Who's The NRA Kidding?

       I still have a problem with the NRA.They keep yapping about the second Amendment's "Right To Bear Arms". But that was written by folks who were unaware of the potential future of "Arms" and the lethality of those arms. Oh if only George Washington had had a few dozen AK47s around Boston or any of the other battle sites. The Revolution would have been over much sooner than it was. Hey, if only the Republican South had been able to equip some of Lee's men with a couple of dozen of those Kalashnikovs,  the Civil War might have turned out differently.
       But for our fighting forces of the 17th and 18th centuries and much of the 19th century, an assault rifle consisted of a single shot, muzzle loading firearm that had a firing capability of about two a minute. Which, in a crowded movie theater, would have allowed nearly everyone to escape. Even a classroom could have emptied in that time.
       I think we should all remember that the stated goals and the actual goals of the National Rifle Association are two completely different questions. Since the NRA receives nearly 90% of it's funding from firearms manufacturers and sellers you need to take anything they say with more than just a grain of salt. About a five pound sack of salt might do the trick. For a day.
       The NRA is in the business of fostering gun purchases. Now there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legal business and is entitled to advertise and promote it's business. But let's not pretend the NRA is anything but a lobbying mechanism of the firearm industry.
       So the question of whether we should allow anyone to purchase an assault rifle with a 30 plus, round clip without even a background check, is a question for civilized thinking men and women, not the lobbying firm of the gun maker. Who for the sake of a few more dollars will say anything, blame anyone, to protect it's handlers.

Rewards Are Unfair, Punishment too.

       I admit it. Over the last three years I've poked fun at and found fault with a whole lot of people. Mostly because I think most of those folks have been rewarded for jobs not very well done. Ya see, my philosophy is that we reward the wrong people for the wrong reasons and punish other folks for the wrong reasons. Now it's true, we do reward some of the right folks for the right reasons, and of course we sometimes punish the right people for the right reasons.
       All of that is true, but if you think about it, why should some movie actor or singer or athlete or politician make untold millions, while a whole lot of soldiers get low pay and wind up with poor care, or teachers get dumped on because it's political hay to do it. Look at farmers. They work about as hard as anybody in the country, but for the most part, they struggle to make ends meet. Even though we need them a whole lot more than we need a good quarterback.
       Ya know, when ya think about it, politicians are given a job to do. In your state capital or Washington. When they get there, the things they worry about and fight for are not what the state or country needs. Not even what's wanted.
       Look at out Congress.  This last August they had a rating of just 10%. That a record low. Right now, in December, their rating is 18%, the second lowest rating at the end of a congress, in history. And yet the vast majority got reelected. How come? They can't even agree to protect women from abuse, or fair treatment for disabled around the world. They can't even agree to pay the bills they voted to incur. Who decides to buy something and then decides that even though they like it, they're not gonna pay for it? Our Congress, that's who.
       Look at the Senate. Did you know that the Senate is ruled by one person? One person has final say as to what gets done. That person could be any one of the 100 Senators. And he, or she, can do it in complete secrecy. Or the house, where a minority of congressmen can hold the House hostage by threatening any Congressman that doesn't do as he's told, with a primary fight. And where multi-millionaires control the purse strings of the campaigns of nearly all of the members of both houses.
       In the meantime the folks that make this country work, get laid off, cut to part time, threatened with less support, accused of being takers instead of givers, and forced to work two or three jobs just to put food on the table. Why is someone who can hit a ball with a stick, worth more that you are?

What's Not To Hate About Politics?

       I know folks are tired of talking about politics. But I'd like to talk about governing. And yes, I know people consider governing as political talk. And of late, that's pretty much the case. But the two are very different animals. In this era, politics is what makes governing nearly impossible.
       Anyway, what we now have is extremely poor governance. What we need now is good governance. So the question is, how do we get from where we are to where we need to be? One way is for either political party to concede and agree to all of the other party's demands. That's likely to happen the day after Armageddon.
       So what would happen if they don't agree? What's the big deal about the fiscal cliff? And isn't that followed shortly by the debt ceiling crisis? Well, if you're very wealthy, you will probably be very inconvenienced. If you're in the middle class, you could wind up in the poor class. If you're poor, not much more can go wrong for you, right? But for the country, things could get a lot worse.
       First the fiscal cliff would erode confidence in our country to handle it's affairs, then the debt ceiling crisis would confirm that opinion. So what? So, our credit rating would be further lowered and this time we'd very likely find it difficult to borrow the funds needed to pay the interest on the debt we owe at a price we can afford. If you or anyone you know has ever had their car or home repossessed, you know what happens next.
       Of course this doesn't need to happen. We could be hit with a severe case of good governance. In which case Washington would find a way to get things done. It's messy, it's politics, but it could happen.
       One thing's for sure. If you don't speak up, you'll be overlooked. And in this day and age, that's not a good thing. So go ahead and hate politics. Just remember it's politics that determines your future, to a large degree. And remember also, it took a lot of people to speak up to get the President reelected.

