What The Heck Is A Sharing Economy?

       Have you ever heard of the Sharing Economy, or a Micro-Entrepreneur? They're new, but old, ideas of how to get by in modern America. Stephen Strauss had an article in the Huffington Post yesterday and Thomas Freidman has written about it. It's all about how people, lots of people, are forced by their economic circumstances to make do, share, barter and "get by", because they can't earn enough to live on. See what I mean by a lot of people?
       Strauss tells about how his immigrant parents were forced to do these same things back in the late 1930s. Rent out a spare room, or actually rent someone else's spare room, work day jobs or any odd job that would pay cash, even for an hour or two. Trading hard work for a meal or two.
       On the other hand there were those who were able to live a life of luxury. Did you know, the inequality between the haves and the have nots was very similar in the 1920s and 30s to what exists today? In fact in 1928, the top 1% received 23.9% of all pretax income while the bottom 90% got 50.7%. Nowadays we're just about in the same position. But of course if you mention it, those same 1% cry class warfare. Well, I don't doubt the existence of class warfare, in fact I think it's been building for about 30 years. But it's happening the other way. The very wealthy have been grinding the rest of us into the dust in their quest for ever more riches at the expense of everyone else.
       So what's the point of my ranting? My point is that even though statistics show an improved economy, with income growing stronger day by day, all the economic improvement keeps flowing to those 1% and the rest of us are being left in that dust I mentioned. So again, what's my point?
       My point is that the 1920s and 30s ended up in the Great Depression and forced a lot of redistribution of wealth through legislation and taxation. But after a couple of decades, things started swinging back in favor of the wealthy. Well, at some point that 90% will force those same changes. It may take a while and it may look different, it might even be more ugly, but one thing's for sure, Americans won't stand for this inequality for ever. Nor should they.
    

                                 HAVE A HAPPY, HEALTHY, AND SAFE NEW YEAR.


        Eddie Snowbeard.

The Circles Of Life.

       I wasn't going to write anything until the new year kicks in, but then I read this story in Mother Jones this morning. It's about what they feed cows. Well, no, it's about what they feed chickens. No, actually it's about what they feed cows. Maybe I'd better explain. Mixed in with the feed for cows is the sweepings from the floors of chicken pens and chicken houses. Ya know what's on the floor of a chicken house after the chickens eat? Yes! And all that goes into cow feed.
       Now, I'm old enough to remember back when farms grew what we all called cow corn. It wasn't tasty like sweet corn, but cows liked it.  The farmers chopped up even the corn stalks and put it into the silo for feed for the cows over the winter along with hay. Well, nowadays they don't use that stuff it seems. Instead companies mix together a variety of products to make up a good nutritional feed for our beef and milk. It's another layer of profit for somebody. The sweepings from the chicken pens and the sweepings from the cow barn used to go onto the corn fields with the first plowing.
       So what's in that mix? Well, as I've said, the sweepings from under the chickens, which includes things like some of the chickenfeed that fell on the floor, maybe parts of dead rodents, feathers and the bi-product of processed chicken feed. Oh, and chicken feed is made partially from cow parts. So in a way, cows are eating some cows. Now, let me see, did I leave anything out?
        I can tell you this much, the makers of feed for livestock certainly haven't left much out. So the next time you sit down to enjoy a big juicy steak, perhaps with eggs, it would be best if you just forgot about this information, for obvious reasons.
        The article goes on to say that the practice of cows eating feed that contains other cows is dangerous because it could lead to an outbreak of Mad Cow disease. Yeah, that's right. Which is something we should avoid wherever possible. So what's my point? Well, I just wonder how much we can or should trust the folks who make feed for the meat we eat? Kinda makes you want to be a vegetarian. Unless you look into the seed companies.

Penn's Woods, Gimme A Break.

       Today I'd like to talk about the great state of Penn's Woods. Once upon a time little Billie was given some lands in the "New World", I suppose because he was a good little boy. It's gone downhill a little since then. Today I read in the local paper about two things that makes me wonder. On the front page was an article that tells of our legislators taking $2 million in expenses. And of the $2 million, they had to account for $2000,000.
       The rest they took as "per-diem" payments. That means they don't have to say what that money was spent on. Like a trip to one of our new gambling establishments or Hershey Park with the grandkids. Who knows, they don't have to say.
       Then buried in section "D", the "Perspective" section near the letters to the editor, a small article explaining that the 74,000 state employees expenses will rise an estimated 9%. That's an average of $7,300 each for a total of around $540 million, which includes benefits. So as a state, and knowing you've got this tremendous increase in costs, wouldn't you think it might be time to require everyone to justify their reimbursable expenses. Hey, even if the state could save just one million, it would be a help. But in actual practice, what happens is a legislator hands in a slip of paper that basically says gimme some money. That's what's called per-diem.
       So I've got to wonder how it is that Pennsylvania's workers and management personnel are getting an increase of 9%? And I've also got to wonder how it is that our legislators get to just say gimme, gimme, and they get it with no questions asked. I mean 9% seems high in these currently hard economic times. Lots of people aren't getting any raise or very little. And if you've been unemployed for more than half a year, you're about to get a 100% cut in income. You could extent that unemployment compensation indefinitely on 9% and an extra million.
       Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge those 74,000 state employees getting a nice bump, and I do understand legislators have expenses just like the rest of us, except we don't get reimbursed for our expenses. But then there are those long term unemployed that are about to get the screws.
      

