Draw, You Dry Gulcher.

We're beginning to hear a chorus of folks clamoring for the U.S. to intervene in Syria to protect civilians by arming insurgents, and airstrikes against Assad's forces. Then politics entered into the discussion. Now Obama is being called everything from soft on this, to weak on that, to timid on something else. I just can't believe these folks want to get involved in another military action. Is this Bashar Al-Assad a miserable lying S.O.B.? Yes. Is he doing unconscionable things to his own people? Yes. Should he be taken out? Sure. But do we really want to do what's necessary to make that happen? Haven't we done enough to cause casualties ourselves? Haven't we made enough enemies all over the world, ourselves? In March, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman spoke out against American do-nothing-ism. Does anybody know what it means for us to safely use airstrikes in a hostile country? Lot's of pinpoint bombing to take down their air-defences. Which means lots of civilian casualties. Which means more bad press for America. Which means more recruits for AlQaida. Is that what you want? Do you think we ought to send more Americans into harms way? Do you think we should help AlQaida recruit more terrorists? It sounds like Romney does. Look, Romney could become the next president of the USA. do we want him to go running around using his quick-draw holster and six gun every time somebody gets beat up or killed around the world? Or would you rather he handle it through diplomacy and economic pressure? It might be slower, but it does work most of the time. Well, that's what Obama is doing, give it a chance to work. Instead of pressuring him to act militarily, tell Romney and these others to back off. We can always go to war to satisfy the hawks. But just because they drool over the idea of another military action, doesn't make them brave men and women themselves. It just makes them brave with other peoples lives.

Congress And A Constitution? I Can't Imagine.

Here's a question worth considering. It's a question that has implications for our upcoming elections this fall. Could our current political leaders have come up with our current constitution and get it ratified? Do we have enough leaders, smart enough to put together as complicated a document, to lead a country of our size and diversity? If you think so, then, could they or would they come up with a better way? For all it's perfections, there are also many imperfections. If there weren't, then how to explain our gridlock, our venomous partisanship. Or was that planned. I can't imagine. It would have been a savage attack on an unsuspecting society. I'd like to believe it would be possible. I'd like to, but I don't believe it. I do think we've got some very smart people, both conservative and progressive. The problem is that we've got far to many, in and out of politics, who would make any compromise necessary to complete and ratify such a document, an impossibility. Look at the simple act of getting our Congress to agree to pay the bills it already agreed to create and pay. Congresses approved spending legislation that created debt which they agreed they would pay, but when the debt comes due, Congress can't agree to pay the bill. These are not great leaders capable of designing a Constitution level document. They would have difficulty designing a sandwich. My pre-teen grandchildren could, I believe, come up with solutions and agreements to many of the grave difficulties facing us today, if the options were explained to them. One difference between my, and most, grandchildren and our Congress is that they would actually listen to the explanations and then work together to accomplish the necessary solutions. Can you imagine our Congress honestly listening to the problems and then working out honest and fair solutions? I can't imagine.

Who Couldda Guessed?

Well the word is out. The secret unveiled. The truth exposed. Who would have guessed it. It comes as a great shock to nearly everyone. The Chamber of Commerce is partial to conservative flavors. The C of C prefers vanilla and chocolate. As opposed to chocolate chip or caramel walnut. That's right. The Chamber of Commerce is a full fledged member, in good standing, of the Republican Party. That's not to suggest that the all members of the Chamber are conservative. It doesn't even suggest that the majority are Republican. Just that the big money the Chamber receives is from conservatives who are apparently highly interested in having only Republicans win office. It must be so. According to a new rule, organizations that run negative attack ads and who claim to be issue advertisers must expose their donors. So the Chamber plans to change over, to claim they are candidate advertisers, who still won't have to announce who their sponsors are. Now that would not necessarily suggest they are partisan, except that there is very nearly no Democrats that they support.  Now you may wonder why, if many members are not conservatives, as the claim goes, then why haven't all these progressive members demanded the Chamber support more Democrats. It would appear that those members, mostly small business owners, don't contribute as much as major corporations. And after all, isn't it a truism that in politics, money talks? Well if corporations are people, then surely money must be able to talk. Now please don't misunderstand me, I don't have a problem with anyone or any organization wanting to support anyone they choose. Left or right. What I do have a problem with is anyone or group being allowed to give money secretly, and in any amount, for the purpose of supporting or attacking anyone. It just doesn't strike me as an American approach to fairness. I guess fairness isn't part of politics. I guess lies are.