What's With Carbon Tax?

       Would you please tell me why it is that we can't have a carbon tax in America? The advantages would be enormous. It could be the answer to the fiscal cliff and yet conservatives seem to be dead set against it. Do you suppose they think that if they supported the idea of a carbon tax, people might think they believe in global warming?
       I just read an article in the New York Times about Ireland. They had the highest carbon footprint in all of Europe, nearly as high as America. Doesn't that maker you proud? Then they decided to place a tax on carbon. Guess what? It's working. It's working really great. The article pointed out that even Mercedes figured out a way to build big, powerful cars with low emissions rates like the small cars.
       Now, just because the Irish can do this sort of thing doesn't mean that Americans should, right? After all, creating new technology and the jobs that goes with those innovations is no reason to desert such old friends ac coal, oil and natural gas. Hey, even burning wood helps create heat. Just because it also creates lots of smoke and carbon is no reason to abandon these old trusty energy sources.
       And as long as we're talking about it, this whole thing on global warming is just another gimmick to get people to put windmills in their front yards and solar collectors on their roofs. It's all about tree huggers trying to hug polar bears and icebergs. It's crazy talk.
       Now if you ask me, we don't need a tax on carbon, all we need to do is eliminate food stamps and Obamacare and our problems will be solved. See the problem is that if you tax carbon, then people would stop using carbon. What would we do with all those oil wells and coal mines. And if people stopped using carbon, there goes our tax revenue, right?

Christmas In Washington.

       Hey, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Well? Did ya get that Christmas present you were hoping for from Washington? You didn't? My gosh, I'm surprised to hear that. You mean to tell me that you didn't get the cliff prevention bill you felt sure would be in your stocking this morning?
       I'd suggest you contact the delivery personnel responsible for getting that bill to you. I'd suggest that, but unfortunately they've gone on vacation. Yes, that's right, President Obama to Hawaii, and Speaker Boehner is back home in Indiana. And I don't think they have the phones turned on at either location.
       What's that, you think they're on the phone talking to each other about what to do and how to do it? I hear the golf courses in Hawaii are quite nice, and, oh, it's so nice to be back home where can kick back and pop a cold one open, take your shoes off and doze off with the newspaper covering your stomach.
       Well surely they have someone assigned to wrap that present for you, right? How can I put this so that you won't lose your belief in Santa? GROW UP! It ain't happening. There aren't any people in Washington capable of figuring out how to pass a law that will be fair to everyone. Not even fair to most of us. Well okay, maybe there is someone, maybe several, but the problem is they're more interested in making their team look good and the other team look bad. Nobody is actually interested in scoring the winning goal.
       See the parties run the country. But they can only run it if they make the other one look like losers. Scoring the winning goal is not really important any more. If you'r party is in the minority, then just keep on passing bills with no hope of becoming laws. If you're in the majority, just keep trying to pass bills that will humble the other side. But whatever you do, keep those blinders on. That way you can't see the harm you're doing.

When It Comes Right Down To It.

       What we have in America, or to be more specific, in Washington, well no, actually in all of America. Let's start over. What we have in America is a fundamental disconnect. See, here's the thing, both sides have the same goals. They just go about it in different directions.
       Look, here's an example of what's happening. Some folks think the way to solve our problems is to stimulate our economy with large infusions of cash. On the other hand, others believe we need to support our job creators so they'll do what job creators do.
       But the first group thinks that what the job creators do is pocket any and all support and launder the jobs to other countries. The second group, on the other hand, believes that spending money we don't have will cripple us and our future.
       There's a third group that feels we need to do a little bit of both. The first two groups frown on this group as being very naive. But these differences aren't the problem. The problem goes much deeper than just their differences.
       Each of these groups are represented by folks who were elected by their states, in the case of the Senate and by gerrymandered districts in the case of the House. They represent their states and districts and America, but mostly they represent the moneyed investors that financed their campaigns. In other words, the problem isn't their differences, the problem is, who gets the credit.