The F-35 Is Strictly A High Test Airplane.

       With the restoration of the defense budget, it looks like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter airplane will be a definite go. This plane is supposed to do just about anything but bake cookies, and with all the classified equipment on board it might even do that. But cookies aren't what makes this plane special. It's a plane that every branch of the military will use in the future. It's supposed to be very versatile.
       But versatility isn't what makes it so special either. What makes it the most special aircraft our military has ever developed is the costs involved. Lockheed, the builder, claims the cost will be $75 million per plane. They say that, but the Government Accountability Office says $137 million each and tack on an additional $1 trillion to keep them flying for 30 years, the norm for such aircraft.
       The Pentagon stated this was an unaffordable amount so they lowered the expected cost to $857 million. That's right, from $1 trillion to $857 million. And they were able to lower that cost with no discernible change to what will be done to keep the planes flying. A savings of $999,143,000,000. $999 billion and some loose change! And no lose of servicing to the planes. Just what was all that money going to be spent for? You don't suppose the Pentagon is under estimating the cost, do you?
       Initially the cost to roll out the fleet was set at $233 billion, but now is set to run $400 billion, and counting. So if that cost doesn't rise any more and the GAOs estimate is more accurate, we're looking at $1.4 trillion. Where's all this money gonna come from? Oh, that's right, it's gonna come from you and me. Including the $999 billion the Pentagon doesn't think they will need.
       Now imagine if your child or grandchild wanted to buy one of these F35 Joint Strike Fighters for his or her school. How many chocolate bars will he have to sell? Well, at a dollar a piece, he'll have to sell at least $137 million chocolate bars. Does she know that many people she can hit up for a purchase of a Hershey bar? Can Hershey make that many bars in the allotted time period? And what about the fuel to get it to the school? It won't run on unleaded ya know.

Speaking Of Special Interest Groups.

       Speaking of special interest groups, did you know that there are more special interest groups than there are Senators and Congressmen combined? In fact I wouldn't be surprised to learn there are more special interest groups than there are citizens in America. There is no subject for which there isn't a special interest group. You've got to be careful where you walk lest you step on one. And for heavens sake watch what you say or you'll run afoul of the SIG police.
       There are conservative SIGs and liberal SIGs, hot button issues SIGs, and presumably cold button issues SIGs too. In fact when you stop and think about it, pretty much everybody is a member of some sort of SIG. So it's hard to say we should do away with SIGs or that we should ignore Sigs. I formed a special interest group to pay attention to me. Can you imagine if everybody ignored my SIG? That would be devastating. No, we've got to come up with a different way.
       The problem with SIGs is that just about anybody can run a SIG and I mean anyone. Now that, in and of itself isn't a problem. The problem is that a bunch of special interest groups are causing problems with our government and the way our country operates. Some folks think we should shut it down permanently and just do away with it. What those folks want is to run it their way or the highway. That would work if they were a majority of citizens, but they're not. And they're not alone. There's another group that wants things their way and they don't like this first group.
       Now this shouldn't be a problem for our government and usually isn't, except both sides got some odd people elected and now they're at odds and are willing to do just about anything to get their way. That's bad enough, but one of the groups has another SIG within it's group and they want something entirely different.
       These are the special interest groups of which I speak. These are the SIGs we need to figure out how to ignore. We should be polite, but we should ignore. My mother always said to be polite. The ignore part she didn't like so much, but there does come a time when ignoring is the preferred recipe.

What's The Problem With The Senate?

