What A Great Campaign He's Waging.

Okay. What have you been learning from the two campaigns for president? What do you think of the two varying grand plans for our economy and taxation, budget cutting, debt and deficit reduction and all the important issues being clearly and carefully and thoughtfully discussed by the candidates both for president and congress? What's that you say? You think they haven't said anything clearly or carefully or thoughtfully about anything? Well except for their opponent's inability to do the job? Of course there's still lots of time. We could yet hear one or both sides clearly state their plan for the future of our country without suggesting that the only way to save the country is to throw all the bums from the other party out. That's pretty much what our electoral process has devolved to. Don't suggest anything new or remotely workable in case somebody doesn't like that idea and decides to donate money to your opponent. This is pretty much what David Brooks said today in the New York Times. And ya know what? He's pretty much right on the mark. Instead of clearly stating what their vision for a better America is and even more importantly, how we can attain that vision, the candidates find it more productive to just bash their opponent. There is a method to this madness though. See, if you don't suggest anything, nobody can point out how stupid it is. Even if it isn't stupid at all. Even if it's a great idea. Because, the thinking goes, even if it is a great idea, the opponent will bash you for it and then if elected, use it himself. And wouldn't that be the tragedy for all times.

Entitlements. Love Em Or Hate Em.

Have you ever heard of the term 'entitlements'? How about 'entitlement generation'? Okay, most people think of entitlements as funding for the poor, out of work or just plain lazy people who are supported by the government to one degree or another. Entitlement generation is all about the boomer generation. The boomer generation has also been called the"Worst Generation", the most self centered, self-absorbed and a lot of other negative adverbs. But there's another group of people who are actually deeply involved with government entitlements. The wealthy are given special treatment in taxes, access, and other benefits not available to anyone else. In some cases they pay no more taxes than do the very poor because of special loopholes in tax law designed strictly for the very rich. Ya see, entitlement, the word, means basically, special treatment. It means someone is entitled to something for free that the rest don't get. Now for the very poor, entitlements mean the difference between starving of getting through another day. But for some, entitlements mean an extra trip abroad, a vacation ski lodge in Aspen or an automobile elevator in the house. The question comes down to whether we feel anyone is entitled to anything? We do expect that everyone should be entitled to some things. I'd like to think I've got the right to vote. I'd like to feel free to breathe clean air, drink clean water or even drive my gas hog and keep my wood stove going 24-7. But it doesn't quite work that way. I also think that the poor and disabled deserve or are entitled to be supported by society to the extent needed. I'm just not as convinced the very rich should be entitled to extra special treatment, just because they are the very rich.

What You Don't Know About The NRA.

Well folks, the NRA and the U.S. Senate have teamed up to prevent any control of international selling of arms to anybody in the world who wants to start a revolution or just plain overthrow any government. You heard it here second. The United Nations was working on a treaty to restrict, not ban, just supervise international arms sales. Nearly all countries were and are in favor of such a treaty. Except for the biggest arms selling countries. The three biggest are, in alphabetical order, China, Russia and the U.S.A. Does that surprise you? I mean that America is one of the major arms shippers or that they would be against any oversight of such sales? Well, it's not so much that America is against such oversight as it is that the N.R.A. is against any oversight. Now you may wonder why an organization of sportsmen would be against such a treaty. What you don't realize is that the idea that the NRA is a sportsman's organization, is pure fiction. The NRA (National Rifle Association) is funded by the Manufacturers of firearms. Oh there are dues that many sportsmen mistakenly think pays for the NRA to operate, but in fact wouldn't even pay for the bar tab for the NRA. No, it's funded by the Manufacturers. So, what's good for the manufacturers is good for the NRA. And what's good for the manufacturers is nothing that in any way might cut into profits. So the Senate has told the President, in writing, not to sign the treaty. And they crack the whip, because the Senate ratifies all treaties, or not. Even the past point man for the congress, Jay Dickey of Arkansas, has tried to back research into injuries and deaths caused by firearms violence just like they do for motor vehicle accidents. But the NRA has blocked it. Yes, friends, it's time to begin a Constitutional Convention to change some wording to  "For the NRA, Of the NRA and By the NRA." 

