Maybe So, But It's Better Than No Oil.

Did you realize that President Obama is single handedly responsible for the higher prices of gasoline these days? Well that's pretty much true. But it's not true that it's because of his not allowing more drilling in Alaska, or the Gulf of Mexico. Nor is it true that it's because of his refusing the XL Pipeline or that he just doesn't like us. None of those are the reasons why he is the cause of higher prices for gasoline. Most of those, you hear from the oil industry and if you believe what they're telling you, be careful about listening to any sales pitches for a bargain sale price on a bridge to Brooklyn. The oil industry is still getting nearly three billion in tax subsidies and are afraid President Obama will cut them off from that extra bonanza. Subsidies? For Oil companies? Do they really need help at this point? Have you seen what their profits are? I think he should end those subsidies, but once again, the oil industry has bought enough Congressmen and Senators to block it. No the real reason I say President Obama is the cause of higher gas prices is because of Iran and it's fanatical government leaders. This administration has placed some harsh pressure on Iran in the form of getting other countries to stop buying or cutting back on buying Iran's oil. Now there's still enough oil around the world to meet the needs of everyone and some to spare, but speculators are a bit nervous anyway. Partly because they're not sure there's enough extra oil but more so because they're afraid the sanctions might not work and we'll have to go to war or Israel will bomb Iran who would then block the Strait of Hormuz and cut off a quarter of the worlds oil supply, which would create a considerable world shortage. But here's the thing. Obama can end the high price problem by simply ending all sanctions against Iran and allow them to build their bomb. I just don't think that if folks thought about it, they'd like that idea. How would you feel about Ahmadinajad or that Ayatollah having a nuke or two, or three or four or more. So like I've said before none of the three choices are good. Which choice would a Republican make? I can't imagine any sane man or woman choosing a different course. So just remember that when gas prices go up, in spite of all the rhetoric, it's a bi-partisan effort.

To Arms, To Arms. Save Our Veggies.

Okay, let's see a show of hands. How many of you wash your veggies before eating or cooking? Why do you do that? You think that by washing off any pesticide residue on that veggie will make it safe to consume huh? Well sorry to burst your bubble, but that only helps a little. Change of subject. How many of you know about how the honeybee population has been in collapse the last few years? Back to old subject. They've found, in studies, that the problem may be in the fact that certain pesticides with a nicotine base are injected into plant seeds which then permeate the whole plant including pollen and nectar. They think this may be killing the bees and in some cases confusing bees so they do not return to the hive. The thing is, it's not in strong enough concentrations to kill all at once, so it seems to be working over time. So maybe over a matter of a season, or several years, the hives are dying off or collapsing. If it's true that these internal pesticides are the problem, what about you and, even more importantly, what about me? I eat some of those veggies. What if I forgot how to get home? Authorities would assume it's the onset of dementia. If that happens, you tell them I'm not demented. Tell them I've just been eating my veggies like a good little boy. But what about that? Why, they even put veggies in babyfood. I'm beginning to think this is a plot hatched by those who would do harm to America. Probably some liberal. Or who knows, maybe a conservative. But not both.

I'll See Your Judge And Raise You Two.

Here's something you may find hard to believe. I know I did, at first. To begin with, almost all states Supreme Court justices must "run" for office and in many, they either must stand for reelection or at least must stand for a confidence vote. Keep them or make them run for another turn against another or several opponents. Well just like national politics, like the presidency, there are now appearing SuperPACs, almost always against some justice or other. These SuperPACs are always trying to unseat a justice because he or she voted against their favorite case. But the thing is, with SuperPACs, the money is secret. And these anonymous donations to these PACs can come from anywhere. So a Justice in Michigan was up against nine million dollars in outside SuperPAC funds. In the past, these races ran with little or no money being spent. What it comes down to is that State Supreme Courts around the country have already been hit by these attacks in states like Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan and coming soon to Florida, Wisconsin, West Virginia and a state near you. Maybe your own. What's so different between state court justice races and the presidency? Well the president represents all of America, while a state Supreme Court justice rules over cases only in that state. If that's so, then how come people from another state get to have any say it this race? That could be a case for the Supreme Court. But even within the state, is it a good idea for these justices to have to go begging for money to run an expensive campaign? Who do they get money from? A senator or Governor can ask for help from his constituents, but the only constituents a judge has are the folks who may or will bring cases before him or her to decide. Is that a good idea? Hi judge. Remember me? I gave you a thousand smackeroos for your campaign. Not guilty. Well, okay, what's the answer? I didn't say I had the answer, but there must be one. How about selecting a committee of lawyers and plain citizens or handsome and attractive citizens to select two candidates for any open seat on the court. No campaigning and no advertising of any kind, but in each county, a question and answer session for the two candidates. At election time, the people vote for whichever they want. It's not perfect, but it's fair. Of course, corporations and the wealthy would complain that they are not allowed to have their constitutional rights to free speech. To which I suggest they stand up in their boardrooms and exercise their free speech. The wealthy have their country clubs.

The Senator From Your State is Recognized. So Are The Others.

Compared to your state's legislature, what do you think of the U.S. Senate? Hmm, let's narrow that down a little bit. How do you feel about your state's legislature? Wow. I didn't think the Senate could be that bad. But I don't want to give you the impression that you're alone. Actually most people in this country think our Senate got lower then that movie producer got in the Marianna Trench. Crawling on it's belly on the ocean floor.What's surprising is that about forty years ago it was the most respected body in the country next to Ursula Andreas. Maybe even as well thought of as the Supreme Court. Which has also slipped in the ratings. But not like the Senate. Well how could this have happened? How did it take such a tumble, and the House of Representatives with it? And why are people more disappointed in the Senate than the House? Well the House was always a little more rowdy so it was not unexpected for the House to become so completely partisan. But the Senate? Our Senate? One difference is that in the Senate they have what is affectionately called the Filibuster. I think everyone knows what that's all about. Quaint, but okay. Now of course, a Senator doesn't actually have to Filibuster, he can just warn the Senate of his intention to do it and that bill gets put on hold until---, well until he's darn good and ready to release it or dies. In fact, I'm not even sure dying releases a bill form the threat. And that includes appointments. Even important appointments. So say you're a Senator and you want your sister's oldest daughter's youngest son to get a summer job. Maybe as advisor, to the president? On, let's say foreign policy. He can put a hold on a dozen or so judges until the kid's been hired. But that's an easy one. What if the Senator wants the President to start a war with Texas? Ground troops and the whole shebang? Huh, actually that might not be a bad idea, but what if? He can put a hold on the Defense Budget Bill until he can hear the sound of shock and awe. The Senate is currently designed for complete gridlock. For instance did you know that the Senate is currently set up so that whichever party is in the minority actually rules? Oh it may look like the majority rules, but don't be fooled by those fools.