       Well, a couple of weeks ago the majority leader in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid pulled the nuclear trigger. I'm told that the Senate still exists though, contrary to some predictions. Oh, I admit that the minority is very unhappy with the change. They can't just call up Harry and tell him they want to put a hold on some appointment or other. Now they have to find other ways to hold up progress in the Senate. Of course they can still put a "hold" on legislation and require 60 votes to bring it up for a vote, while presidential appointments only require a majority of 1 vote.
       It was a surprise and uncle Mitch is still boiling mad. He's still telling uncle Harry to just wait and see what we'll do when we regain majority status. But judicial appointments that have been waiting for years, literally, are finally getting approved. Family get-togethers are really rough though. What with uncle Harry getting some things done and Uncle Mitch steaming mad about it, there's no peace at the table. "Just wait! You'll see!" And an "I had to do it to get some work done."
       So exactly who's in the wrong here? Who's lily white and without sin? On the one hand this secret filibuster rule has been around for a couple of decades and it worked pretty well. Nobody likes change and uncle Harry knows that. On the other hand a couple dozen or so such filibusters has turned into well over a hundred and fifty. When it comes to sin, I have to go along with the "let whoever is without sin cast the first stone." Or in the Senate's case, the first vote.
       In fact that rule, the one about casting the stone, or vote, might be a good idea for all legislators in Washington and the state capitals to consider. If you haven't taken any money from someone or some company this bill will effect, you can vote. That's because you're without sin. But if you did get money or your campaign did, then you can't vote. Boy would that change things. Then all that would be left to deal with would be special interest groups. But that's another whole story.

All Things Are Possible. With Money.

  

Let's give money the vote. Hey, we've given corporations the right to spend all the money they want to influence elections, why not just cut to the chase and give the vote to the money. If you want to vote for president, then one vote should cost say $1000, for Senators, say $400, for Congressmen how about $100. Well okay then, maybe $5 for each. That might be closer to the value of each. But then you could vote multiple times depending on how much money you have.

       The thing is, money talks. You can accomplish a whole storehouse of objectives if you have the money to do so. Without the money behind you, you won't get far. So nothing would actually change from the way it is now.  Billions would still be spent on elections. The only difference is that instead of going to sign makers and TV stations and the like, it would be spent at the polls.

       Another, and perhaps the most important, advantage is that all that money would be going to the IRS. That means your taxes could go down measurably. Of course your vote would be worth less, $5 remember, but since your taxes would be lower, you could afford to buy that new TV you've been wanting, or that Refrigerator or whatever. That would help to improve the economy so that our elected officials could take credit for all the new jobs.

       It's what we call a win-win-win idea. Big money wins, politicians win, you win. What's not to like here? Oh, I admit there are a few drawbacks to this scheme, like the electorate would lose control over the electoral process, but haven't we lost that already? Between big money and special interest groups, the voter really doesn't have much say now-a-days anyway. And with this plan TV stations and networks and news papers and sign makers would lose tons of money forcing them to lay some staff off, but the tax savings alone would more than make up for those losses  Now if it could get past Congress, I'm convinced our current Supreme Court would vote to approve along party lines. I should go on the road with this proposal.

It May Be People, But It Includes Guns.

       Hey, listen to this from Mother Jones news this morning. After the Sandy Hook tragedy last year Bloomberg News predicted that by 2015 there would be more gun deaths than automobile related deaths. So how's the prediction going? Well there are 15 states where that is already happening. And for all of America, the total number of traffic deaths stands at 32,885, but total gun deaths stands at 31,672, and counting. While traffic deaths are dropping, gun deaths are climbing. Not a sterling report.
       Are these numbers comforting? Not for me either, and the trend is even more worrisome. But be of good cheer. The federal government is------doing nothing, but the states have become----- more lenient when it comes to gun ownership. The race is on. Will America accomplish this heretofore unimaginable feat? Will traffic deaths become just a footnote on the news while gun deaths become the champion grim reaper of our times?
       I'll bet you never thought that such a goal was attainable, did you? I'd ask you to do your part to help reach this milestone, but it looks like we've got more than enough support to make our goal a reality. Ya know if twenty of our kids and six adults were killed in a war, we'd be screaming for the war to end. And we'd be writing our legislators, both in Washington and our state capitals. But we seem to think it's okay so long as it's our own people killing our own people.
       Well actually it's not so much that we think it's okay as the gun lobby, and that certainly includes the NRA, so long as they tell us it's okay, that it's not the guns that are killing these kids, it's people that are doing the killing. As though the "people" weren't pointing guns at the kids and pulling the trigger.
       Look. There's nothing wrong with a person of sound mind and even temper owning a gun or several guns. The problem comes into play when persons not of sound mind or even temper get their hands on guns. Now, nobody thinks that any law or set of laws can eliminate all gun violence. But is that a reason to make it ever easier for those who shouldn't have guns to get their hands on a gun? We all need to step back a minute and think about how we can set safe standards and still preserve the second amendment to our Constitution.