Six Guns In School?

       I've been trying to reconcile a couple of things in my mind. Now I understand that conservatives are against unions and for understandable reasons. After all, unions generally support Democratic candidates while conservatives are generally Republican leaning. So it comes as no surprise that wherever and whenever the opportunity presents itself, conservatives will try to cut back on the influence of unions.That's clearly understandable.
       So, again, it came as no surprise when in Wisconsin and elsewhere, teacher's union have had their powers limited by legislative action. If they can limit or eliminate the power of such a powerful union, that helps conservative's causes. So what it boils down to is, don't let teachers picket or strike. That would pretty much destroy unions. No collective bargaining.
       But aren't teachers the most important people your children will come in contact with, outside the home? I think we should all agree an education is a most important opportunity to your children's future. The education they receive at home and at school will determine, to a large extent, how far they can go.
       What I don't understand is that we are hearing calls to arm teachers in the classroom. Now a teacher receives at least 17 years of education to prepare them to teach. How much time will these folks, who are specialists in education, be given in training to protect children and attach an armed and determined killer. Let's understand that facing a killer, in real life, and remaining calm enough to accurately put that killer down, without causing collateral damage, isn't the same as using a computer game. By the way, that collateral damage could be your child.
       So, if a teacher isn't worthy of fighting for his or her financial well being in collective bargaining, how is it that teachers must also be trained Swat Team members as well as classroom instructors? Now I know that the thoughtful conservatives who are recommending teachers have these skills, are also recommending they be appropriately compensated. My question is, exactly how much should teachers be compensated for taking such great additional risk?

Two Reasons Why No Jobs.

       Do ya know why millions of jobs won't be coming back to America, ever? There were two articles in the New York Times today that explains it very well. One is about Wal-Mart Mexico and it's brand of bribery. The other is about the factory fire in Bangladesh that killed so many workers because doors were locked and management wouldn't allow people to leave the building.
       First Wal-Mart. It has been using bribes to get its way and now the proof is in. Just $52,000 in one case allowed an official zoning map to be changed just before its publication, thus allowing a Wal-Mart store where nobody wanted it. But that's just one example of the dozens the Times has uncovered. And if the Times found that many, how many others weren't found.
       Then the fire in Bangladesh in the factory owned by a Mr. Hossain. No outside fire escape, no sprinkler system, locked doors and workers staging protests over non-payment of wages. The workers were inside at the time because they had to work double shifts to meet orders for multiply international brands of clothing.
       So on the one hand you have THE giant retailer showing its power to get its way, no matter what. Including from government officials and corporate suppliers. And on the other hand you have the suppliers demanding the lowest possible price for product from the factory irregardless of what it might take to meet those demands and, of course, taking no responsibility for any consequences. It was somebody else who did it, not us, certainly not us.
       They know they would never get away with such flagrant disregard for the rules in America. We have laws that will not allow such nonsense. And the question begs, do we even want such jobs? Do we want to go back to the 18th century, where human lives were considered to be of no value in industry except to produce? Where a worker who demanded fair treatment might well be considered a terrorist for just asking.
       It's easy to knock unions, and some deserve to be knocked, but without them, we regress. Given enough time, the laws we have to protect workers, and without unions, will disappear, one by one. The anti-union movement is taking us back to a future we won't like.

We All Already Had That Right.

       Well, whatta ya think of Michigan's new law creating a Right To Work state? Does anyone think Michigan residents didn't have the right to work previously? Do you believe, as many conservatives believe, that Unions are a relic of the past, no longer needed and a drag on the economy and on bringing jobs to America?
       If you believe the governor and legislature in Michigan did the right thing, then consider this; Almost without exception, whenever unions gave up benefits or lowered wages, the management's income increased and corporate profits increased. The only losers were workers. Whenever unions were forced out of companies, workers wages and benefits either stagnated or decreased and working conditions deteriorated.
       But here's a suggestion for ya. If you want Unions to go the way of the dinosaur that can easily be arranged. And there won't even be a fight from union members. If you want no more unions, just pass this simple law. If workers are asked to give up wage increases or must take wage cuts, then management must do the same based on their ratio to income. If benefits are taken away, so must management's. Part two: Corporate profits must be tied to worker wages and benefits.
       See, what I don't understand is why it has to always be the employees that have to lose. If profits go up, management and ownership is rewarded but workers are asked to give a little more so profits can continue to increase. But if profits go down, workers must compensate the company and management through cuts.
       We kept hearing about class warfare during the recent elections. Well what do they call this? Class peace? If we get the short end of the stick, that's peaceful, but if they have to pay any piper, that's war? It seems that some folks only see the good if it's directed toward them, and they always see the bad if the good isn't directed at them.