What's Not To Like About A Politician?

If you've read many of my previous entries, you might have come to the conclusion that I dislike politicians. Not true. For several reasons. First, they give me great material for my entries in this blog. But secondly, I don't dislike politicians for what they do or don't do. Ya see, politicians are actually pretty smart people. And they're in positions of great influence and power. They have the opportunity to do great things to help people. That's why I don't dislike them. But I am disappointed in them for not doing those great things to help people. Instead, they fight each other, lie, cheat and steal, and in some cases, just do dumb thing. Really dumb things. But of all the politicians, I'm most disappointed in justices. They seem to do some of the same things as the rest of the politicians, but without being too overt, they're even more partisan in their decisions than the rest of the crop. And that's saying a lot. I mean, who else would think to call a corporation a person? Okay, there are a few others, but justices were the ones who started the idea. It's been downhill since then. If a politician had stood up on the floor of the Senate or even the house, before that had been decided, and suggested that corporations were people, he'd have been laughed out of the building. Even by his own party members. Of course not these days. Now, the Party is the cradle of all. Now the party comes first, even before the country or the people, or even the law. So now, a Senator or Representative could say almost anything and as long as it was against the other party, why, their party would stand behind them, four square. So my advise is to love your politician. But love him or her at home. Then tell him not to disappoint you, at work.

Where Do We Need To Change?

Have ya noticed how politicians love to talk about how to improve our education system? Or replace it? Have ya noticed how politicians don't seem to know what they're talking about? I mean they propose measures that are already in place, or that have been tried and discarded as ineffective. Take No Child Left Behind. It was supposed to be the sure cure for what ailed American education. And hey, who knows, it might have worked. The only problem was that it was never funded. But then I don't think it would have worked anyway, even if it had been funded properly. Politician keep talking about privatizing schools, school choice, charter schools, you name it. Here's the thing. For the most part, schools in affluent areas do pretty well. Schools in poorer areas, for the most part, don't do as well. So the answer must be to have schools only in more affluent areas, right? Well, except that a lot more kids live in poorer areas. What to do about those kids? That's the question. So maybe instead of state and federal funding for schools in more affluent areas, that funding should go to poorer area schools to bring them up to a level with the rich areas. But if you take funding away from the schools that are performing well, what will that mean to those schools' performance? See? There's no easy solution to the problem. Do we use tests to determine what's working? Do schools then teach only to the test and leave out critical thinking and other subjects that help in that thinking? Maybe what we need to do is have tests that cover a variety of subjects, but not give out the questions to the schools until the day of the tests. Offer this advice; teach all the subjects because some will appear in the tests. That might be good advice. If school boards and  teacher's unions and parents all spent more time thinking about the students and less about their own benefit, maybe all the schools would do better, even without change.

When is Communication Not Communication?

Have you ever heard of the "Domestic Communications Assistance Center"? It's somewhat like a place you can go to if you're having a problem communicating. Somewhat, but not the way you think. Actually it's a new agency of government that assists other government agencies to hack into your Facebook account, or Skype of Tweeter, or pretty much any other way you try to communicate to friends or relatives, or, presumably fellow terrorists. Does that surprise you? No? Does it concern you? Well if not it should. It's not so much that uncle Sam is looking over your shoulder and listening in on your conversations, he does, or at least can. But this is taking it a step further. Maybe even a giant leap for the men in black. Now I agree it's important to catch the terrorists, but let us not forget why. We are trying to protect our way of life, right? Our constitutional  right? Like our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And how about the expectation of privacy, or the assumption of justice? Are they being safeguarded? Is Congress watching pout for us? Or are they just blindly doing as told? Law enforcement always wants more than they really need in permission to investigate and search for clues of wrongdoing. The question is; who's watching our backs? I've always assumed anything done in secret is not in somebody's best interest. I'm not accusing the government of setting this agency up in secret. All I'm saying is they haven't made any effort to let us know what they're doing. That and I'll bet they sort of slipped it into some other funding bill as an addition at the last minute. Maybe even late at night. You can bet they didn't consider it a benefit for you and me. If they had, they'd have publicized every ten minutes on the TV.