"There's No Such Thing As A Good War Or A Bad Peace"

       Ben Franklin came up with this little thought. As teaching moments go, it's a pretty good one. Some wars may be necessary, most are wars of choice, but none are good. Often peace is hard work, but sometimes peace works out. The thing is, peace is always worth while. And have you noticed that most often war is called by those who don't actually have to go there?
       Wouldn't it be nice if only those who have previously fought in war can vote on going to war. Or how about requiring anyone who votes for war must actually fight in that war. And I don't care how old they might be. And I don't mean behind the lines either. I'll never understand how some old guys can get themselves elected to Congress and then go around trying to pick a fight with anyone they can, as long as they think we can beat that enemy.
       Have you noticed that individual members of Congress can vote for us to go to war? They vote, so that somebody else can get killed. I suppose the only realistic way to stop these yahoos is to return to conscription. Because these yahoos risk nothing personally. Their kids or grandkids don't have to fight these wars. But if their kids might get drafted to fight the wars they start, they might not be quite so anxious to fight a war that can be worked out peacefully.
       Now, what about wars we cannot avoid? Well then the draft would already have been initiated and citizen fighters would already be registered. Then it's just a matter of calling them up and training them. And as long as influential draftees cannot be exempted, we'll be insured Congress will provide the support that's needed, without delay. But also, remember that wars that cannot be avoided are unavoidable because someone missed the chance to work out a solution first.

Congress And The Unemployed.

       There seems to be a continuing effort in Congress to eliminate long term payments of unemployment compensation benefits. The reasons vary but mostly suggest that those on unemployment for extended periods become complacent and wind up as part of the permanent welfare class. One thing that's true is that the longer someone is unemployed, the harder it becomes to get that person rehired. Companies prefer recently working to long term unemployed applicants.
       On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be the will in Congress to get these folks retrained in any other field. Congress doesn't seem to want to spend money on these poor folks in their unemployment to feed them or to teach them how to do any job. I think the idea is that these folks should just get out of bed and go to work. It's just that nobody has figured out where these folks should go to find the jobs. I guess that these Congressmen figure they found jobs so these unemployed folks should go out and get a job too.
       Well, one suggestion would be to go out and campaign for the jobs the current crop of Congressmen have. What they lack in experience might serve them well in Washington and serve the country well too. Now I don't mean to suggest our current crop in Washington aren't doing their jobs properly. It's just that the current crop isn't doing their job at all, mostly.
       There's an old saying "spare the rod, spoil the child." You could easily point out that somewhere along the line, these folks in Washington apparently never felt the rod. I think the best experience our current crop could undergo would be to find themselves unemployed. Even long term unemployed. Although I know of one previous Senator from Pennsylvania who doesn't seem to have learned anything. But that might not be the fault of the unemployment experience.
       The downside to this idea is that most of this current crop are lawyers. I see no value in turning these folk loose on an unsuspecting clientele. Can you imagine hiring one of these lawyers to represent you in a law suit? It might never come to trial.

Take A Look At Your Drug Costs.

       According to an article in the Washington Post today, the pharmaceutical industry has spent an average of  $180,000,000 per year on lobbying for the last fifteen years. That's $2.7 Billion dollars in Washington DC. Why fifteen years? Think back to when Congress and the president first started seriously looking at a prescription drug program, I think under Clinton. And in the plan that finally got passed, Medicare cannot negotiate for pricing on drugs.
       As an example, the article talks about two drugs for an eyesight problem, both made by the same company, both as nearly identical as possible, but one is priced at $2000 per dose, the other $50 per dose. Now which would you expect the manufacturer would prefer to sell? And here's the kicker, Doctors receive 6% over the cost of any drug they choose. So from a strictly financial point of view, which drug would you expect the doctors to choose?
       You're right. That's why it costs Medicare 1.2 billion dollars each year on just that one drug, instead of $30,000,000. A savings of $1.17 billion dollars could have been realized. On just one drug. In just one year. In two years, the savings could have canceled out all the lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry for all drugs for all fifteen years. Can you imagine what Congress could have done with all that money? Some wild parties and significant pay raises?
       No, actually Congress likes to look at things over ten year spans. So, okay, over ten years the savings would amount to $11.7 Billion. And, again, that's just one drug. I can see places where Medicare could develop some serious savings. What if they could only find ten drugs with similar equivalents? That would come to, ah, hm, I think that would be about a $117 billion in savings over ten years. And does anyone think there's only ten overpriced drugs on the market?
       Of course the pharmaceutical industry rightly points out that a fair portion of that money is spent on research and development. Fair enough. Show us an itemized bill and we'll reimburse you. We'd still save hundreds of billions over the next ten years. Now let's look at that Dep't of Defense toilet seat again.

How Come Imnflation is So One Sided?