Mommy, What's a Gated Community?

Yessiree boys and girls, it's the land of opportunity. America is the place to be if you want to have a chance to 'get ahead'. And if you don't believe me, just ask any branch of Occupy Wall Street. Here in America, if you work hard, get good grades and get hired by a Wall Street hedgefund, you can become wealthier then you could have imagined in your wildest dreams. Otherwise, not so much. Yep, if you don't make the Wall Street grade, or don't come up with the formula for the next great electronic gizmo, you get to share in an annual increase in wealth of around seven percent of the total of income growth. Sounds great doesn't it. 7% of the total growth of wealth and you get to share in it, along with 99% of the total population. Remember that guy that sat next to you in school? The one who went to work for a Wall Street firm? Well he's now part of the one percent that gets to share 93% of the income growth in the country. He's become a one percenter. Way back in prehistory, the early 1990s, that same 1% was able to share only 45% or the growth of wealth, but now they've managed to eek out an additional 48%. Not a bad days work, wouldn't you say? But heck, back in 1970, the top 1% garnered only about 5% of the total wealth increase. And look at the important work these hedgefund managers do. Why they're arguably the lifesavers of our country. Yep, these poor hardworking folks who only earn a measly million plus per year. How can the subsist? So they deserve to get the lion's share of increase in wealth. And on average they got an increase of $118,000 per year while you and I, we shirkers, got an astounding $80 per year increase. We should be ashamed of ourselves. Think what that $80 could have bought  a rich man? A new pair of socks or a couple of hankies. But no, because or our greed we took that $80 and squandered it on bread and milk and other such luxuries. Will injustice never end? The only hope left is Congress. Can they enact further tax cuts for the wealthy? Can Congress save the day for these downtrodden few souls so mistreated and misunderstood in our midst? Well fortunately they don't have to remain in our midst. There are places for them now-a-days. These places are known as gated communities. And remember, all gated communities are not alike.

If You Think This Shoulder's Cold, Try The Other One.

What do you suppose it is with Cuba? The pope just arrived there and was greeted by Raul Castro, who shook hands with the Pope but didn't kiss his ring. Now I've never had the honor of meeting the Pope personally and that's true with most Catholics, but if I were to do so, I think I'd check out protocol in order to be able to show the proper respect. But also, I remember how America decided to try to ostracize Cuba for falling into a communistic government under that devil, Fidel Castro. So we've outlawed any contact or business with the island for, how long? Fifty years? Or has it been even longer? We even tried to invade the island to no avail. But we showed them. The people have led a tough life under Castro's cruel Communist regime. The only thing is, we didn't break that regime. Seems like we only hurt the people. But at what cost to us? No fine cigars, that's what. No fine Cuban rum either. And if you want to visit Cuba? You can't. Well actually you can, but you have to go to a third country and then transfer to a Cuban flight. But they can't buy American goods. Except unless they transfer through a third country. And we can't buy those Cuban Cigars or that Cuban rum, except illegally, through a third country. Come to think of it, it sounds like we've given a pretty good amount of business to some third country. And we don't even get a commission on that business. Oh I know that Cuban Americans don't want us to let up on our cold shoulder toward Castro. But, hey, it's been fifty years and it hasn't worked. Maybe we should look at a different strategy.  Maybe we should open our markets to Cuba. It could help it's citizens and our economy. I'm not saying we should start sending foreign aid, but a big mac? Well maybe that would be a start. In the meantime, not kissing the Popes ring was just in poor taste and something of a political blunder for a country that has always needed the help of other countries. And when you're in that position, you can't really afford to be rude.

How Do Rich Folk Keep Getting Richer?

Say, are you one of those people who just doesn't believe in all this talk about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? Well here's some new statistics you won't like either. Look, it's not me making these claims, it was put together from information from American's tax returns, and no, it doesn't mention you by name. Names are not released for this sort of economic reporting. But the thing is, that the richest one percent of Americans had an income increase of 11.6%. On the other hand the other 99 % of us saw an increase in our income of $80 per year. So, okay that doesn't tell us much, you say? Well if we put that in prospective it would mean that for us to show an increase of 11.6% it would mean that we had an annual income of $688.69. On the other hand, the top 99% , or in other word, those making about $1,019,089. a year got an extra $118,214 per year. What's that you say, you made more than $700 per year, even more than $7,000 per year, maybe even $20 or $30,000 per year? Well if that's the case then you didn't get 11.6% more in income like your wealthier acquaintances. In fact if you made $30,000 and all you got was $80 more, then you only got .0375% more in income as opposed to 11.6%. So that means they got thirty plus times as much of an increase as you did, percentage wise. Actual dollars difference is $118, 134 if my math is correct and I think it is. So what's that you say? Yeah, I don't begrudge them making a lot more than me either, but then they already were making a lot more than me. And $80 bucks doesn't keep pace with inflation these days. A hundred eighteen thousand sure does though. I guess I'd just like to know how come they get 11.6% and I get less than half a percent?  After all there is a basic unfairness to it, don't you think? How about if we even out the percentage and, let's say, we each get a 5% increase in income, or even 6%? That way you'd get an extra $1500 or $1800 and your rich friend would still get $51,000 or $61,000 more. I'll bet you'd be a whole lot happier. Of course he'd be a whole lot less happy.           

Hoodies Or Loonies, Take Your Pick.