Another Break For The Wealthy.

Have you heard of the newest innovation in education? Well in some states, you can make a donation to a private school, up to $2500, and get a tax credit up to that amount. That way needy children can have a chance for a better education at a private school. Not a bad idea. Now a smart kid that doesn't have the funds to attend one of those top rated private schools can get into that great school and perhaps someday become a job creator. Just one small problem. Private schools have figured out that they only have to earmark a small amount of money towards needy students. The rest they can funnel to the child of the family that made the donation. That family can also get friends and even their company to channel funds to the school in the same way and get the same tax break. Does this surprise you? I mean that a wealthy family would take advantage of a tax break and a scholarship, which is intended for a poor child, and accept it for their own child. It's what the rich don't like called class warfare. I mean the mention of it they like to call class warfare, but the doing of it, that they don't want called class warfare. See there's a big difference in talking about something and actually doing it. The doing is pro-active, but the talking is class warfare. I already told you that. I think the problem wealthy people have with the talking is that the law might get changed and then if they donated the $2500 they wouldn't get to take advantage of the scholarship. And that would be just like a tax. But one they wouldn't have to pay. Come to think of it, why don't they like the idea of a tax they don't have to pay? I suppose it's a tax they're afraid could become a tax they will have to pay. The real problem is all the worry about the wealthy and how they feel about how that money will be spent, and the fact that nobody's worrying about the poor student. After all, that was the purpose of the law in the first place.

When Is Your Vote Not A Vote?

Well, another judge has found the Voting Rights Bill to be fair and constitutional. It's the law that requires certain states and portions of others to get permission before they can change the voting rules in case it will disenfranchise voters of minority groups. What happens and is happening all over the country, is new voting requirements and redistricting is taking place in order to do just that. But they're clever. They cover it in the idea that by requiring special voter ID they are preventing voter fraud. Two things. First they don't seem able to show any cases of voter fraud where the new ID would have prevented it. And second there's no question that the laws target certain demographics. Then for good measure, they make it more difficult and costly to obtain the special IDs. Like having the locations offering these IDs open only one or two days a month. Or fewer locations. Then there's redistricting. In almost every state, the Party in control of the state's legislature gets to draw the lines of the voting districts. It's never been fair, but with the advent of the computer, it's so much easier to configure districts so as to, for all intents and purposes, void any voters they want. I will say that this is one of the very few practices in government that is bi-partisan. If you happen to be a member of a minority party in your state and you really want your vote to count, you should move to a state where your party is in the majority. Which is pretty much what the parties want anyway. If moving isn't feasible, consider switching parties. It will require changing the way you think, unless you don't bother with that sort of thing. 

And From The Great State Of Pennsylvania,

Do ya want a laugh? Google Representative Joe Pitts, Pennsylvania 16th district, on his middle-east peace talks plan. In a 2012 email response to a question on the subject, he suggests that Ariel Sheron (in a coma for years) and Yasser Arafat (died in 2004) restart peace talks. Now I know that getting the two sides to agree would be difficult under any plan, but I think Rep. Pitts has come up with the most difficult plan to implement of all the plans ever put forward. When's the last time you were able to get a dead man and someone in a coma to agree or disagree on anything. The problem is that they just won't talk to each other. Okay, that's probably not a polite way to put this, but I can't find the words to express how much I appreciate this thoughtful congressman and his unending desire for a final and lasting peace in the middle-east. I can only imagine what other topics he's willing to share his farsighted wisdom on. You don't suppose he would suggest this country set about writing a constitution, do you? Who would you think he might nominate to write it? How many states do you think he might include in this historic endeavor he's offering? How many divisions of government would he consider optimal? I'll bet he has some views on a place called Viet-Nam. And Korea as well. What do you suppose he might want to suggest as a way to get out of a Great Depression, should one ever come up? Is he aware that an electric light bulb has been invented that illuminates whole rooms? No, electric is what Ben Franklin found on a kite string, tell him. The thing is folks, a whole bunch of people voted for this guy. You may want to give some thought to whom you will vote for, in the future.

Cameron To The Rescue.