       Here's just a few facts of interest. Over the last thirty years or so, our productivity has increased by about 90%, but income for the average family has increased only 8%. Want to know more? Our economy has doubled in size but nearly all of the increase in wealth seems to have preferred a select few over our average family. Those select few, 10%, used to get about a third of the wealth, but now enjoy half of all income. The rest of us get to share the other half. I suppose we should be grateful for that much. Now if only we would forget about raising the minimum wage, that divide can continue.
       Look at the difference between thirty years ago when it comes to CEO income compared to average worker income. CEOs used to get about 20 to 30 times what the average workers got. Nowadays CEOs get 273 times what those same average workers make. So how come this enormous inflation works for CEOs but not for average workers? It's not that workers make so much less, they still make about the same. What happened is CEO pay increased to unimaginable heights. How come? I think it's because CEOs have closer associations with the folks who dole out the money. But the average guy doesn't belong to the same country clubs. By the way, all these facts were mentioned in an editorial by Charles M. Blow in the New York Times today.
       But here's the thing, if we remain on the current course, pretty soon that top 10% will be getting 75% and then 90 % and then probably meet their final goal of 100%. At which point, it will be nearly impossible to determine the number of times a CEO's income will compare to the drones, oops, I mean workers. Seriously, at some point those drones (workers) are gonna get fed up with leftovers and take everything away from the 10%ers. Check your history. It's happened in many societies throughout the history of human social groups. The majority at some point will always demand a fair share. And the 10%ers won't be the ones who decide what fair is.

Talk About Stretching The Truth.

       An organization I'd never heard of before is bashing the "Common Core" educational approach being used by most states. It is a program initiated by the states and chief state educational officers. The federal government had no part in this endeavor. That didn't stop this organization, Citizens For Self Government, from trying to tie Common Core to the fed.
       See, the federal government has started to support the decisions of the various states to implement the Common Core improvements by providing grants to the states to help the states to institute these changes. The federal government still does not have any real part in the program.
       That hasn't stopped groups like this Citizens For Self Government and the Tea Party from trying to make it sound like the whole thing is a federal government ploy to take over our education. Although, certainly our educational system needs somebody to take it over and straighten it out. Which is exactly why the states got together to come up with Common Core. On Their own.
       Of course the Tea Party and CFSG and like organizations will tell you that our educational systems are best run by local elected officials, which of course, Common Core doesn't change except to require all schools in each state to teach the same subject matter. Currently, each state sets goals and minimums based on financial concerns rather than educational minimums.
       So under Common Core, for instance, one school district can't teach at one level and another school teach at a different level. In other words, one school can't graduate a student with no math while another requires math but not English. It also looks at international norms in math and science and endeavors to teach to those norms. Why? Because America is and will continue to compete internationally for jobs. If we hope to lure jobs to America, we've got to be better educated than our competition. There is no evidence that having individual school districts setting their own levels of student competency works to the betterment of the students. In some cases it hinders that effort.

Money Talks.

       Did you know that just over half of the citizens of America, 57.5%, voted in the 2012 elections? Half of all Americans eligible to vote didn't bother. Or were stopped from voting because of one form of obstruction or another. And by that I mean anything from no transportation to voter restrictions to just not caring. Now, if you asked how many citizens have complained about elected officials and their actions, I'd say about 85.5% fit that category. And of those who did not vote in 2012, the numbers look more like 95.5%
       But fair is fair. We're not required to vote. A lot of people just don't see the need to vote. After all, does our vote really count? Even if the candidate of our choice gets elected, the chances that he or she will carry out the promises he made to us is only about 10%. And if the other candidate gets elected you can bet there is no chance we'll see anything good come out of government.  So why should we vote?
       Then there's the constituents that matter the most and least. It amazes me that the constituents that matter the most when it comes to getting elected, at least on election day, are the voters. The people, the human citizens. The rest of the year the constituents that matter the most are the non-human kind and a few, very few, humans too. I speak of the corporations, the big ones that control the purse strings for the elections. And be honest. It is the money that speaks the loudest.
       Let's face it, you or I can call or write the newspaper about a political or governmental problem we think needs to be righted, or a politician we think is best suited for a position and maybe it will get printed, but not often. But let a major corporation send in a full page political ad or a commentary for the editorial page and you can bet it'll get printed. It's the money that talks.
       So why do so few people exercise their given right to vote or to their free speech? Because they are convinced their voices will not be heard. How come? Because money talks. And for some reason, the Supreme Court of the United States has insured that money will have a bigger and bigger place in the country's decision making process.

Drug Cartels Are just Like Regular People.

