This is a tale of two old friends. In fact they may even be shirt tail relatives. Okay, maybe shirt tail thrice removed. Now as sometimes happens among old, old, old friends, they aren't so friendly anymore. In fact it wouldn't be too far fetched to say they are enemies. Yes, even in these days of world wide happiness, peace and even camaraderie, there are a few isolated cases of unfriendliness. Although to be sure, it's not often that you run into two who have become uncivil toward each other. Now these two extremely old, in fact, ancient friends, wait a minute, maybe they've never been friends after all. Well, no matter the past, let bygones be bygones, right? Not this pair. As soon as one gets a new toy, the other wants it, and the first will do everything it can to keep the second from getting this new toy. Right now, the toy in question is nuclear weapons. That's right, much to do about nothing. Well, maybe it's a little more than nothing because the second has wanted to destroy the first for some time now. Now if you were the first, what would you do about this schoolyard squabble? Yeah, well the Israelis are threatening Iran with a military strike. Most likely an air attack. In fact, unquestionably an air attack, because they've done it before. Iran has said it would shut down the Strait of Hormuz cutting off about a third of all oil in the world, including their own, if Israel or anyone else attacks them. Okay smarty-pants, what're you gonna do about it? I'll tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna start walking more so I can get back and forth to the store just in case there's any food there that I can afford. That's because when there's one third less oil in the world, I ain't gonna be able to afford to buy any gas. On the other hand, if Iran does get the bomb, there's no assurance they won't bomb Israel or even sell, or give, it to some terrorist who wants to import that bomb to America. This is what is described as being between a rock and a hard place. In fact if you look up "between a rock and a hard place" in the dictionary, Israel vs Iran is what the definition is. Of course politicians all have the answer. Just ask any one of them. Unfortunately, they each have a different answer. Have you ever wondered how so many people can have so many different answers and yet all claim they're right? That's called politics in an election year. And every year is an election year somewhere.

Here's A Biblical Principle For Ya.

Hey, there's an Alabama state Senator back in the news again. I'll bet you're gonna claim you never heard of him.Well I'm pretty sure you'll remember him for his claim that there were truckloads of women crossing over the border into the United States in order to have their children in America. His name is Shadrack Mcgill. Anyway, he's back in the news. He gave a speech the other day at a prayer breakfast where he said that "teachers need to make the money that they need to make." "It's a biblical principle. If you double a teachers pay scale, you'll attract people who aren't called to teach." In other words he doesn't believe in raises for teachers. ON THE OTHER HAND. On the other hand, he defends the 62% raise for the state legislators he voted for and accepted. He what? Yes. He feels that, unlike teachers, who are called to teach, legislators are not called to their profession. See, the thing is, he believes that lawmakers, politicians, are corrupt. Well no real surprise there, and by raising their salaries, they may be less likely to take bribes. See by paying them ten or twenty thousand more, they would stop collecting millions from lobbyists. Don't you agree with that? Don't you think there's sound reasoning in that explanation? I can see his point. If I'm making $35,000 from the government and one million from lobbyists, and the government decides to pay me an extra twenty thousand, I'd say, Oh this makes all the difference. Now I'll stop being corrupt. Well, except for one last time. Okay, maybe two last times. I mean two a month. Come to think of it, I guess if you're corrupt, you're corrupt. And if somebody decides to pay you extra, that doesn't mean you're no longer corrupt. It just means you can buy a bigger boat. I guess if it came right down to it, if somebody wanted to pay me $20,000 more, I'd promise not to vote for any bill that person didn't like. Of course I'm not allowed to vote for any bill anyway because I'm not a legislator. I just get to vote for legislators. I'm not convinced I would vote for Shadrack if I lived in Alabama.

My Mommy Says It's Nice To Share. Mine Doesn't.

Here's something you may find odd. In the MF Global problem, an investment company that went bust and lost hundreds of millions of dollars of investor funds. It was run by a former New Jersey governor. Anyway, investigators have been trying to figure out where all this money went. Especially who got their hands on it. Okay, so there are three different investigating teams, well actually there are three federal agencies and two bankruptcy trustees, but the two trustees aren't sharing information because they are at odds as to who gets the money, if they can get any of it back. One team, we'll it team A, is trying to get that money back in order to pay creditors. Team B is trying to get the money back in order to refund the money to the folks who invested the money. So team A's lawyers won't share any information with team B in case they would get more of the money, I guess. The problem, of course, is that there isn't enough money to pay everybody. I think by a long shot. The big question is, who's team are you rooting for? Some folks, mainly business oriented folks, are cheering team A on so that the companies who are owed money can get these past due bills payed, while moneyed folks are generally hoping team B wins and returns the money to the folks who invested that money with MF Global, trusting that the firm would protect that money. So which are you, a shopkeeper or somebody with some money invested? Maybe some folks are conflicted because they have businesses and investments. What to do. Of course, there's a third, dark horse team, team C. Team C is all of the government agencies who are hoping to collect some money off any fines it may levy. Then again, there's another group that we can call team D. Team D is not in business, has no investments and is not the government. This team is just sitting back and thinking that at least this time it's not their money that everybody is after. In the meantime, somebody is living the high life with all those hundreds of millions of dollars. Which brings me back to team C. See, team C not only wants to collect some fines, it would like to fill some vacancies in their jails too.