Do you remember David Cameron? He was the conservative Prime Minister of England. I only mention him for two reasons. He is a conservative and he's recommending that Germany shore up weaker states on the periphery.  Shore up weaker states on the periphery? Isn't that a liberal approach to a problem? The rich should help the poor? Germany has a conservative leader in Angela Merkel and they've been demanding that those weak countries must tighten their belts and live with extreme austerity in order to lift themselves out of financial difficulty. It hasn't been working. In fact those weak countries have been getting weaker because of austerity. Even England hasn't been improving with it's own brand of austerity. Does that ring a bell? Here in America, there are two camps, two different plans for a solution to our own financial problems. The first camp wants us to cut entitlements to the absolute bone, no matter who gets hurt, in order to save the country. That's austerity. The other camp believes we need to spend, smartly, to help grow our economy back to health. But austerity hasn't and isn't working in Europe, so why would we think it will work here? If you fire a couple of million government workers to save money by making government smaller, and you don't calculate how many other people and workers you affect, you leave yourself wide open for an unpleasant surprise. Because a couple million new unemployed who will get unemployment compensation, the government will have to pay for, but you also get a couple of million more unemployed who were dependant on those government workers to buy goods and services from them. It winds up costing the government as much or more as it did to keep the workers in the first place. That, and you have that many more people looking for jobs that no longer exist. I'm not suggesting the government hire all unemployed workers, but I am suggesting the government look for ways to stimulate the economy, not burden it further.

High Finances. Or Hi Finances.

There's a 12 year old girl from Canada who wonders why the Canadian Government and the Canadian banks are driving the Canadian debt higher and higher. The same question can be asked of America. Here's the thing. The United States recognizes that American banks need money to operate. So it prints currency, dollars, which it then loans to the banks at approximately zero percent interest. In order for the government to operate and to pay for the money it has just printed, it has to borrow money from the banks at 2% or 3% or more interest. Then it needs to borrow more money to pay the interest on the loan. So it prints more money. The banks then ask for more money to loan to the government so it can pay for the money it just printed. So the government loans this new money to the banks at near 0% interest. But then it has to borrow more money from the banks at 2% or 3% or more interest. Then it has to borrow more money from the banks to pay the banks the interest it owes them for the money it just borrowed from them. The only reason they had enough money to loan us at 2% or 3% or more interest, is because we loaned them the money in the first place, at near 0% interest. Then the banks claim they don't want any supervision in the form of regulations. They claim they can self regulate and that they prefer a free and open market. But isn't a free and open market one that doesn't depend on the government? What would they do if the government stopped loaning them at 0% interest and started borrowing from itself? If the government started loaning the banks at 2% or 3% or more interest and borrowed from itself at near 0% interest, wouldn't the government be way ahead of the game? I'm just asking.

Just Who's Fault Is It, Anyway?

Ya know, there's been an awful lot of talk about who's budget is best or who's got a budget and who doesn't or who passed a budget and who hasn't or who's budget is a fantasy and, well actually both parties think the other party's budget is a fantasy. And they're both pretty much right on. Now, to be honest, the Republicans in the House of Representatives did pass a budget and the Democrats in the Senate haven't passed a budget in three years. There is a difference though. See, in the House, all you need is a simple majority to pass a bill or budget. Just a majority of one is enough. So if you're in the majority, you get to pass your budget. It's that simple. But in the Senate, because of the way they have this filibusters rule set up, you have to have a super majority of 60. The Democrats have a majority of less than 60, about 52 or so. It's enough to be called a majority, but not enough to pass a bill or budget unless some Republicans agree to vote for your budget. That's the rub for the Democrats, for the Senate, and unfortunately, for the whole country. The Senate can't pass a budget, there's no use even trying, unless they decide to try to make a big political issue out of it. Which I'm surprised they haven't. So the only thing left is to keep passing stop-gap, short-term permits to spend, bills. Now you can blame the Republicans, or the Democrats, but the thing is, it really doesn't matter who you blame, not even the president. The only thing that matters is that nothing can get done as long as the Senate is screwed up with this filibuster thing. Of course, I'm not convinced that even without the filibuster, Congress could get things done. The big problem is with the fringes of both parties. See the Tea party wing of the Republican party won't allow even moderate Republicans to work with Democrats to find a middle ground, with threat of a primary defeat. For the Democrats part, they've never been able to get their party to agree on much of anything. And with such a slender majority in the Senate, they have trouble getting a majority vote with the help of the far left, even when they have the chance. So I guess if you want to know who to blame for this mess in Washington, blame yourself. You sent them there.