       There is an article that appeared in the Washington Post today, by Scott Jaschik titled Welcome To Our Tijuana Campus. The whole point of the article is an attempt to suggest that Academia acts like a drug cartel, at times. It tells of young PhDs that are treated similar to the lowest tier drug dealers working for very low pay in the hopes of making it to the top where they will make untold riches. These young PhDs work for low pay in hopes of getting tenure and moving up the scale to become a highly respected, and highly paid, professor of note.
       Drug lords depend on these low paid workers so they can make the millions they've become accustomed to. The big time professors depend on these low paid PhDs to do the leg work for them so they can concentrate on the big prizes, like money. So there really are similarities between these two very different approaches to life.
       But the article really didn't need to go quite that far. Mr. Jaschik could just as easily have used nearly any corporation in the country, or the world as the example. Or for that matter he could have compared nearly any corporation to a drug cartel. Does anyone think corporations don't work and act the same way? Why is it that Walmart pays its workers so little? Or McDonalds, or just about any other company? If you don't think its a case of greed, raise your hand. You may be right. It may not be greed. It might just be coincidence the owners and CEOs of these companies are making millions and living in splendor while their workers are making starvation wages and living in squalor.
       It might be coincidence. It might be, but I can tell you only the ones making the big bucks believe that. And those folks only believe it because they talk themselves into believing it. Not that those folks go around talking to themselves about this issue. Mostly they don't even think about the difference between how they live and how their workers live. The reason I'm convinced of that is that I don't think anyone is so callous as to reflect on the suffering of their workers and not care. Of course I could be wrong.
      

Don't We Just Weave Confussion.

       Well, today our Supreme Court is set to look into just how much of a person a corporation is. Especially For Profit corporations. Remember back in the Citizens United case it decided that corporations could give as much money as they wanted to influence elections because, after all, corporations had a right to free speech. All the free speech they want because they're people too.
       Well now the court is going to decide if corporations are also religious companies. Can a corporation opt out of Obamacare because certain rules in Obamacare are against its sensibilities? Now, churches and other religious organizations have that right, but does a company that is in business to make a profit and is not , in fact, related to any religious organization have that right?
       The thing is, if corporations can opt out simply by saying they object on religious grounds, then they suddenly have more rights than private individuals. All except the vote. Corporations can't vote. Yet! So if this case is decided in favor of corporations, then the next thing you know corporations will be back in front of the court demanding the vote. Of course when they win that one, every person in the country who has an interest in politics will apply to incorporate. Why? Because it would effectively give each person two votes.
       See you could vote on your own behalf, assuming you have the proper identification, and then vote on behalf of your corporation. It's the One Man Two Votes theory. Or, if you're having difficulty getting the required voter ID, once you incorporate, you can vote whether you're an illegal alien or not. That would be the Corporate Voter Alternative theory. That brings up a third question. What if corporations incorporate as a subsidiary? Would that add an additional vote? See, the guy that incorporated gets to vote, the corporation gets to vote and the subsidiary gets to vote. This would be the One Man, Three Votes theory. If you carry this theory out to its logical conclusion, there would be nearly eleven billion votes cast in America for even county dogcatcher.
       With that many voters, there will surely be exponentially that many more court cases. That means we'd have to have a second Supreme Court. One to make the final decision and the other to disagree. I suppose at that point we'd have to establish a Supreme Being Court to decide the final outcome.

What A Blessing Work Is.

       Ya know, I've been hearing that a lot of folks are unhappy about stores being open on Thanksgiving and how that means that poorer employees won't be able to share in the celebration of the bounty of the holiday. The time for family will be lost to these hapless employees who have no choice but to work while their families must celebrate without those loved ones. How unfair is that?
       But there's another way of looking at this thing. After all, if you're poor, if you have trouble keeping food on the table and a roof over the heads of your family, exactly what bounty were you supposed to celebrate? The bounty of pay your boss earns in future stocks, expenses and exorbitant pay? The bounty of the dividends the stockholders earn at your expense? Maybe the bounty of the customers as they first enjoy shopping and then home to the big feast with family and friends? Just which bounty do these employees get to enjoy?
       Maybe they're better off earning a little extra this holiday so they can pay off a little more of their debt, so they can receive a little less in food stamps because Congress doesn't think they need so much and a little less in aid because they get a slightly larger paycheck. Yes, there's a lot to be thankful for, for these low paid wage earners at the mercy of a greedy culture. Of course let's not forget that managers have to work on this holiday too. I wonder how much they held out for? Just wait for bonus time for that shoe to drop.
       No, for these lucky folks, working when everyone else is enjoying the day with family and friends just might be the kindest way to treat them. Convincing a clerk he's better off working and making all that extra money may be the best way for a company to show him how much they respect and care for him. Just don't mention that he's gonna get the short end come time to apply for monthly assistance. But after all, with all that extra money in the paycheck, after any and all deductions, he'll be in a position to go hungry one fewer meal. It'll mean a lot to the kids.
       So even though he wasn't there to share the feast with them, there's always Christmas. I wonder how much they'll pay him to have to work that day too? Just think of the kids happiness, and his too as he misses the opening of that toy. Maybe two if Toys For Tots comes through.