Thars Gold In Them Thar Drugs.

How much did you pay for your last prescription? Hmm. Okay then, how much did it cost your insurance company to pay for your prescription and what does that mean to your premium? Ahah. That's another story isn't it? Well a big part of that cost is because brand name drugs often have no generic option, even long after the patent has run out. How come, you ask? Because the brand name drug maker often pays the generic makers not to bring their generic to market. Look, Bayer that makes Cipro, which is a good antibiotic, paid Barr Labs $400 million to delay it's marketing of a generic. And they claim it's all legal and above board. Not only that but several federal appeals courts agreed. So while other industries can't do that without getting hit with an antitrust suit because of things like price-fixing and anti-competitive practices, the drug companies have been doing it for years and smiling all the way to the bank. Let's face it, $400 million for doing nothing ain't a bad days work, or lack thereof. Suppose Wrangler got together with all the other manufacturers of jeans and set the price of their wrangler jeans about 50% higher and all sell them thar jeans for the same high price, or suppose everybody decided that wrangler would be the only jeans you could buy. You and your kids would have a fit, partly because they didn't like the fit, but they'd be stuck. Well Wrangler can't do that because of antitrust laws. So how come drug companies can do it? I dunno. But now an appeals court has said they can't do that. Could be that the Supreme Court will have to decide. It's anybody's guess what they'll do.

Want To Know Who You'll Vote For?

I watched Morning Joe a bit this morning on MSNBC and it was pointed out that Karl Rove's SuperPAC, Crossroads America, has spent $94 million so far supporting Mitt Romney. And the Republican Party hasn't even had it's convention yet. Romney hasn't even been nominated yet. Imagine how much more it will spend. And the Democrats are trying just as hard to raise money to spend on the campaign. Now that's not illegal, in fact it's exactly what the Supreme Court said they can do in the Citizen's United case. But what it did was to bring to my attention that by the time the next election cycle rolls around in 2016, there will be two or three people in this country who will decide who you and I can vote for, for president. The cost of running a campaign now-a-days is so tremendously expensive that without a Karl Rove in your corner, you will have no chance to even get nominated by either party. Now these two or three people aren't going to run for office themselves, they're just gonna pull the strings of whoever does run. Nobody with that much disposable money to spend on an election campaign does it without expecting something in return. So next time, before the primary campaign begins, the successful nominee may already have been selected in both parties. To wit, I hereby and humbly offer myself to any multi-billionaires, that I am available. To my credit, I have tried to be a straight shooter. But I am willing to miss the mark if that's what you need. I'm willing to state my willingness to be anti whatever you'd like me to anti about. I'm willing to be for or against anyone you choose. In short, I'm you man. Please keep this in the strictest of confidence.

Eat Yer Broccoli.

There's been over a dozen states that have suddenly decided to enact Voter ID requirements. Mostly rather restrictive. Most have claimed to have done it to eliminate voter fraud. But not one single state can claim more than one actual case, proven in court, to have been a case their new laws would have stopped. So if there's no cases of such wrongdoing, why the rush to push through laws that could easily disenfranchise 8% to 10% of those state's populations? In Pennsylvania that includes up to 859,000 current voters who would not be able to vote in this November's election. Could there be another motive? Again in Pennsylvania, the Republican leader of the state legislature stated, on camera, that "voter ID legislation - done! This will allow Gov Romney to win Pennsylvania this year." How can this be, you ask? Why don't these folks just get IDs? Many don't know it. Not everyone pays close attention to the news. "I voted last time, they know me, I'll vote this time." Others don't have the where-with-all to afford the proof required to obtain an ID or the transportation or the cost of transportation to obtain one. Did the state know this information before passing the legislation? If they didn't, shame on them for not doing their homework. If they did, shame on them for doing that homework. Now if you don't need a reason to pass a law, then why not pass a law to require everyone to eat broccoli? It will cause health to break out. Remember, no proof is required.

