One Day Soon Political Ads Will Be Coming To You.

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

The Real Economics Game

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

Uncle Rick's Bedtime Story.

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

More Taxes For Everyone, Including Politicians.

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

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

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

Taxes Are For Those Who Pay Them.

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

Smart Or Photo ID?

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
























 

Boy Do They Love To Cut Discretion.

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

On Patrol, Protecting The Dike.

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

Take A swing At Global Warming.

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

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

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

Yee Gads, We're Out Of Coffee.

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

Maricopa County. Sorta Has A Ring To It.

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

Craftsman May Not Be Craftworthy.

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

No Partisanship There.

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

Who Is 15 Year Old Malala Yousafzai?

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

Ahhh. Cometh The Lie.

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

Here's The Problem.

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

Well, To Tell You The Truth....

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

What's The Problem?

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