This young person was in that time period between manhood and childhood, at 17. So why was he killed? He was from a good family and was well liked. But why was this between-hood person killed? He was walking through a nice neighborhood. But why was this young person killed? He was wearing a hood-ie. Ahh, now it all makes sense. He was a 17 year old black young man returning to his uncle's house with some candy, walking through a nice neighborhood wearing a hood-ie. We can presume the hood was up. And, that this Hood was up to no good. Now it's true that a substantial number of people who commit robbery and burglary wear hood-ies. It's true that a substantial number of people who commit these crimes are black males. But it's also true that a substantial number of teens, boys and girls, wear hood-ies. And it's also true that a substantial number of these teens don't commit such crimes. In fact there's an even larger number of these folks who never commit any crime. Even though they have, on occasion, worn hood-ies. But according to at least one preacher-man and at least one journalist-man, why, hey, he was wearing a hood-ie. So it must be true that if you wear a hoodie, you must be a criminal intent on doing crime. Maybe, maybe, the answer is to outlaw hood-ies. No more crime, case closed. See, it wasn't the laws that permits loon-ies to carry guns in public and to follow, confront and face down anyone who has the temerity to wear a hood-ie or display any trait our loon-ies dislike. That's not the problem at all. Carrying and using a gun doesn't cause people to get killed, hood-ies cause people to get killed. Especially if they're in the wrong neighborhood. Gosh, you don't suppose that if we outlaw hood-ies, people would be able to stop carrying and using guns, do ya? Why even states could rescind their laws on carrying guns to church and the corner pub. But that would be bad for the gun business.  Maybe we're better off the way we are. Well at least Smith and Wesson will be better off. And if you have Colt stock, you'd be better off too. Just ask the NRA.

Alas. Cool Cars Nevermore.

There was an article in the New York Times today about why young people have lost interest in cars these days. Yep, new car sales to young people are down. Are you surprised at that news? I ask, because when you look at the lineup of new cars a young person might be able to buy, or would consider buying and then compare them with back when the Mustang or the Camero first came out, you might begin to get an idea of why kids aren't all that excited about what's being offered to them. And no, I'm not talking about just muscle cars. In fact the earliest Mustang was not particularly muscular. That came later. But they had that look. The look that said I'm cool, my car's cool and that makes me cool. Cars today say something more like "I'm an egghead" or "I'm a nerd". Now being an egghead or a nerd isn't so much a bad thing, but even eggheads and nerds would like to have a cool car. The thing is, Detroit found out, a number of years ago, that SUVs made them a lot more money than cool cars did. So they must have put their best people on developing the biggest personal SUVs they could and whoever was left, got whatever money was left to design "just cars". That's right. They forgot to tell those leftovers to design "just cool cars". I don't know, maybe it was decided or determined that in order to design a fuel efficient car, it would need to be nerdy. You know, boxy, short, fat, stubby,pretty much unassuming. I think the thinking is that you shouldn't make a car that's efficient, and safe, look like a muscle car. Why not? Why can't a fuel efficient, high tech car with a small four cylinder engine look like a cool car? Did they run out of design funding before they got to the outside? Maybe that's where they needed to start. Because that's where everybody looks first.

Ahh. Now That Smells Like A Law I Can Love.

Do you understand the role of Lobbyists? Well, I know what they like to explain their role as, and I think I know what they actually do. Here's what lobbyists claim is their role in government. First recognize that elected Congressmen and Senators are not conversant in every field of interest that will come up in the course of his or her term. That's true. In fact it's pretty self-evident given the way they tend to screw things up. So the lobbyists say their job is to help these legislators get up to speed on the various issues. Okay, now here's where I begin to diverge from their thinking. First, our legislators don't have the time to get up to speed on each issue. That's why they have staffs. Secondly, lobbyists have been "helping our folks to get up to speed on issues" for some considerable time and look at the mess they still make of things. So, I admit our legislators, both on state and federal levels, need help on the issues. Some of what comes up in congress is pretty intensely complicated and even once it's explained, many still don't know what it's all about. Of course much of that stems from the legislators inherent inability to understand more than the one single issue on which he or she based his whole campaign. But should our laws be written by obviously and admittedly biased individuals who are paid handsomely to sway legislators toward or away from specific legislation? Ya know, there used to be a department in the government whose job it was to collect all the pertinent information, pro and con, on any issue under consideration by congress and then pass on that information along as well as make recommendations based on the information. It was called the "Office of Technology Assessment". But it was disbanded about 19 or 20 years ago, which then made lobbyists invaluable almost overnight. So if our government was smart enough at one time to develop such a group, how come they're too dumb to do it now? Well it's not so much that they're too dumb as it is that they'd rather trust somebody who they know is biased than somebody who they don't know what that person prefers. In other words, if your favorite campaign donor wants a law passed, then they know who to turn to for just the right flavor of wording.

An Open Letter!

This is an open letter to all national, state and local elected officials. This information will come as a surprise to most of you, which is the reason for making this announcement. Shocking as it may be to you, I must inform you that on November 6, 2012, the general election day, there will not be one single vote cast either for or against you, not even one person of you will receive a vote in favor or against you by any corporation in the entire country. That's right, you heard it correctly, no corporation will enter any polling place and step up to or into any voter booth and cast a single vote. Corporations may be considered people in the eyes of the courts, but they have not been given the right or privilege to vote. Now while you recover from this unnerving bit of news, let me assure you that there will be votes cast. But they will be cast by living, breathing, human beings. These voters have the authority to vote either for or against you, as they see fit. Oh you may wonder how this works, how is the decision made as to whether or not someone is living and breathing? How do they determine if a person is a corporation or a living breathing human being? The process is rather simple really. If the applying voter is a piece of paper or even a set of papers, they are considered, for the purpose of voting, as a corporation. But if the applicant is made of flesh and blood and is in fact breathing, they are considered a person, for the purpose of voting. Oh, and they only get one vote each. Now this may seem unfair to you since you get so much from the corporations, like gifts and campaign donations, etc, but those are the perks of the politics of this country. Here's another news flash, you are elected, if you do get elected, to serve, not corporations, not a political party, not even an ideological preference, but the whole of the people in your electoral district. Please allow at least two years for that to sink in, four years if you're a governor or president and six years if you're a U.S. Senator. During this sinking in period, you are directed to act like you are a public servant. Failure to act like a public servant could cost you your job. If you fail to act like a public servant and it doesn't cost you your job, then shame on the voters in your district.

Stand Your Ground, Or Else.