Just a Word On Gun Power.

       I suspect that very soon you will see, hear or read about the NRA explaining that the right to carry a concealed firearm or assault weapon would have saved the elementary children in Connecticut. Yes friends another conservative legislator will recommend that laws be passed to require everyone to carry a Kalashnikov automatic rifle everywhere but in the shower.
       This tragedy is no time to try to make funny, but neither is it time to hear the National Riflemen's Association push the gun manufacturer's agenda of more gun sales. Please don't mistake my anger at laws making some gun ownership and gun carry rights more prevalent with a sign that I'm against all gun ownership. I believe in the right of every American to own and use firearms, but with some notable exceptions.
       If you need to carry a handgun, you need to prove you should have that right and if you think you need to have an assault rifle, you probably don't.
 I think that if you're going to stand your ground, you'd better be prepared to prove you needed to. Not just because you felt like it, but because you truly were in danger. And can prove it. Such changes to the rules might not have saved the lives of these very young students who had their lives placed in all of our hands for safe keeping, but it wouldn't have placed them in greater danger. Not having such changes, does place young children and all of us in greater danger.
       

       There's an interesting article in the Washington Post today. Last year revenue from oil, gas and coal extracted from federal and Indian lands amounted to $11.4 billion. But companies who mine gold, copper and other so called hard rock minerals pay $189 to find a claim and then $140 per year for the mine after that. No royalties, just $140 per mine.
       The government claims it doesn't keep track of how much gold or copper or etc is taken or the value thereof. That's because there's no reason to, since we don't get royalties. But the last estimate, in 1993, with prices fairly low, was $6.41 billion. Of course gold was worth about $300 per ounce then and it's $1,700 per ounce today.
       My guess, and I assure you it's just a guess, is that we're getting screwed. Don't get me wrong, folks who scour the countryside in search of these metals should be able to make a profit off them. But as the landlord, I think $140 a year is just slightly less than fair. I mean, at those prices, I think almost anybody would be willing to take a chance at winning that jackpot.
       Ya know when these rates were put in place? The General Mining Act of 1872 set these rates and apparently nobody has felt the need to take a second look at them. Probably felt they were just too small potatoes to be concerned.
       So this one has made the news and will now receive a second look, after 140 years, but what about other little morsels? Anyone want to wager the family horseless carriage there are other sweet treats hanging around the nooks and crannies of Washington?

When Does $30 Equal $14?

       I disagreed with Joe Scarborough this morning. I agreed with him too. In one segment of Morning Jo on MSNBC they talked about the rebound of jobs being insourced. After several decades of increasing jobs losses to offshoring, they're starting to come back.
       But the reasons they're coming back to America is that our labor costs are shrinking. Unions are under attack by state governments with Right To Work laws which water down the union's ability to protect employees and the recession and stubborn unemployment means that folks are willing to take the lower paying jobs because they have no choice.
       So a job that paid $30 per hour in the sixties or seventies, now will pay $14 an hour. Here's the question you have to ask yourself? Is this really a good deal for America? Is it really a good deal for Americans? We know it's a good deal for the companies, their owners and management, but what about the rest of us?
       If you used to make $30 an hour and now make $14, doesn't that mean you can less afford to pay higher real estate taxes or any other tax? Doesn't it mean you can't afford to buy a new car any more? Won't you have to live in a less expensive home, take less expensive vacations, save less for your old age?
       We know the folks who are part of the two percent keep making out better and better, but we make out worse. The 2%ers still want lower taxes and more profits. But who's gonna pay for everything the government wants to buy or give us to stay in office? If you're a teacher, or a fireman or police officer, when will the ability of the school district or city or town to pay for your current pay or benefits for you now, and for your retirement, end. When will they be forced to cut your pay and benefits and tell the retired among you they can no longer pay for their benefits, either?
       When it comes right down to it, it comes right down to a struggle between the middle-class and the rich. In order for the rich to get richer, somebody has to get poorer. If the middle-class wants to get a little better off, the rich would have to give up some of it's riches. What about the poor? The poor don't have any wealth to give up. The match is between the rich and the middle-class. So put on your game face and get ready.