I Need Only Say, Michelle Bachmann.

Well Sen. Joe McCarthy is still at it. Oh. No. I meant Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is still at it. Oh well, two birds of a feather. Michelle, if I may call her Michelle, probably not with what I'm going to say, but anyway Ms Bachmann, I'm surprised that even after members of your own party including Sec. John McCain, who stood up on the Senate floor to denounce your comments about a loyal employee of the State Dept. and another elected congressman. Even after all that, you're still claiming they're secretly planning a takeover and installation of Sharia Law in America. What concerns me is how our government and our judicial system got so weak that such a takeover could actually take place. Wouldn't it require a majority vote in both houses and the president and then clear the Supreme Court? And Michelle, oops, I forgot, I mean Ms Bachmann can only find one elected official and one employee of the government. Just imagine the mind power it took to piece this little bit of (proof????) together and be able to come to such a conclusion. It boggles the mind. And wobbles and gobbles and hobbles the mind. If her information is true and correct, which I have two hundred of the sharpest investigators in history working on it, then this is the most astounding discovery since, I guess, since the dairy dinosaur. I wonder if she's keeping such a herd? Perhaps that's where she got her information. One morning while milking one of her dinosaurs. A bronto bull, it whispered this information to her: "Follow the milk." Well when this congressman and federal employee both came to the dinosaur store to buy bronto bull milk, she knew she had the goods on them. Right up until they paid for the stuff and evaporated. We think they may be sweetened and condensed too. 

Texas Politics

I just learned that the Republican Party of Texas has a Plank in it's Platform that states "WE oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." Now they claim that it had been decided to remove that wording, but they apparently forgot. How do you forget to remove wording that basically says Texas children should not be allowed to learn how to think for themselves? Do you suppose it was forgotten in order to satisfy a certain portion of that electorate? Can you say you don't mean it, but you can write it? Can you say you don't mean it ,but write it because you haven't decided whether or not you like it? Critical thinking skills are the skills that every entrepreneur needs to be successful All scientists need those skills to do any kind of research. Some few folks are born with an affinity to those skills. For the rest of us, we need to be taught. But when any set of leaders or jurisdiction, local, state or federal, suggests that it's best not to teach their young people how to think independently, well that's when you know you're in trouble. Or even considers adopting such measures, as Texas has done, you need to run, not walk, to the nearest polling place and unelect those people. When you allow your religious beliefs to determine you vote, you're wrong. Your religious beliefs should help to guide your decisions on voting, but should not supersede your rational thinking. Nor as a parent, should you demand your children think exactly as you.

Pepe And The Cat.

Have you been following this LIBOR thing on banks? It's the group of banks, all from England and Europe who seem to set interest rates for pretty much the whole world. Okay, they don't set the rates directly. What they do is report the rate they expect to pay for money in the future. That information is what sets the interest rates for credit cards, car loans, mortgages and pretty much any business. So they've been playing with that information they include in their reports. That makes interest rates go up or down. Now it's one thing if one bank does it, but it's quite another if a number of them, do it. Especially if they're conspiring to do it. Of course they'd never admit to doing anything wrong. It's sort of like a skunk. In fact it's exactly like a skunk. Viewed from afar, a skunk is rather cute. It's not until you get up close that you gain an understanding of their reputation. By that I mean the reputation bankers have of requiring much from you and demanding that you expect little from him. It's why Pepe LePew was always trying to cozy up to the poor black cat and why the poor black cat kept trying to run from Pepe. He may have been a smooth talker, but something just didn't smell right. But it's not just those European banks with that telltale odor, we've got plenty here on Wall Street. Now, I agree that we absolutely needed the bailout for the too big to fail banks. But that's when we needed to begin to dismantle those too big to fail banks. We still haven't done that. We still need to do that.

Stand Up For Ammo Legislation.