Lets talk guns. Or better yet, lets talk show downs at OK corral streets around the country. There are twenty one states including Florida where you are allowed to shoot to kill and claim you felt threatened and are then free to go. One Florida State attorney suggested that if you have an argument with somebody in a bar, you can call them out into the street and have a duel. The winner can then claim he felt threatened and presto, no crime was committed. These laws are called "stand your ground" laws. They go particularly well with laws that make acquiring and carrying a gun easy. So if you can step up to the fast gun shop and order one with extra ammo, to go, you can then shoot the clerk for shortchanging you and claim it was in self defense of your wallet. Now just about every state allows you to protect your life and your family in your home and call it self defense, but these laws cover you anywhere. If I were a preacher on a Sunday morning, I'd be careful about threatening the congregation with eternal damnation. Shots could ring out along with the bells. It could well be the sermon heard round the world. Florida passed it's law a couple of years ago. It was pushed by the National Rifle Association. No surprise there. I think it's getting to the point when it may be time for the NRA to change it's name to the "National Guns Are Us" (NGAU) or "Sponsored by All the Gun Makers of America" SAGMA) organization. It really doesn't appear that the NRA does much about rifles anymore, well except for assault rifles. But they sure do like promoting gun toting. In fact there aren't very many places where you can go where concealed guns are not permitted. Can you imagine the next step? "The floor recognizes Congressman Jones who has the floor because he has his gun drawn, the approved method for arresting debate on this bill". All those in favor, shoot all those opposed. BANG. The Eyes have it and are innocent because of self defense. Now I don't advocate shooting congressmen, but I wouldn't mind unloading a bunch of them.

Bi-Partisanship Makes Corporations Swoon.

Who said bi-partisanship is dead? Huh? Who said it? Well, I'm here to tell ya it's alive and well. And it lives in the U.S. Congress and the President. Yep, both houses of congress. And who is it that said our legislators aren't interested in jobs? Come on, speak up, who said it? Well, it's not true. Here, to prove it let me introduce you to the JOBS Act. It has already cleared the House and is set  to fast track through the Senate so the President can sign it into law. The correct and complete name for the bill is "Jump-start Our Business Start-Ups Act". Jump-start our business start-ups'? How does that create jobs is the question you're asking? Huh. That's an easy one. If they help new start-up companies to get going, those new start-up companies will need workers, which means jobs. Simple as that. Well, as you know, the devil is in the details. So what are some of the details here? Okay, for starters it begins to deregulate businesses. Wait, before you ask how that helps, let me explain. See, it eliminates safeguards for investors like not requiring companies to disclose  things like accounting and auditing practices among other things. Stay with me now. What this does is to allow the companies to use accounting to play with figures and audits to approve of those fudged figures. See, that way investors won't be able to figure out if the company is legit or a scam, which is why the safeguards were put in in the first place. Now why would Congress and the President all agree to this? Silly, it's an election year. So there are two very good reasons to vote in favor in a bi-partisan fashion. First the hope is that corporations will show their gratitude by donating to campaign and SuperPAC coffers and the second reason is that the acronym, JOBS Act, sounds like something the whole country can be thankful for. Especially since it won't cost the government a dime. The idea is that if these companies can "play" with accounting, investors will invest and the companies will grow and need workers. Of course, those companies who "play" with figures could just want the money with no plans to actually do anything but spend the investors money at the slots machines in Atlantic City, Los Vegas or Wall Street and who's to know? If 007 had a license to kill, this is a license to steal. And Jobs? Who knows? Maybe there will be some jobs created as a result of this, but here's the thing, if a company is legitimate, then wouldn't sound accounting practices show that? And wouldn't that be incentive for investors to help the company get going? Apparently not. The only way to get start-ups going is to allow them to cheat.
Following that principal, I'm a start-up too. Wanna invest?

Whatcha Gonna Do?

Iran. Now there's a real question for ya. Whatta ya do about Iran? We've got a limited number of responses. We can keep trying to pressure them into not developing the bomb, we can bomb their nuclear facilities or we can live with them having the bomb. That's about it. Those are all the choices we're gonna have. We're working on pressure and it looks like it could be working. At least in the minds of those who want it to work. As for the Hawks, they disagree. Small wonder. So what happens if we bomb them? Think they'd mine the Strait of Hormuz and sink a tanker or two to help block it? Even the thought of that happening would send oil prices through the roof. And that would sink our economy and just about every other economy in the world, to the bottom of the pit. And there would be no guarantee that Iran would stop trying to build a bomb. In fact they'd probably try harder. So if we bomb them and that isn't enought to stop them and to keep them from shutting the Strait of Hormuz, what? Do we invade them? Are we up for another occupation of a middle-eastern country? So what's left? Allow them to build their bomb? And then what? Hope they don't decide to use it? Or sell it? See what I mean? There's no good solution. But the least bad solution would be to sanction them into deciding not to build the bomb. It's a gamble, but then which plan isn't? My guess is that no matter what we do, we're gonna have a problem with them, just like we've been having since the 1960s. They've been a thorn in our side all this time and nobody's figured out how to stop them. Getting out of dependence on middle-eastern oil would help. But only if everybody else did too. So, as long as oil has a world dominance for transportation energy, Iran will continue to be a world player in the problem game.

Flexability My Foot.

Here in Pennsylvania we're blessed with a presidential candidate who doesn't believe in  college. Well at least not for young people not related to him. As if that weren't blessing enough, our cup is running over because of a Governor who is prepared to take those beliefs one step further. Governor Corbett seems to think elementary and high school are only for snobs as well. So in order to facilitate his theory, he has reduced funding for pubic schools and now seems intent on defunding school buses. You see, the theory follows that if children can't get to school, they won't be tempted to become snobbish. This all fits neatly into the needs of modern manufacturing practices where robotics do the hard stuff while uneducated, low paid worker (drones) do those menial tasks more suited to them. Now I know, some of you will disagree with my words. Actually you'll disagree with my statements not the words by themselves. But hear me out. If funding for school buses is cut, school districts will have to figure out how to replace that funding. The choices are several. You could cut back on the number of teachers, again, you could provide neighborhood, one room schoolhouses, again, or you can cut transportation out all together. After all, while schooling is a guaranteed right, riding on a yellow school bus is not. So for families with only one car (to get to work) or one parent, getting the kids to school is not an easy task. In fact it could well be impossible. What if it comes down to dad, or mom, or both getting to work or getting the kids to and from school, or no money for food and a roof over their heads? I don't think that's a problem for the state to worry about, do you? It must not be, because the governor is cutting funds. Well actually that's not quite true. What he's doing is lumping transportation funding with several other, unrelated programs allowing for "flexibility" and cutting the overall funding. But here's the thing, if you have less money to split among several important areas of the budget and transportation costs are increasing substantially, exactly what or where is that flexibility? I think the flexibility rests solely with the governor. See, Mr. Corbett can flexibly sign a pledge not to increase any taxes. Then he can flexibly adhere to that pledge. Of course, parents can flexibly decide whether or not to educate their children. So you see? Flexibility does work.

For It's One, Two, Three stikes, Your out.