Oh, Start Talking.

Well, the majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, finally stated he made a mistake. He now realizes he should have changed the rules on filibusters when he had the chance.  See, the original purpose of the filibuster was to allow a minority party to at least have some say on what becomes law. It was supposed to be a way to protect the minority in the country from the majority. At least in the Senate. In fact what it's become is a way for the minority to pretty much control the Senate. That was never intended. The majority is supposed to rule with only a small measure to protect a minority. It has become a mockery. Right now, the Democrat party holds the majority, but that could change, back and forth, at any given election. It's almost to the point that it doesn't matter who's in the majority, nobody can accomplish even the slightest bit of governance. Here's the thing. The majority party in the Senate gets to choose what legislation it will consider. So the minority can't propose any legislation without approval of the majority. But the Majority can't propose any legislation if any member of the Senate says he or she will filibuster it, which someone does on nearly every single piece of legislation. And the thing is, that Senator doesn't actually have to filibuster, just say he will. Now let me say here and now, that you could change parties back and forth and this would still be happening. So what's involved with an actual filibuster? Talk. That's right, all they have to do is talk, on the floor of the Senate. But they can't stop talking. If they do, the filibuster is over and the Senate can then vote. All Reid had to do was require that you actually had to follow the rules and do the talking. Nobody wants to try talking for a couple of days, and nights, straight. That's why they changed the rules in the first place.

Too Big To Fail. Not To Big To Break The Rules.

There's been a lot of talk about the JPMorgan Stanley deal where they lost $2 billion in high risk trading. I got an email from one person who used a candy store as an analogy. Remember JPMS had about a 17 billion profit. So $2 billion is a little more than 10% of that. Okay, let's use that. If I work for a candy store and I steal one tenth of the candy from that store, and nothing is done to me, I'm, maybe scolded, but that's all, what's to stop me from doing it again? And that would drive up the price of candy for everyone, a situation of grave importance. Wouldn't you think the government should need to step in and pass some laws to stop people from stealing candy? In fact they have already done that. I would have broken the law and I would be forced to pay the consequences. Well, shouldn't the same principles be applied to JPMorgan and others? Is there all that much difference between the two? The traders did virtually the same thing that helped cause the Great Recession. So Congress passed legislation to make it safer to invest. No more stealing candy, no more high risk gambling with OPM, other peoples money. Now you could say that it was JPMorgan's money, but if it upsets the markets, then it affects all investors. Just like stealing that candy drove up the price of candy. It's time to stop rewarding the Lone Rangers of society for cheating. The rules say everybody has to play by the same rules. What's unfair about that? Bankers claim it will cause them to spend more money and time to comply with the rules. Maybe so, but they're the ones that brought this on themselves. They've been complaining that they can and will self regulate themselves. If this is an example of self-regulation, I think we need the government to do the regulating. So they say the government doesn't know what they're doing. I say the banks do know what they're doing, and that's the problem.

We're Just Trying To Make A Buck. Maybe More.

Do you remember how hard the banking industry has been lobbying Congress not to over-regulate them? They've been particularly vocal about the Dodd-Frank bill. They really don't like it. That's the bill that said they cant do the kinds of things they did that helped cause the financial melt-down that led to the Great Recession, of which we're still trying to dig out from under. One of the things it suggested they shouldn't do is bet against their customers. Like when they sell some securities to a customer, they shouldn't then turn around and bet the securities are worthless. Well, the banks have strongly denied that there was any need to regulate them because they knew and know better than to do things like that. Now you'd think that if they say something like that, they'd mean it. You'd think that, but it turns out they didn't mean it and don't mean it. JPMorgan Chase, that whopping big bank that was a shining example of how to be a good citizen, just up and admitted they did what they said they didn't need regulators to tell them they shouldn't do. Now they claim that just because they lost $2 billion in one fell swoop is no reason to regulate them because they admitted it. You know, like a murderer who admits he murdered somebody should be patted on the back and told that as long as he admitted it, there is no reason to bother him further. Somebody like Al Capone. With this sort of thinking, we don't need any laws in this country or even law enforcement. The only question this kind of thinking leaves is, what about the poor lost souls who don't admit they did or do anything wrong? JPMorgan Chase admitted they did wrong. Maybe they felt the had no choice but to admit it. But what about a bank that does it and doesn't admit it. Are they without sin? If you break a rule and don't get caught, did you break the rule? What if you don't get caught right away? What about the company or investor that loses their life's savings, but the company admits it? What happens to the investor's money? There are a lot of questions about how to proceed. Based on the fact that they've been claiming they don't need regulation, and based on the fact that they appear to need regulation, I'd say it's time to get a bit stricter with them. Take away their favorite toys and ground them.