You'd think by now, there'd be a little talk in Washington about some sort of limited gun control in this country. Did you know the same gun model was used in the Arizona shooting of Gabby Gifford, the Virginia Tech shootings and this new Colorado Movie theatre shooting? It was a Glock semi-automatic hand gun that's supposed to be easy to use. Instead, one congressman from Texas, Rep Louie Gohmert, suggested that if more people in that theatre were packing guns, maybe they'd have been able to end the trouble quicker. Really? A smoke filled and darkened movie house? Do you think that would have meant fewer people killed? If too many bad people have guns, and you make it easier for everyone to have guns and it winds up more bad people have guns, maybe the idea of allowing more guns isn't working. Maybe the time has come to try having fewer guns. Lets make it illegal to carry a handgun or purchase or own an assault rifle. Lets repeal laws that tell people it's okay to shoot someone you dislike and call it standing your ground. I don't mean people shouldn't be able to protect themselves in their own home from invaders in that home. Or that people shouldn't be allowed to own and hunt with or sport shoot with guns. Maybe you have a collection of guns. All that is fine. What isn't fine is to arm everybody and then tell them they should open fire at the first sign of of any disturbance of the peace and tranquility of their surroundings. Because if people do as you say, this country will run out of ammunition in less than twenty four hours. Maybe that's the goal. No more ammo. If not, then maybe that's the way to solve the problem. Produce guns, do not produce ammo.

One Vote vs One Fat Cat.

No matter how hard I try, I can't, for the life of me, figure out why it is that money has more of a say than voter registration. Look, you'd think that a politician who covets an elected position in government would be most interested in voters, right? And in a way, albeit round about way, he is. Any smart politician and even the majority of not so smart politicians know that. But what they have come to know even better is that if you want to get elected, it's gonna cost ya. It's not good enough to stand up and tell people what you really stand for. In fact that's exactly what you don't want to do. What you want to do is collect as much money as you can as quickly as you can with the least effort as possible from the fewest people possible. That translates to 'fat cats'. And we're not talking about overfed felines. That means Mr Politician needs to talk in favor of the things 'fat cats' like. That means Mr Politician really doesn't have the time to talk about the things regular folks like, at least until he has enough money. Problem is, there never seems to be enough money to satisfy Mr Politician or a 'fat cat'. I understand all this. What I have a problem with is how the guy with the money to give to the politician. Why should he have more to say than the little guy? See, the 'fat cat' still has only one vote, just like the little guy. And we all know that it's illegal to buy or sell votes. But after Mr Politician is elected and becomes Mr President or Mr Senator or Mr Representative, he still needs 'fat cat' more than Mr Little Guy. That's because he likes this new career. Where else can you get paid for doing favors for rich people and still go around telling regular folks how much you're gonna do for them. And then get rich people to give you tons of money to get reelected for doing so much for them? Ya see what I don't understand? I don't understand why regular registered folk still vote for these crooks.

Be Smart or Dumb. Your Choice.

There's an article in the Washington Post today about how to get smart. Actually it's about how not to be fooled by TV and radio talking heads. The point is that those talking head hosts are not journalists. They don't research the information they spout. What they do is to argue in favor of one ideology or the other. That way, they don't have to research a statement to make sure it's true and accurate. They don't study journalism, the are out of work politicians or lawyers who are ineffective in the courtroom, or just simple-minded folk with large vocal cords. For lots of people it's hard to know which are actually journalists telling you what's truly happening and which are telling you what the party line is today. My guess is, that if you stopped watching FOX News and MSNBC and got your news from almost anywhere else, you'd be better informed. Now I say that as someone who does watch MSNBC often and has watched FOX News occasionally. But as to getting smarter, even the entertainment on TV has been driven down to be of interest to a much lower mentality than the actual population. By far. The unfortunate thing is that the longer you watch this rot, the more often you watch this rot, the lower your mentality drops. That's because your intellect needs exercise. People need to exert an effort to understand even entertainment to stay sharp. Based on the programming and the profits of the networks and the lower intellect, I'd say we're losing that battle. It seems like the networks and the politicians have colluded to dumb down the people. Victory is within their grasp.  