Hey people, guess what? There's a new Favorite National Pastime. You remember, it used to be baseball? Well baseball is no longer our favorite national pastime. Now if you think it's football or even basketball, you're wrong. And I hate to shatter the dreams of you soccor hopefuls, but you didn't make the grade either. In fact it isn't even a traditional sport at all. Oh, and just in case you wondered, it isn't politics either. Perish the thought. No, it's a pastime that's been around for a very, very long time though. It's something that's given pleasure to millions upon millions of fans for---, well it seems forever. You wonder what it might be? You think it might be eating? No. And it isn't S-E-X either. Boy that does narrow the field down, doesn't it? You'd think that if it's the favorite National Pastime, it would be easier to figure out what it is, wouldn't you? Well, here's a hint. There seems to be a lot more of it now-a-days, spread over a wider array of opponents. Still can't figure it out? I suppose you want me to just up and tell you what it is. Well here's another hint. In all likelihood you've participated in it, in fact I can almost assure you that you did. On one side or the other. Still don't know? Oh, alright, I'll tell you. The new Favorite National Pastime is bigotry. It is too. Oh yes it is. How else to explain the fact that so many people are so "down" on so many other people. Here's a partial list of people we're "down" on; Latinos, African Americans, the French, Irish, Arabs, Chinese, fat people, thin people, tall, short, smart, dumb, rich, poor, young, old, employed, unemployed, weak, strong, sick, healthy, happy, sad, literate, illiterate, alien, citizen, college, no college, and the list goes on. Perhaps you can add to the list. In fact here's another one, everyone but me and thee, and I have my doubts about thee. Yep, it's sort of an equal opportunity Favorite National Pastime. There's somebody for everyone to hate. Here's another thing, it's not likely to go away anytime soon. In fact it's likely to continue as favorite far longer then baseball did.

Advise For The Political Lorn.

I don't know about you, but I'm dismayed by President Obama's reaction to and attack on whistle blowers. Now I understand that no president likes leaks of information in his administration and we do need to be concerned about national secrets being spread around. On the other hand, we also need folks who work for the government, who see mistakes and lies and wrongdoings, to let us know so we can force change. Whistle blowers always get the short end of the stick. It's a case of being needed, but being unloved at the same time. When the government is spending money on things they shouldn't and won't stop if told internally, then it's time to let government know externally. Like the case of a man who said that the department where he works was paying huge sums for a software program that doesn't work well instead of using a software program developed in that same department that works great and won't cost anything extra. He told congress and a newspaper. Hey, it makes sense to me, how about you? There are even laws to protect them when they sound the alarm. Of course if you're the president, or even head of an important department of the government, you seem to be able to get around those laws. What the president is doing is accusing them of spying under an old "espionage act". Now I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Pres. Obama stating how important whistle blowers are a while back, but maybe he meant only when they blow a whistle on somebody from the other party. Then they would be important. But if the whistle sounds on one of the Presidents own, then that's different. Then it's espionage. I hope the courts take a good look at these kinds of attacks and call them for what they are. Dirty pool. Or in this case dirty politics. I think the president would be far more respected if he went after the folks in his administration who are doing the wrongs that are being whistled at. Those whistles aren't aimed at pretty gals ya know. So if I were you, Mr Obama, and I know you haven't asked for my advise, but if I were you, I'd shape up or you could be shipped out in November. That would make your attacks a mistake.

How're Your Investments Doing?

There's an interesting editorial in the N.Y.Times today by a young man (young by my standards) who claims he's quiting his job at Goldman Sachs. It's not so much that he's quiting that's interesting, except that it opens up a job opportunity for somebody else, as it is that he's quiting because he feels Goldman has veered from it's core principals. He now sees it as being far more interested in  how much it can make off it's customers instead of how it can help it's customers meet their goals. Does that surprise you? Are you shocked to hear that Goldman Sachs, or for that matter any of the big Wall Street houses, would think that way? That they're more interested in making money off you than they are about what you want or need? He says that they'd rather sell you something you don't want or need, so long as it makes them more money. Are you beginning to worry about your own investments? Well at least you have investments. But what about the company that's helping you manage those investments? Do they give two hoots what helps you? Oh, I know, they all tell you how much they can do for you. That they all want whatever is best for you. But is that what they actually do for you? Or do they, as this guy says they do, do they do whatever is best for them? Now to be honest, this young man states that he can find nothing illegal in what Goldman is doing. It's just that it's not the interests of the client that's of interest to them. Sounds like the interests of the client take a back seat to "how much money can we make off them". And the thing is that for the newer, young employees, this current theme is the one they see. They don't see where you work for the client and in doing so, you'll be rewarded. Now it's 'work for the companies benefit and the client might profit from it'. The thing is, I hate to burst his bubble, but I don't think he'll find a much different culture in any of the other Wall Street houses. I'm old enough to remember back to when John F. Kennedy said, in his inaugural speech to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Now-a-days it seems to be "Ask not of me, that which you can get from somebody else or do without", or in other words "Ask not what I can do for my country, ask why you aren't doing it for me". Corporate America seems to have changed to the point where they want only to make bigger profits, not just good profits. And if that means hurting the employees or customers, then so be it. I don't know about you, but I'm old fashioned. I'd rather see a company work to help me, instead of itself. Maybe I'm just selfish. But almost all companies used to have a social conscience. Now companies seem barely conscious of society.           

I'll See Your Earth And Raise You A Rare.

Houston, we have a problem. Rare Earths. Who what? Rare Earths. The problem is that China controls 95% of the Rare Earths on earth. That doesn't mean they have 95% of the Rare Earths (R.E.s). Which is what I thought they've been saying. They do have something like 35% of the stuff. But America and Canada have a lot of the stuff too. So what's the problem? Well Houston, the thing is, China used it's favorite tactic to garner control of this important market. They mined and sold the stuff cheaper then anybody else could. Then as soon as everybody else went out of the business, they started limiting the amount of R.E.s they would export. This accomplished two things for them. First it raised the prices and second it gave them more, cheap product for their own industries. Now they can, and do, use it as a hammer against anybody who messes with them. Japan found that out the hard way a year or two ago when they argued with China over some islands in the South China Sea. When they claimed they owned the islands, China suddenly could no longer ship R.E.s to them. It seemed there was some sort of problem. Now if you're sitting there wondering what in the world are Rare Earths, they're metals that are very rare, hence the name (Rare) Earths, but are needed in almost everything electronics related, like car batteries, solar panels and also flat screen TVs and so on. Without these metals, you just can't manufacture any of these high tech products. So Houston, what do you recommend? I'd say it's time to restart production in countries like Canada and the U.S. The problem is, China can always flood the market with cheap stuff again. That's what put us out of that business in the first place. Well maybe it's time for the U.S. to subsidize it's R.E.s mining and production and pass the savings on to the rest of the world. We'd come out looking like the good guys and we'd have a good safe supply of quality stuff. So would the rest of the world. China would come out the bad guy, but so? It seems to me that's exactly what they've been for some time now. Of course they'd complain to the World Trade Organization (WTO), but so?