Agreements Are For The Unenlightened.

Suppose you had ten kids. Suppose you had just barely enough food to feed them. Suppose you decided to feed the three strongest kids more than they needed to live. Then suppose you fed four of them enough food to live comfortably. Then you wouldn't have enough food left for the three weakest kids. What would you do for those three kids? What would you do with those three kids? Well, that's where we are with our federal budget. Last year congress came to an agreement that if they didn't come up with acceptable decreases for the budget, then major cuts would have to be made to defense and social entitlements. Neither party liked that option. That's why they all thought they would work something out. Just how naive did you think they were? Well they were even more naive than that. So now the fat is in the fire. Now the Republicans have suggested that the military not be cut. In fact they suggest an extra eight billion for defense. To make up for that, they suggest all that funding come out of social funding. Things like food stamps should be cut way, way back. Oh and some should come from a fund to help disabled older folks be able to live at home instead of being made to go into an institution. Guess who's against that idea? Well besides the folks on food stamps and disabled elderly, the Democrats are against that idea. Maybe the Democrats should suggest that funding for their favored programs be increased and the lost funding come from the defense budget. Who do you suppose would be against that idea? Well besides the military, the Republicans would be against that idea. Does that help you understand why Washington can't get anything done? Defense is very important. But then so are the poor and elderly. And there was that agreement. But then, in Washington, agreements are just wallpaper. Ask any Indian tribe.

Who Made That Decision?

Ya wantta know the problem with Washington? It's just like the old favorite Real Estate slogan says "Location, location, location". Yep, that's the whole problem with our country. Washington is located in the wrong place. If Washington was located in some other place, in fact almost any other place, we'd be a lot better off. How much do you think they paid for that location? Not much. Well, you get what you pay for. Ya know, there's a place in Tennessee called, Buck Snort. That would have been a better place. How about Hop Bottom, Pa? I'll bet there are hundreds of quiet, off the beaten path, villages in any one of the states that would have been better. Why do I say this? Why do I think Washington is in the wrong place? Because all the politicians are there. The best place would be a tiny village that isn't even on any road maps.That way the politicians and lobbyists wouldn't be able to find it. Things would go so much smoother. Government would actually work for a change. Just think, bills could get passed, budget fights would be settled And no media either. That alone would make the move worth while. Actually, I suppose Washington has it's useful side too. It is a good place to send some of the kooks, philanderers, embezzlers, bigots and all around trouble and problem makers. It would be years before they realized they weren't the big fish in the pond. By then it would be time to move on to another hidden village. The only problem would be in keeping the location secret. That's because as soon as you start shipping in the folks who actually run the government, the locals would all sell their homes at enormous profit and move out and blab the news all over the place. Of course, after the government moved on again, the locals could move back in and buy their now vacant, subsidized and remodeled homes at low, low prices. Some things never change.

What Ya Don't Know, Hurts.