Who Should Pay?

       Here's a case for capital gains taxes. If you look at the way income has tracked over the last few decades, you realize the capital has increased it's share of income by double digits, which is great if you have capital invested. During the same period, labor hasn't done nearly as well. In fact labor has stagnated to the point that folks are earning roughly what they did in the early 1990s. But in those two decades inflation has grown, again, by double digits. So you're effectively earning what you did, or would have, in the 1970s.
       Now any proponent of capital will tell you that a lot has to do with offshoring of factories and jobs. They're also likely to explain that robotics is partly responsible. They just don't need as many people to do the job any more. And that's true.
       The thing is, though, that doesn't change the fact that capital keeps earning a larger and larger piece of the pie. People who are still working in high tech positions just aren't earning what they should be. How come? Because capital keeps getting better and better tax advantages, while labor keeps getting stuck with the tab.
       So if you can protect more of your capital, if you can keep more of your capital safe from taxes, that gives you more capital to earn you even more income. But if you have to depend on your personal labors, you don't get that same advantage.
       Two choices offer two different approaches. You can more heavily tax capital to share with labor, or you can break up the monopolies that allow for the creation of more wealth among a few, and you can raise minimum wage to a living wage.
     
But you still must take away the financial advantages of outsourcing, or job laundering, like tax deductions for the expense of shipping that job to China. And greater tariffs on shipping the finished product back here. And a tax on removing your income or wealth to a tax haven. One thing's for sure. If we don't reverse the trend, America will become a third world country that still thinks it's a world leader.

To Believe Or Not To Believe.

       It's not hard to visualize a time in America when a majority of people will believe that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. How else do you explain missing persons reports? A dragon ate them. Why do I say this? Because throughout the south, education is more and more inviting creationism into the classroom. Right alongside science. And in some cases there's an attempt to replace science. Especially with home schooling. That's a venue where, even if science is taught, mom or dad can laugh at science and poke fun at it. Those children will never believe anything other than that there is nothing that's older than about 7000 years of age.
       Now, there's nothing at all wrong with teaching creationism as a belief, a religious doctrine, but please don't confuse the issue. It ain't science, it ain't what actually happened. It's sorta like a metaphor. Like Jonah living in the belly of the whale. Maybe the lung, but not the belly.
       Even global warming is off limits for this kind of teaching. I suppose the day will come when folks in Florida, and Louisiana and places like that will need scuba gear to commute to school and places like Montana will be growing bananas and pineapples and raising native parrots. And the only orange groves will be in Alaska. Those sandy Florida beaches will be in fifty feet of water. They'll need a speedboat to ski in Colorado. But there'll still be no mention of Global Warming. 
       Now I suppose people should have the right to believe whatever they want. But, like I said, there's a difference between believing and science. And when the government is paying towards that education, it's science that needs to take the drivers seat. That's because creationism only has the ability to go into park.

How The Boom Got Into The Budget.

       There's something I've been wondering about for some time. How do or will the baby boomers effect our economic picture? Well low and behold, somebody actually talks about it in the New York Times today. Can you imagine? Blaming that group of retiring, special folk for our economic problems instead of the Democrats? Who do he think he are?
       But here are a few points you might want to consider, that is unless you don't care about facts. First, because folks live longer than at any time in the past, and with the baby boomers, there are a lot more retired people. Which brings up the point that expenditures for medicare and medicaid and et cetera are going up, up and away.
       On the other hand, nearly 200,000 are leaving the job market each month and retiring. That's a lot more than in the past, opening up more jobs. So when the government says it created 150,000 new jobs in a month, that is partly due to retiring workers which now outnumber new workers entering the workforce instead of the other way around.
       But the big thing for our economy and for our budget considerations is to admit that the costs of running the government increases with the increase in the number of retirees. We've already cut spending from growth of 6.1% of GDP under President Bush to growth of 1.4% of GDP under Obama. Unemployment has dropped faster over the last four years than anytime since 1995.
       The point is, if we have more retired folks, it's gonna cost more for the government. Our government needs to understand that fact and figure out, honestly, how to deal with it. And let me say, here and now, our government has difficulty honestly figuring anything out.