Sometimes War Just Doesn't Make Sense.

I hate to talk about this, but I'm concerned for all our people in Afghanistan. Instances of Afghan security people suddenly turning on their American counterparts, what appears to be increased bombings, Instances of Americans burning the Quran, purportedly urinating on dead Taliban militants and now a soldier killing 16 Afghans in their sleep, door to door. All these things are explainable, by themselves, as isolated and unfortunate side effects of such an extended war. But that's just the problem. The war has gone on too long. There's far too much battle fatigue, on both sides. People's instincts for good and what's right are breaking down. The thing is, the longer the war continues, the more of our people will die or suffer injuries. But the thing is, the longer this war continues the more of our people will bring these breakdowns of instinct, home with them. Is there a real, justifiable reason for us to continue to remain where we're unwanted, fighting people we can't defeat because they melt into the population at large? We're talking about anther two years. Exactly what will we accomplish in the next two years that we were unable to accomplish in the last ten years? There's a well thought out theory that says you cannot defeat an enemy if the people of their homeland, the populace, can't be convinced you're trying to improver their lives. If we can't win over the hearts and minds of the population of Afghanistan, how in the world can we win that war? Do some Afghans side with us? Of course. Do many wish we could be successful? Of course. Is the whole country with us? More and more, I fear not. This started out as a justified war against those who attacked us without warning. We have succeeded in that phase of the war with the death of Osama BinLaden. Is that war over? Not yet, but it no longer centers in Afghanistan. It's no longer a war that can be fought by massed armies or shock and awe. It's going to have to be fought like our enemies fight. That's something we can do, but we have to accept it and move to do it. We may need tighter defense at home. We need to be able to move quickly and quietly to where the enemy hides. Armies can't do that. It's time to bring our Armies home from Afghanistan and be ready to strike again in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world if necessary. I think our leaders know this. I think our military knows this. It's time for them to act like they know it.

You're Not A Snob Unless You Own Your Own Oil Well.

Thomas L Freidman, one of my favorite commentators had an article in the N.Y. Times today that tells about the testing of all 15 year olds in 65 countries around the world for proficiency in math and science every two years. They also compared those test scores to the saleable natural resources in those same countries. Ya know what they found? The countries with the most natural resources had the lowest scores, and the countries with the least natural resources had the highest scores. Can you imagine that? There were a few exceptions where countries like Canada also had high scores, but those countries saved the income from those resources and invested them in education instead of spending that income on giveaways to the populace among other vises. In other words, the "drill baby drill" mentality suggests a nation so overcome by the desire to have the good life that they're willing to throw away the opportunity to be self reliant. See, the idea is that if you don't have natural resources, then the people must become the resource. Now I don't know who had the idea of comparing the test scores with the natural resources, but somebody did. It does point to a reliance on those reserves instead of education. The unfortunate thing, for us in America, is that we're too big a country to put so many of our eggs into that basket. Because there just aren't enough oil wells to go around. So if you're left out in the cold, without an oil well to heat your life, with state after state, county after county, school district after school district cutting back on the education they're providing, and the federal government forced to cut back, and nobody truly trying to improve the educational experience, and some suggesting it's snobbish to get an education anyway, if you're one of the ones left out, you're getting the short end of the stick. Why would anyone think it's snobbish to get an education? If you're going to be a carpenter or plumber or production worker or whatever, it wouldn't hurt you to know how to do the work, the best way. That almost always means some form of education. There should be a word for people who have that backwards Maybe we should invent the word "Bons".

Boy What A Difference A Decade Makes.

Do you know what a 527 is? How about a 501? Maybe a 501(C), or a 501(C)(4), (5), (6)? Well why not? I know, but only because I just read an article about them. No actually I knew about 501(C) (4)s, and if I knew about the others I'd forgotten. Anyway, 527s are or were social welfare organizations that could get donations without disclosing who donated what and then turn around and run attack ads against candidates for political office. Sound familiar? Back in 2000, the congress, lead by John McCain and other Republicans, pushed to stop them from doing that, unless they disclosed their donors. Democrats were against it. But it became law. What they forgot to do at the time was to do the same for 501(C)(4)s which are now doing the same thing, since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Well now some in congress are trying to outlaw the 501(C)(4)s from this same practice. The only difference that I can see is that now, the Democrats are championing the cause and the Republicans are against it. Just the exact opposite as in 2000. Amazing how people change in such a short time, isn't it? How come if it was the wrong thing back then it's the right thing now, or how come if it was the right thing back then, it's the wrong thing now? Ya know what I think? I think it's an opportunity for one side to be against anything the other side wants to do. And a second opportunity to be just as obstinate. It's not that I fault congress back in 2000 for missing an opportunity, because that seems to be what they do best. No, it's that they are so willing to change sides so easily. Do they get up in the morning and have to check to see which side they're supposed to be on today? Or do they have to wait until they get to work to find out? Or do they wait to see what the other side does? My guess? I don't think they know what they're doing. But here's what I do know. Attack ads don't help the political process. They make it harder to decide. But then, that's what they're designed to do.

The Price Of "Green" Has Just Gone Up.