Hey you. Ya you. How do ya like the way the elections of 2012 are going? No, I'm not talking about your favorite candidate, nor am I talking about the one you dislike the most. Rather, I'm asking how you like the campaigning? No, not the stump speeches. I'm talking about the "not quite campaign ads"? "Not quite campaign ads" are those ads you see on the TV that tell you how terrible this politician or that candidate is and how bad it would be if he or she were to get elected or reelected. Are you aware that in almost every case, the ad is basically a lie? And the thing is, the opponent of the guy they have just lambasted can claim he had nothing to do with the ad. Now if you're smart, and I'm sure you are, you know that's a lie. It's true. Even if the candidate claiming he had nothing to do with calling his opponent a scumbag is your favorite candidate. The truth is, they certainly do know all about it, can approve of it, secretly, and could, if wanted, stop it from being aired again. How come? Well, The Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case gave candidates the opportunity to claim innocence and anybody, including foreign donors, to spend any amount to sway the elections. What that means is that a candidate has the opportunity to have untold wealth dropped at his doorstep to help him win. If he's dumb enough to refuse, his opponent won't be that dumb. For all intents and purposes, that ruling has eliminated 99.9% of all Americans from having any say in the government. Oh you'll still get to vote, but for whom? Candidates find it almost impossible to rise above the clamor of these negative ads. Even the news media can't get above it. All candidates are painted as horrible examples of the worst sort, and how are we to tell the truth from the lie, until well after the election is over? What we need is some courage. Like that of the Democrat Governor and Republican Vise Governor of Montana. They're backing a law to outlaw any campaign ads paid for by outside interests. And we need to limit the amount you can give, and absolutely no secret donations. Are ya up for it? I hope so, because the politicians aren't up to it.

First, Be Polite.

Lots of folks in Europe are beginning to think the Euro and the Eurozone weren't such a good idea. Well isn't that just like people? They think something will be helpful right up until it isn't and then blame somebody else. Why is it people always look for somebody else to blame? Don't they realize the person they're trying to blame has already blamed them? They forget that hindsight is a lot better predictor that foresight. Have ya ever done something you wish you hadn't, or even worse, said something you wish you hadn't? What about when you first realized that whatever it was that you thought was a good enough idea to execute, wasn't such a good idea to execute? Usually you wish you hadn't executed that idea. Sometimes you wish you had executed yourself. Or at least that lump on top of your shoulders. On the other hand what if you were very careful never to do or say anything that might be controversial or harmful? In all likelihood you'd be a boring person living a boring life of solitude. Besides, sometimes saying something you should not have said will improve your social life and provide a little excitement in you life. Doing dumb things can be fun too, so long as you don't seriously hurt yourself or somebody else. Probably the best thing to do is be gentle in your complaints and be willing to take credit for the dumb things you do. After all, you did them, if you can't get the credit, nobody should. I've always tried to adhere to the practice of being as silly and pleasantly offensive as possible. 

It's Just The Way It Is.

Why do we have so many problems in America? Some say it's Progressives, some say it's Conservatives and others say it's people. That's the problem with America. It's peopled with people. And the people of America don't seem to be able to agree on anything much at all. Take for example Pennsylvania. It's peopled by two distinct types of people; citizens and politicians. You say that's similar to most every other state. That's why I picked it. Well that and the fact that I live in Penn's Woods. But here in this state, we have more elected legislators per capita than almost any other state, and the legislators make more per legislator than almost any other state when you factor in per Diem, and the slush fund and the car allowance and, what's that, you don't know what the slush fund is for? Why it's for buying meals and the like, but not alchoholic drinks. What's that, you wonder what the per Diem is for? That's to pay the rent on apartments in Harrisburg and meals. What's that you say, you don't understand why the slush fund and the per Diem both pay for meals? Take a close look at these legislators. No, that's not fair. I don't think they're any fatter than anybody else, even food stamp recipients. But I  will say that the state has a budget deficit they're trying to close, which is why, they claim, they're checking up on food stamp recipients for fraud. Speaking of fraud, the state legislature boasts a long list of legislators who have been found guilty of various forms of fraud. In fact they have far more culprits of fraud, per member, than the state has food stamp fraud cases, per recipient. In other words, the Pennsylvania State Legislature is a hotbed of crime and fraud, far more so than the food stamp program. What's that you say? You think that's very similar to most other states? Well if that's true, why don't they stop persecuting the poor and start doing a lot more investigating of the lawmakers? I guess it's because the lawmakers make the laws and the poor get the short end of the stick.

George Will's Opinion Or Mine.