I.D. For Everybody. Voter And Donor.

What's all the fuss over voters showing identification? About the same fuss as donors refusing to show identification. Voting is a right. Driving a car is a privilege. To do either you should show ID. But for a drivers license, you should have to pay. To vote you shouldn't be required to pay for the ID or the proof required for it. On the other hand, donation to a political campaign is also a privilege. Proving you have the right to that privilege means making the names attached to those donations public, and should be required. Now, I don't think very many folks are interested in a ten dollar bill or a hundred, but $10,000 or $10 million or a hundred million, they do. Why is that? Because if you gave a hundred bucks, you probably don't expect any special treatment. But if you gave $10,000 or a hundred million, you probably do expect something in return. The public has the right and the need to know that. Why? Because if all you want is the right guy to get elected because he stands for what you like, well that's one thing. But if you expect more than that, the people need to put a stop to that. Officeholders are not supposed to be elected to help special interests. Officeholders are elected to serve the needs of all the people. And do it over the desires of the special few. Why isn't it fair to these big donors?  When is secrecy ever a good thing in government? Or in the forming of government? The citizenry of this country have a right to know who's trying to buy their government. And they shouldn't have to pay for it. They have a right to good and fair government. We're not getting either.

The Trouble With Moiney.

There's a good article in the N.Y. Times today on the importance of campaign finance. "How to get citizens actually united" is the title. What it points out is how important campaign financing really is. In the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. vs Citizens United, the floodgates were opened.  Multi- millionaires are now just pikers. The Billionaires have taken over. The problem with all this is that politicians, wanting to get elected, must look at these people and corporations and at what they want or expect for their money. If they want to have any chance of winning that election, they're gonna need tons of money for ads and their gonna need SuperPacs to spend lots of money attacking their opponent. Does anyone think that candidate isn't gonna have to give something back? But the opponent is doing the same thing and hoping to get the same billionaire to back him. It leaves no chance for the little guy. Whether you're a conservative or a liberal doesn't matter a whole lot. What matters is what the rich guy wants. Because he's footing the bill. So the rich guy gets his tax break or doesn't get that tough legislation that would have hurt his business. The candidate got his office. What did you get? A lot of dysfunction in Washington. Is that why you voted? Are you the guy or gal who voted in the hopes of electing some shmoe who would reward influential wealthy people and giving you the short end of the stick? I didn't think so. If you're against big government, okay. If you're in favor of social services, okay. But unless you're in favor of corruption, you should be wary of large donors and the money they offer our candidates, and the special treatment they expect for it.

Ya Gotta Give Em Credit For Not Giving Up.

Guess what? They're at it again. China's  ZTE, a telecom firm, has been accused of selling U.S. surveillance equipment to Iran, which it was specifically banned from doing. Well who would have guessed. It's not so surprising that a Chinese company, with an American subsidiary, would consider selling or giving technology to another enemy. Hey, they're willing to steal what they can't get legally. What's surprising is that we would allow them to have it in the first place. Ya know, if they want the secret technology on how to build lincoln log houses in miniature, have at it. But sensitive technology that helps keep us safe from our enemies and terrorists? Do we really want them to have that? At all? If I were to win the lottery, It's not likely that I would walk down the street and hand that money to a person wearing a mask and ask them to take good care of it for me. That's because, while they might take good care of it, they probably wouldn't take  care of it, for me. Well, China isn't likely to take good care of our secrets, for us. They don't mind taking good care of our jobs and our wealth, so long as we don't expect them back. The thing is, it's not like a job that could some day come back, or a piece of art. If you get it back, it still holds it's value. Secret technology, once given away to your enemies, isn't secret anymore. It doesn't have the same value as it did before the enemy got their hands on it. By now, you'd think our government should have figured that out.