I don't think it's big news that I'm in favor of green technology. I'm a person who understands that evolution is an accurate and proven science. Global warming is happening and human energy sources are part of that problem. The world is not flat, it is in fact a globe, round. I'm in favor of ending subsidies for the oil industry. The subsidies began when oil was a fledgling industry. They were meant to help it become a strong stable resource. I think we can say without dissent that that has come to pass. I'm also in favor of now giving similar support to alternative energy and green technology. Why would anyone disagree with that thinking? Having said that, I must say that the government's awarding of a $10 million grant for any company that could develop an affordable (that's AFFORDABLE) "green" light bulb seemed promising. Oh and it was to be at least somewhat "made in America", too. Well, the votes are in, the prize has been awarded. Philips, the light bulb people have been awarded the $10 million prize. And now the bulb is actually on the market. It's an LED bulb, so there's no question that it's green. It apparently meets the MIA requirement. And now, a drum roll please, the price is $50 each. That's right. This "affordable", "green" light bulb is $50 a piece. Now if you're one of the one percenters, $50 might be considered inexpensive, but if you're one of the 99 percenters, you're gonna think the government was a bit premature in it's awarding Philips this prize. Come on, $50. For a light bulb? And you consider it cheap? Okay, not cheap, affordable? Really? $50? Cheap? Well I guess you have to consider that it is Washington that gave the award. In Washington, you can't expect anything to be that cheap. Hey, you can't even buy a legislator for $50. But haven't these folks ever been in a store where they sell light bulbs? Even LED bulbs currently on the market only sell for about half that. What is it? Is it because it has to be made in America? That doesn't make sense if American workers are so much more efficient and do a better job then foreign workers. Well, I happen to believe that, so the answer must be that Philips wants to make a killing on this thing. Maybe they want to cover all their costs of development in the first couple dozen bulbs. I hope so, because at that price, they're not gonna sell too many more than that. I think maybe everybody forgot that the prize was supposed to be for "inexpensive" or maybe they just forgot the "in".

Can You Believe How Smart China Is?

Here's what I don't get. We know that China has sent us contaminated and inferior products and makes no amends for it. We know that they mistreat their own people and especially their own workers, We know that they hack into our industrial and governmental computers stealing our trade secrets as well as our military secrets and our technology. We know that they vote against us at the U.N. on almost every issue. We know they manipulate their currency to take advantage of us and others. We know they artificially lower the prices of their manufactured goods for profit and to hurt us. We know they require companies to turn over technology as a prerequisite to gaining market in China. We know they pirate intellectual material. We know they are testing cyber attack technology to use against us. And we know so much more that isn't even mentioned, and yet we call them 'friend', trusted 'trading partner' and 'financial helper'. What we don't call them is enemy, manipulator, bad faith competitor. So what I don't get is; Why? Why don't we call them to task on every issue. Why don't we call them to account? Why don't we call them what they are? Probably because they own a fair share of America because of the loans they've made to us so our politicians could continue to give us what we didn't earn. Our problems do not stem from those on welfare, or even on welfare itself. It stems from politicians more interested in reelection then on what's in the best interest of all of us. The problem is, they're still doing it. They squabble over what to, or not to, cut out of the budget and how much to, or not to, give in tax cuts or increases.Ya see? It's not about helping us. It's about helping them. China helps our politicians by giving us money. Our politicians whine about the debt and deficit, but they keep asking for more in loans. China just smiles and hands over more cash. Cash that it took from us, in the first place, by underhanded means. Why? Because China realizes that as long as they give money to our politicians, our politicians will keep protecting China's interests here. So the next time you hear about some food stamp lady buying candy, complain about our politicians. Not our poor.

Here's How Government And Industry Can Both Create Jobs.

Here's how governments work. Some folks have looked at the military and how it might trim it's budget to cover the new requirements to work with a smaller budget. They think it might help if some of the "head office" personnel were let go. As you know, there's a Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. which is made up of the top leader in each branch of the military. But each of those and the Secretary of Defense have Under Secretaries, Deputy Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Assistant Under Secretaries, Assistant to the Assistant Under Secretaries and Special Assistants to the Under Secretaries, and several layers under them. What if they gave computers with "word" to a couple of these secretaries? Maybe they wouldn't need so many assistant secretaries. Yeah, okay, I know these "secretaries" aren't actually secretaries. They're just called that instead of "guy in charge of". But what about all these guys, and ladies, do we really need them? How much do we pay them? Well, some seem to be paid as much as $250,000 a year. The average is somewhere around $145,000. Why so much? Well some have extremely high security clearances which means the could earn more from  private contractors. Here's a thought. Lay them off, let the contractors hire them. Case solved. See, the work they do now, can be done by the contractors, right? We just saved millions. Well except that the contractors will have to raise their prices by $500,000 and $290,000 to cover their costs of operation. See how a simple cost saving device can cost you one hundred percent more, at the very least. That's why shrinking government is so hard. On the other hand, by laying off those people and having them get hired by private businesses, you accomplish two goals. You shrink government and increase employment in the private sector. So the next time you hear somebody claim that government can't create jobs, only business and industry can create jobs, just smile and say "thank you". Now, how you arrange for business and industry to create jobs, shrink government and cut taxes all at the same time, I'm not sure. It may work on paper, but not on the ground.

How Come Everybody Doesn't Get An 'A' In Economics In School?

Reports continue to show that we trail many other nations in education, especially in advanced math and science. Even though we spend more on education than most other countries. How can this be? How come we aren't getting better results from our educational experience if we're spending more than the next guy? Well a lot of people will tell you that "more money doesn't translate into better schools". You could put it to music, it's been stated so many times. Then again, some will point out that less money won't improve the schools either. So who's right? The answer is Yes. It's not that money alone will improve or worsen the problem so much as how you spend that money. I think teachers unions are part of the problem. It's good that they try so hard to protect teachers. It's easy for the public to blame teachers because Johnny can't get into college or that he isn't ready for college or that he can't get a job, before or after college. The reason Johnny is having those problems is his teachers. But not just his teachers or even mainly because of his teachers. The problem is with the School boards and the administrations and the tax payers. And ya know what? It's the parents and even Johnny. I don't think students are challenged and encouraged by all of those problem makers to do their best. Every day. And then ya know, it's easier to get into college if you're a good athlete then it is if you're a good math student. Not only that, but if you're a really good athlete, you get the whole thing free. Even if you major in basket weaving. Why not require colleges and universities to give five or ten free rides for math and science students for every athlete that gets a free ride. You might see a lot fewer big time athletes, but hey, let the pros start their own farm teams instead of using colleges as free farm systems. Colleges could start asking business and industry to start kicking in to cover the cost of educating their workforces. And business and industry could ask the government for a tax break for assisting colleges and universities. No more free rides for anybody but the students. It's not so much that we should be looking for ways to save money for tax payers as it is that we should be looking for better ways to educate our kids. In the long run, that's what'll save us money and reduce our taxes. And if you don't understand why, you weren't paying attention in economics class.

The Supreme Court as King Makers.