Anything's Possible.

       Well, India's going. We've been there, or to be more specific we threw a little machine there. Yep, India's sending a spaceship to Mars. Now, there are those who are against the idea. Spend the money on the poor some say. It's like here in America. Some folks want to spend a lot of money on alternative sources of energy. Then again, some folks want to spend no money on fairy tales.
       Now when it comes to alternative energy sources, right away people start pointing to Solyndra, the solar panel company we spent half a billion on and the company went out of business because it couldn't produce a good working product people could afford. Alternative energy sources just aren't possible at the magnitude necessary to power America. We can't give up coal, oil and gas to go on a wild goose chase. And that's a fact. The cost would be prohibitive. And that makes a lot of sense too.
       Then again we're celebrating the life of a president this last week. So what's my point? Well, I'm old enough to remember that president saying, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Then he turned around and told us we would put a man on the moon in ten years. What a laugh. Nobody had ever gone even a hundred miles up in the air. Who's kidding whom? It couldn't be done. Except that it did get done. Even though there were lots of failures before it got done. We still sent a couple of guys up there, twice, to walk on the moon.
       So now folks say we can't replace fossil fuels for the energy we need. It simply can't be done. I can just see JFK rolling over in his grave and saying "Didn't they learn anything from that trip to the moon?" Don't we understand that anything is possible if we really want it to happen? Some folks will tell you the cost would be prohibitive. They said that about the trip to the moon. But it put millions of people to work and all the technology we enjoy today would still be a glimmer in someone's dreams without that effort.
       I wonder if we can afford not to make the choice to find those sources of energy, so we can stop polluting the world with these toxic fuels we seem to be tied to. When you see leaders fighting this idea, look to see where their loyalties lie. Do they get their funding from the robber barons of fossil fuels? I can almost guarantee it.

What's A Holiday, Anyway?

       Well, shopping hours commence early on Thanksgiving morning. Thank goodness for that. I was concerned I'd have to overeat on that dreaded holiday. Now I can go turkey-less until Christmas. Unless we can convince stores to open early Christmas morning to buy more Christmas presents. Who knows, we might find some special gifts for next year. It's never to early to start your holiday shopping. Don't you remember all those Christmas ads that started just before Labor Day?
       You think I'm kidding, don't you? Well I'm not. Remember the old days when you couldn't start serious Christmas shopping until the Friday after Thanksgiving? Remember how the crowds rushed to get to all the sales items before anyone else, and how some people always got injured? Well now Black Friday will just be like any other good shopping day. Now Thanksgiving day will be when people get injured or be able to fight over the last two special games on the shelves.
       Forty one hours of specials shopping.... and counting. I suspect the big sales will soon begin on Halloween, or maybe even Labor Day. Of course that will mean holiday ads and decorations will need to begin sometime shortly after Memorial Day.
       I'm surprised that some other holidays haven't caught on as shopping magnets Why isn't it that the Ides of March hasn't become a national buy a gun day, or maybe President's day could be advertised as a day to Invest in New Transportation Day. Certainly Easter should become known as All New Wardrobe Day. So I guess Memorial Day should forevermore become known as Fresh Landscaping Day. Arbor Day? Buy Real Estate Day. Armistice Day still gives me pause. How can we turn it into a profitable celebration? Hey, Independence Day could be Buy A Politician Day.
       The more I think about it, Labor Day is gonna have to become a day of work. To pay for all the sales items we've bought on the rest of the holidays. But after all, all this stuff we buy on these special days is really cheap compared to the usual prices. Even if we didn't need it.

Success And Profit Or Profit Without Success?