Ahh. Fresh Foods.

How are you on fruits and veggies? Do you eat your veggies regularly with your meals? How about fresh veggies? How about fresh fruit? Do you enjoy these foods? Think they're healthy for you? Well enjoy that thought while you can. Congress is planning on eliminating the funding for testing these items for food safety. Think I'm kidding? I did say congress, you remember. Yep. They're causing the Dept of Agriculture to cut the funding in order to meet it's budget constraints. They suggest that the Food & Drug dept start doing it. Food and Drug says they're also forced to cut back. So what it comes down to is that the agency that has stopped tainted foods from coming to market or has recalled it will cease operation. It seems that government believes it's more important to cut spending than it is to be safe. Maybe they should include it in the defense budget.  There might be room for that testing in the military. Maybe what we need to do is have congress test all fruits and veggies before the public is forced to consume it. That way if something is wrong, well, small loss. Seriously, proof has been mounting that fresh vegetables and fruit are potential carriers of food-born illness. So if that's the case, why in the world would you eliminate the only protection we have set up? Sometimes just washing isn't enough. This agency has caused at least 20 recalls over the past decade. I guess you and I aren't as important as a budget saving. The government sets up guidelines for eating fruit and vegetables. Government eliminates testing for food safety of fruit and vegetables. Is there a message in there someplace?

Major Political Donations = Corruption.

The word is out. Romney's campaign is raising more that Obama is. Word is also out that it may not make a difference. Well true or not, that's not the point. Billionaires and major corporations will point to that statement, however, and claim that opening up unlimited donations on elections won't change the elections. Can you imagine? The fact that a handful of billionaires will drop hundreds of millions, in fact, over a billion on the election and they can then, with a straight face, claim it isn't making a difference. Do you think they're correct in that thinking? If that's true, then why in the world would they do it? It doesn't make sense for a person who has worked hard to become vastly wealthy, to turn around and throw it away on something that he or she can't change. If it makes no difference that you give a hundred million to a candidate who has no chance to win, why would you throw it away? Now if there's a chance he'll win, then there may be reason. It could buy you favors or at least the ear of the candidate once elected. That's the best reason I can think of for making a major donation. If you run a company, like of casino, and the government is investigating you, you might want an administration change. Or if you've got a company making cutting edge batteries, you may want the current administration to stay put for another four years. The real problem is that little people don't get heard as much anymore. Maybe that's what the Supreme Court should look at. Too much money in any operation leads to corruption in that operation. Now I would never suggest that there's any big money floating around Washington. Or Corruption. I'm just saying. 

China's At It Again.

There's a Chinese company that wants a piece of the U.S.Government and military telecommunications business. Huawei Technologies has long been interested in getting in on the gravy train. In the past, however, the NSA advised AT&T against doing business with that firm. Huawei's founder was a technician for the People's Liberation Army. Anyway, now they've hired a former chief cybersecurity strategist of a U.S. company to convince America that they want to play fair. Do you buy that? What are the chances that Huawei Technologies, alone, among virtually all Chinese companies, and one led by a former Chinese spy, promises they will not take advantage of any sensitive information they may come in contact with by way of providing equipment designed to transmit that information from one secret program to another? Do you think this is a company we can put our full confidence in? If you had secret information about what a company had just invented that would make tons of money for you provided that information didn't become common knowledge, would you give that information to a journalist who specialized in exposing secret information? Even if he promised not to tell anybody, with his hands behind his back? What if his fingers are crossed? Now I'm sure this Chinese company has only our best interests at heart. Much like the companies that painted children's toys with lead paint for export to America. Or those that included toxic ingredients in baby formula. I have every confidence, don't you?