Me And Thee And I Have My Doubts About Thee.

       Let's see if I understand the Republican party. In 2008, they lost the Presidency to a strong Obama win. In 2010, they took back the house with a very strong assist from the Tea party. In 2012, they got whipped again by a strong Obama, lost some seats in both the House and Senate.
       Obama campaigned on taxing the rich, and inclusiveness. But the Republicans campaigned on excluding a bunch of demographic voters. They offended blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, women, especially young single women, and managed to lose seats that never should have been in contention by fielding some of the strangest candidates I've ever seen.
       Who would think that women can shut down the fertilization process if, and only if, they were legitimately raped. I guess the woman must have to appear before a council of old white men and present her case in the hopes of having the rape be pronounced legitimate, or not.
       But since the election the Republicans have, variously, realized the mistakes they made or, blamed the whole thing of crooked Democrats or incompetent candidates. Now when they claim to have realized the mistakes they made and claim to have begun the process of correcting those mistakes, you have to feel good about that process.
       You have to feel good, that is, until you see them vote against a treaty that all our friends and allies and even our enemies agreed to. What was this dastardly piece of paper about? It requires other nations to treat disabled people as good as America treats its disabled. But has no power of enforcement. So now the Republicans have alienated disabled voters too.
       What other demographic groups are out there that these conservative elected officials can tee off on? Well, if I were you, I'd keep a low profile, because the Republicans don't look like they're finished alienating people yet.

Just How Small Is Small?

       When it comes to taxes, especially on the top 2% of income earners, you should remember why the taxes were lowered in the first place. Back in 2001 and 2003, the reasons that were given for the tax cuts were that we had to big a surplus. We did have a surplus back then, but the reasons for those surpluses were that we didn't have two wars going on at the same time and we hadn't given away the keys to the safe yet.
       Well, now we did fight in two wars at the same time for an average of 10 years each. And most of that time we weren't taking in enough in taxes to pay our way. How do I know we didn't pay our own way? Because now, instead of a surplus, we've got a deficit and a $14+ trillion debt. And we're still in a fiscal hole.
       But we shouldn't raise taxes, right? Well if we don't raise taxes, how can we get out of debt? Cut spending. But not defense. Not Social Security or Medicare either. Of course if we did cut defense and Social Security and Medicare we still couldn't begin to get out of debt. But we can't raise taxes on job creators. Does that mean we should raise taxes of job performers? Anyone but Small Businessmen.
       Here are some facts about the, so called, job creators. Like President Obama is considered a job creator and a small businessman. So are a whole lot of Congressmen and Senators, because they've written books. That qualifies them as small businessmen. It also includes nearly every lawyer and every hedge fund manager. Small businessmen aren't the local diner owners or dry cleaners. Just because you own a small town boutique or barbershop doesn't mean you qualify for the title of a 2%er.
       If you're one of the wealthiest taxpayers in the country, you're almost surely considered a small businessman. In fact, just about everybody but the "too big to fail" are small businessmen as far as the IRS is concerned.

When They Say The End, What Do They Mean?

       I keep hearing about the Mayan calendar and December 21 of this year. That's the last day of the 5000+ year old Mayan Calendar. That's the day lots of people seem to think the earth will end. On the other hand lots more people think its just plain silly. Then there are the few who hadn't heard about this story yet.

       Next, I saw on the news yesterday that two people robbed a Victoria's Secret store. It was captured on video surveillance. What they stole was dozens, or maybe even more, ladies panties. Now it looked like two guys that were stealing these items of apparel. Exactly what do two men do with that many women's undergarments? Do they consult with a "Fence"? Who would be a pantie fence? 

       These two items in the news, Dec 21, 2012 on the Mayan calendar and the theft of ladies panties, don't seem, at first glance, to be connected. But what if they are? What if you will need fancy pants to be saved on the 21st? What if? But how many girlfriends do these two guys have? Or is it just wishful thinking? Do you walk up to an attractive woman on the street and let her know that she can be saved on the 21st of this month with these special panties? How far will that get you?

       Personally, I don't think anything extraordinary will happen on December 21, but if you want to wear fancy pants, there's a fence out there somewhere that can get you a good deal on some Victoria's Secrets undergarments. No questions asked.