There's a lot of folks that don't believe that the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizen's United case will, or has, affected elections because of the extremely large influx of cash. George Will, the conservative columnist is one of them. He suggests that if all that money could influence elections then why hasn't it produced a king. If it's a king maker, then why isn't there a king. Certainly there's been enough cash injected into the Republican race and more than enough attack ads to do the job. To all of this, I asked, where would Romney be if it weren't for all his cash? He's been able to quash any and all comers. Opponents who have begun to show promise have been overwhelmingly attacked by Mitt's SuperPAC and under whithering fire, have retreated in  the polls to oblivion, each in his or her own time. That certainly suggests the money has protected him time and again. He does seem to be a weak candidate, or would be under normal circumstances. But with enormous amounts of cash as a running aid, he's been able to continue to lead, even though he's weak. Does that mean there are far more promising candidates out there who are willing and able to contend this year? Not really. There are a number of names that have been suggested and asked, but those folks have declined. Basically suggesting they don't feel this is the right time for them personally. I think that if any of them felt they could get nominated and then elected, they would have run. Who turns down the White House? If you're a politician with any drive, then nobody turns down that invitation. So only the eight original candidates felt strong enough to win through to the end. Each has had a turn to lead in the polls and each has been savagely attacked by Romney's SuperPAC and each has fallen away, but Romney has not rocketed to the top. He's just stayed in the middle of the muddle. He'll win by default. But without SuperPACs, would he win? I can't imagine. I think Mitt Romney is the proof that unfettered funding by millionaires and billionaire is a serious problem in American politics. Well, at least one of the problems. And there's no question that the Citizens United decision caused it.

How Come 'Extreme' Is A Good Word?

The way I see it is Democrats are saddled with President Obama and his fortunes. Or misfortunes. Republicans are saddled with Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh and their fortunes, misfortunes or misstatements. The thing is, if the economy does well, Obama will get another four years. If the economy tanks or gas prices shoot up, he's in for a bumpy ride. But in the case of Republicans, if they continue to hang onto the no new tax pledge, they'll get hurt. If Mr Limbaugh continues to make really dumb misstatements, and they refuse to abandon him, they don't stand a chance. Ya know, if Rush's mom could hear him talk, she'd wash his mouth out with soap. I know, because all moms used to do that when their son's talked like he's talking. Either that or it was "come in here young man, you're getting pepper on your tongue". I'll bet he thinks his mom can't hear him. Well I've got news for him. Moms always hear us say what we're not supposed to say. And then there's Rick Santorum. I read this morning, that the best thing for the Republicans would be for Mr. Santorum to be their nominee because they would lose by a landslide and that would end the extreme right's hold on the party. Well be that as it may, I still think extremists in their ranks will cost them the election no matter who is nominated, unless Mr Obama runs into a horrible string of bad luck. The problem is, if he runs into bad luck, it means we did too. Frankly, I've seen enough bad luck in this country to last for a decade or two. I don't follow the thinking that if only the country would have more problems, Obama would lose and we'd all be saved by extreme Republicans. It's not so much the Republican as it is the extreme that concerns me. If extreme is such a good thing, how come we're not cheering for Al Qaida instead of fighting it? Wouldn't you think we should be facilitating terrorists if we think extreme is a good thing? Don't get me wrong, the Democrats have had their times when they were overly extreme and will probably soon head in that direction again, if they're not there already. What is it that draws people to become extreme when it comes to politics or religion? Maybe it's because you're not supposed to discuss either in polite company. I'll bet that's it. Everybody wants what they can't have.

The Trouble With Johnny.

Boy oh boy, we're still having debate on education, can ya believe it? I can tell you the problem in education in one word. Respect. That's it. Case solved. All we have to do is respect education. Huh, I'll bet you thought I was going to say respect teachers, didn't you. Well I just did. I said respect education. Since teachers are large a part of education, we need to respect them. We need to respect school officials too. And students and even parents. Because they're all part of education. Ya know what? We even need to respect taxpayers too. Because taxpayers are part of the education process. And the thing is, education desperately needs all of the above. So teachers need to have the respect they deserve including more pay and smaller class sizes and more support and parent participation. At the same time, the taxpayers need respect, because we're going to be expecting them to pay for all those things the teachers need and the students need. I need an analogy here. Let's see, hmm, well they need the kind of respect corporate CEOs, bankers and Hedge Fund Managers get. No, wait. These people aren't well respected. They are well paid though. But wait. They're over-paid when they do a good job and way over-paid when the do a lousy job. No they aren't the kind of analogy we need here. We need to be able to point to someone who deserves and gets respect. Well that leaves out politicians too. We need education to get the kind of respect that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs get. The thing is, they deserve respect because they were extremely successful. But you can trace their success back to education. Now you can claim that they didn't earn doctorate degrees or anything like that, so education wasn't all that important. True, but they did receive K-12 education which afforded them the basics. And what would you be willing to bet that they had inspiring teachers or maybe parents who encouraged and pushed them or well funded schools with the students in mind or maybe all of the above. I think what happened to them is that at some point, they recognized an opportunity. But until you recognize such an opportunity, you'd better not curtail you education. And under no circumstances should your education curtail your opportunities to better yourself. Pay attention politicians.

Virginia Is For (GUN) Lovers.

Well, there ya go. Virginia has just opened up wholesale gun sales to anybody who wants to buy guns in mass numbers to sell in New York and other cities so long as they have transportation to and from those cities. Oh and the cash to buy the guns. Years ago, Virginia passed a law to limit the sale of guns to one per month. They did it because it was proved that people were using guns bought in Virginia to commit crimes in other cities in the east. So Virginia decided to be good citizens and neighbors and pass that law. But the new state legislature and Governor decided, I guess, that the profits realized by these sales was more important to the gun dealers than the lives that will surely be lost to the criminals in other states. I suppose the rationale is that it just isn't Virginia's problem. Crime in New York or Pennsylvania or Delaware is their problem and they need to deal with it without asking Virginia gun dealers to give up the opportunity to make a little extra cash. For which, presumably, the state will receive a portion. At any rate, Virginia has repealed that law limiting gun sales. So if you're in the market to buy a couple hundred handguns or assault rifles, or both, why just fill up the tank and get on down there. Of course if you want that many, you may want to consider calling ahead to make sure those guns are put on lay away for you until you can make the drive, or to save you the trip until they can get them ordered from the manufacturers. By golly, this is one way to rev up the economy. I wonder if there isn't some way for all these other states to repay Virginia for it's kindness in this matter? Maybe we could pass laws shipping all our murderers and armed robbers to them. Or failing that how about building a twelve foot fence around Virginia. With a moat. And alligators. We'll need some border guards too. I'll volunteer if I'm allowed to shoot first and ask questions later.