Tax Breaks - 5, Education - 0

There's an article in the N.Y. Times today by David Brooks, titled "The Opportunity Gap". In it he points out the disparities between wealthy children and their poorer counterparts. Namely that the parents of rich kids have far more opportunities to expand and grow in their education and in life. But hey, that's the perks of wealth. Then you turn around and hear a lot of people complain that the poor kids are lazy, they're just dumb, they'd rather hang around, collect welfare and have babies. It didn't used to be that way. 20, 30, 40 years ago poor kids tried hard and many made it to the better life. So what's the problem? Well, a big part of the problem is that the rich are able to spend more time with their children, especially at an early age, their better able to spend more time and money on helping with their kid's education, like tutors and exclusive private schools. That's not wrong. That's a good thing. That's what parents should be able to do for their kids. Every parent wishes they could do the same.  But the thing is, they can't. A poor family doesn't have the time or resources to do that. So the kids, many times, convince themselves they don't want those things. That's easier than sitting on the sidelines wistfully dreaming they could be like the wealthy kids. Here's the problem for America. We need to decide whether to throw those kids away, waste potential, or find ways to see that these kids get opportunities to succeed. But you've got to get them young and you've got to convince their older brothers and sisters that there are opportunities for them to succeed as well. I'll tell you how that won't happen. It won't happen if Washington and state capitals across the country cut education funding instead of looking for opportunities to save generations of young people. That's the way to eliminate the need for welfare. The problem is, our elected officials do not have the will to help America be great again, for everyone. It really comes down to a choice. Either pay for smart education or pay for welfare. 

Shouldn't There Be A Price For Lies?

There was an editorial in the N.Y. Times today about Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader. It seems he's very concerned that a bill to be considered will endanger many corporations. Not from  angry stockholders or customers, but from the President. The ideas is that this law would require all donations for political attack ads would have to be made public. So a major corporation couldn't donate a couple million for an ad that lies about the president or his opponent unless they admitted they paid for the ad. Is that a bad thing? I mean, lets face it, nearly all attack ads are at least party untrue. It doesn't matter which party or candidate the ad is attacking. Maybe he would prefer the ads be true. Well that's against the law. As we know, there is a fundamental right to lie. But should a person or corporation, which is to say, a person, be able to tell these lies anonymously? What if all that corporation's customers are fans of the person being lied about. Shouldn't they have the right to know their favorite shoe maker is telling lies about their favorite candidate? Or maybe its the bank you have your life savings with? What if you're considering asking his daughter to marry you. What then? Or maybe he's asking your daughter. Shouldn't you have the right to know? Well, Sen. McConnell thinks it would curtail those corporate donor's right to free speech. What kind of speech is secret? And by the way, that corporation can speechify all it wants, just do it in public. I'm not against free speech. I'm not against private speech. I'm not against political donations. But when the election determines the way I'll be governed, I want to know who's paying for the lies being told.

Don't Sue The School, School The Sue'er.

I just finished reading an article in the N.Y. Times about why boys aren't doing as well in school. The article claims that not every boy, or girl for that matter, fits neatly into the mold. Some are pliable and interested in the subject matter and some aren't. Basically the article is saying that schools need to find way to reach these 'misfits' other than medications. Part of the problem is the law suit. Teachers and schools can get sued quicker than you can say 'good morning class.' Now don't get me wrong, I don't think it's time to allow capital punishment for speaking out of turn and I don't think teachers should be allowed to beat children. But up to that point, maybe parents need to back off. I mean if junior is causing a problem. being a distraction, speaking unkindly in four letter words, maybe the school and teacher should be allowed to muzzle him. But I agree. Not every kid is just like the next kid. Let's stop treating them like they should be and somethings wrong if they aren't just like the perfect model. See when a parent takes the child's side in every fight, then it's the parent who needs capital punishment. Okay maybe only corporal punishment. But stop giving the kid the impression that he can do anything he wants without facing punishment for his actions. What if I acted that way. Suppose I stood up in church and started talking over the preacher? Sometimes I feel like that might be a good idea. But what if I decided to ignore stop signs and traffic lights. If I got away with misbehaving in school, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get away with it in traffic court. And if I resisted arrest, I don't think the cop would say "Oh, well in that case, it's okay." Well it ain't okay in school either and parents need to understand it ain't. Sorry about the ain'ts, Miss Parker.