George F. Will, the conservative, lone deep thinker of the right, wrote today in the Washington Post that a congressman is assaulting the bill of rights by suggesting rights be taken away from corporations. He uses as another example, where someone wrote in a British Journal that "After Birth Abortions" are matters of moral indifference and how taking rights away from corporations would take them away from even churches, as examples of the left taking things to the extreme. I'm surprised he didn't mention the Alabama state congressman, I think it was, that pushed for fertilized eggs to be considered persons, just like the Supreme court decided corporations are. Taking them to the extreme would decide that a twinkle in the eye is eligible for personhood. Or that a corporation should have the right to vote in elections and even hold office, like the president. I wonder how long you would have to hold that twinkle or in which eye it would have to be in or would it have to be both eyes? When would that twinkle be allowed to vote? I can even see the State of The Union speech being announced. Misstah Speakah, the President of  United States of America. Apple (or would that be Mr Apple) or would he need a first name as well. Mr Delicious Apple. Better yet, Mr Granny Smith Apple. Or even Mr J. R. G. E. You'd have to wonder if that twinkle in the eye was a legitimate citizen or an illegal caused by a finger in an electric outlet. Next thing ya now people would be trying to sell twinkled eyes on the black market. No Mr Will, I think you'll have to admit, crazy is a non-partisan practice. Because for every crazy left-handed act of silliness you can find, they'll find two right-handed craziness examples. But of all of those you and I have mentioned today, making a corporation a person takes the cake, grabs the brass ring, wins the crown. I'll bet even Granny Smith would agree witrh me on that score.

What A Company.

I just read an article in the Washington Post this morning about a company by the name of United Technologies, Corp. It's a big company, on the Fortune 500 list. What's unusual about this company is that it pays for it's employees to further their educations, even if it's not in fields that would be of interest to the company. Why is that a big deal? It's a big deal because it doesn't matter if you want to get a degree in pipe organ or Jazz Music or potato growing, they'll still pay for it. And ya know what, the company is still profitable. I'll bet it's easier to get and keep employees for them because of this program. So how come if this is such a good idesa, other companies don't try it? Because other companies adhere to the belief that the only thing that matters is the bottom line. So if this plan was only going to cost a company two dollars and ninety five cents, that would detract that amount from the bottom line. So if it actually costs hundreds of thousands or millions of times that amount, CEOs and CFOs would fall down from convulsions of laughter at the thought of spending that much money without some guarantee of substantial profits. Now if the colleges, universities and trade schools paid the company to allow employees to take the courses, then maybe they'd consider it.  Don't get me wrong, I understand the importance of corporations and profits and the relationship between the two, but there was a time, admittedly years ago, when many companies showed a deep concern for the well being of their employees, and employees showed the same concern for the success of the companies. That seemed to go away with the onsert of extreme compensation packages for management and the disreguard for employees the insued. I wonder if there was any connection between the two? Do ya think?    

It's A Taxing Question.

Do ya like apples? They say an apple a day keeps the Doctor away. That may be because the government can't afford to pay for a doctor. Because Apple pays so little in taxes. How about G.E.? they didn't pay any taxes. In fact they made $5 billion in U.S. profits and got a gift from the IRS of  an additional $3 billion. Apple, such fools, they actually paid 9.8% on their $28 billion in profits. Now I don't mean to suggest they did anything illegal or that they are examples of every other corporation in America, but when you hear how our taxes are so high, it makes you wonder, doesn't it? Lets face it, most big corporations just don't pay that much in taxes. The big guys have complete staffs of tax lawyers and accountants to make sure they don't, the medium sized ones just open accounts in the Cayman Islands. The only ones who pay anywhere near the 35% mark are the small ones who are not sophisticated enough to check with any tax haven accountant or lawyer. As soon as they figure out how to do it, whoosh they're off the Grand Cayman. And again, I'm not saying that's wrong. The thing is, some of these folks aren't even paying tax on the amount their tax would be. It is certainly legal and it's smart. Give them credit for being smart enough to take all the tax breaks government allows. Pretty much everybody does. I don't see any family deciding not to take any deduction they're allowed to take. No, what I don't think is right is for these corporations who are taking all these deductions to then turn around and lobby congress, complaining the corporate tax rate is too high. It might be too high if they actually paid that much. But they don't. The term disingenuous comes to mind. Maybe they should be required to prove they're paying the full 35% before they're allowed to lobby congress. I'll bet a lot of lobbyists would be out of business if that happened. At least the price to hire a lobbyist would go way down. Supply and demand, ya know. So eat your apple every day and stop complaining about taxes unless you're actually paying them. Or, how much tax shoud a tax man tax if even a corporation's tax isn't taxed.