Get Your Requests In.

Do you remember back about two years ago Congress swore off Earmarks? In fact I think it was closer to a year and a half ago. Well Congressmen are really beginning to feel the heat over such a dastardly attack on their constituents. After all it was to these constituents that the money went. Well, okay a fair amount found it's way back to the Congressman. Now you might be aghast to find that out, but here's how it worked. If you were a constituent who wanted some special tax breaks or an interest free loan or a grant, you made a donation of some significant amount to the Congressman. If it was big enough, the Congressman got you what you want. So, okay, you and they, could claim the earmark had nothing to do with the donation, wink, wink. Well anyway, they voted not to do that sort of thing anymore. Well anymore is about to run out. And the next thing on Congresses mind is How Much More. You heard it correct. They're trying to figure out how to get that helpful program back. That's because 56 Congressmen have cosigned a bill to bring it back in some form or other. Mainly they're going to start with allowing Tariffs to be relaxed by request. That's unofficially answering requests to do so. There's just one problem though. If you stop levying a tariff on something then the government loses that income from foreign products. Which means budget shortfalls.

What's Not To Love About Tar And Sand?

Say. What's your opinion of the Keystone XL oil pipeline? You know, the pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, to refineries in Texas and Louisiana? The idea is to bring oil brought up from tar sands in Alberta Canada.. This stuff is like a thick goo of oil tar and sand. See, first they strip all the trees from a very very large area. Then the peal off all the top layers of earth until they get to this goo. Then they truck it to some point to remove the oil from the sand. Either that or they send hot, chemically laces water down wells to thin out the mix enough to pump it up. The thing is, it takes three barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil good enough to send down the pipeline. So now you've got these three barrels per one barrel. But the water has lots of toxic chemicals in it. What do you do with that much water, Because remember we're talking about millions of barrels of oil. So triple that amount. Canada's willing to sell us their oil, but what are they gonna do with this water? Do we get some of that too? Think we won't get any of it? Where do you suggest they store this polluted water? You got room in your swimming pool? The color is a little different that what you're accustomed to. But then you'd become a different color yourself if you use the pool;. What's that? You think they should keep that water for themselves? Where would you suggest they store it that wouldn't have it leaching into the goof old USA? Huh? You ask if there's a way to extract the pollutants from the water, thereby making it clean again? No! So does Canada have vast amounts of oil? Yes, Is it all in tar sands? No. Can we get this other oil? We already do. Why do we need this tar sands oil? Because we don;t want to invest in clean energy.

To Lie Or Not To Lie. Is that A Question?

What's in a word? Well, if the word is truth, then the answer, these days, is not much. And that's pretty unfortunate. Take for instance Sarah Palin's Death Panels as an example. We know that's nonsense. Oh to some extent there will be a sort of panel to decide what will be covered under insurance and what will not. But then the exact same decisions are now made by the Insurance companies. How about Senator Jon Kyl's statement after being caught in a lie, "not intended to be a factual statetment." But both sides use this technique. We know it's perfectly legal to lie. And if you say it often enough and loud enough, you're sure to convince loads of people that you're telling the truth. So from now on, I want you all to know that I am young, tall, slim, handsome, strong and intellegent. I have millions in the bank, a executive jet at my disposal. Now are you willing to vote for me to be your next president? Remember, if you aren't convinced, I plan to keep saying it until you believe me and vote for me. Ya see? This is the technique used in politics today. Running for office has no basis in ability to serve. It only has to do with the ability to pay for the ads that will convince the voters. Many many years ago in a cartoon called 'Pogo the Possum', they ran an egg for president. I'll be they could run one for real today and actually get millions to vote for it. This is the premise that's used to fill the halls of Congress these days. And it's the basis for the presidential campaign. I'd like to meet the guy that thought it up. At first I thought it was Carl Rove, but no, it goes much further back then him. He just perfected it.