       I've been in some discussions of late about the fairness of CEO pay compared to average worker pay. There are those who feel that the enormous financial packages current CEOs get are only fair. After all in these times of international business and  multinational corporations, it's a big job and hard work to run a company. These leaders deserve every bit they get.
       It's the business model for the 21st century. A free and open market operates under the supply and demand principle. If you're a scarce commodity, in other words if you're successful, if you make bigger profits, you deserve more of those profits. If you're a worker and there are thousands applying for your job, you aren't worth so much.
       But as a business model, that has never been a good or sound model. If the only way your company can make the profits it needs and wants is to harm it's workers, then that company is not successful. It may be profitable, but not successful. There's a deference between the two. Profitability depends on nobody. The minute you become a liability, you're gone.
       Success is built over time. It means your leaders are well served and your workers make a living wage. If everyone is happy, everyone should work harder to make the company more successful and profitable. It has to do with pride of ownership. As an owner you take pride in the way you treat your whole staff, management takes pride in the performance of the whole company, the workers take pride in the product they make. Everyone wins.
       In a profit model, there's little pride if any. The workers have no pride and would quit in a second if they find anything better, management is only interested in their pay and will also switch jobs for an extra dime, and the owners see only the bottom line, not the satisfaction of seeing a job well done. In the profit model of supply and demand, the only determining factor is money. It does not allow for intrinsic values, good citizenship, fairness or compassion. Only money, only the bottom line matters. Not even the quality of the product matters or the good will of your customer. Only how much the owners take home. It's a cutthroat way of life. Where's the happiness and pride? Nearly all successful models are profitable, not that many profit models are successful.
  

Just How Important is Your freedom?

       A friend of mine has a bi-weekly editorial in an area newspaper. One of his most recent editorials hit a nail I've been trying to drive home. Steve points out that voting is a very important part of  'free speech' and as such should not be restricted in any way. While nobody may actually be verbalizing at the time of voting, that's no different than funding commercials to tear down the "other side". In fact it's far more important than just spending money to voice your opinion and as such must be and is protected under the Constitution. Voters must not be restricted from voting nor coerced into voting a certain way.
       So what does that mean? It means that when a state tries to restrict this form of free speech, it ignores the Constitution. Folks scream like hell about the right to bear arms under the Constitution and fear to register to buy a gun, but don't seem to mind if states require you to jump through high hoops to register to vote. Which is more important? Guns or voting? I leave that answer to you, but to own a gun is not more important than to vote your own choice.
       When any state chooses to restrict voting by means of subterfuge or openly flaunts the Constitution, that state must be prosecuted and required to cease and desist such actions. Since voting is a Constitutional right under the first amendment (abridging the freedom of speech) and as such is constitutional, no state can stop or hinder the exercise of this freedom. Voting is not dependent upon the voters membership in a certain party or demographic. No choice of candidate can determine the voter's right. And no long list of extraordinary proof can be required to vote, anywhere in America.
       If you agree with this appraisal, don't tell me, tell your Congressman and Senators. Then tell the White House. That's another form of freedom of speech. It needs to be exercised.

Dad Ain't Gonna Like Our Report Card.

       Well, how's the war on greenhouse gases going? Are we generating less CO2? Are we beginning cut back on the pollution in the world's atmosphere we breathe and the water we drink? How about the land itself, have we reduced the amount of contaminates and toxic chemicals there too? Can we be proud of our successes in these areas?
       I'm sorry, but it appears we're not living up to our expectations. In fact in a lot of these areas, we're falling further behind. Take the goal of turning away from fossil fuel energy sources for instance. Since the Fukushima disaster in Japan, it has closed all it's nuclear power plants and it's goal of reducing carbon emissions by 25 % by 2020 will instead increase emissions by 3%. Germany also closed half it's reactors and plans to close the rest to use coal and gas instead, so you know what's gonna happen there. Worldwide, we're increasing earth's greenhouse gases and few are worried about it.
       Now, as for me, I'm not likely to suffer to terribly much over the balance of my life, but then I'm old. Nor do I live near any ocean, and we've not been experiencing drought here and if it get's a little warmer in the Winter, I won't complain. Of course if it gets hotter in the Summer it means I'll have to stay indoors in air-conditioning, but I'm not seeing my home disappear under water. Food could become more of a problem. Affordable food, if it became scarce, might be troublesome but then I could afford to lose a little weight.
       No I'm not likely to suffer like a lot of folks will before this thing is over. But a lot of folks around the world and around town will definitely feel the pinch. And it doesn't help when government is cutting back on safety-net programs and threatening to cut back even more. I suspect the wealthy have something to do with that. If you think you're paying too much of you're income to provide help to families that are struggling, and you're not, you're not going to be in favor of paying out any more on things you don't need. Now tax cuts, that's the kind of legislation you favor. Especially if you're getting favored status on tax exemptions.
       The point is, all of this chatter has to do with climate change. And it won't matter whether you believe humans are to blame or not. You're still gonna feel the brunt of that change. Why wouldn't it make sense to stop pouring out carbon and begin to breathe a little fresher air? It might even open up new job opportunities. Take a chance. Where's the kind of courage our forefathers displayed?

From Russia, But Maybe Not With Love.

       There's a thought provoking article in our local paper today about some international news that's buried in section B on page 3. It seems Russia is interested in purchasing a number of properties around the country. The reason for buying these small parcels of land is in order to build satellite and GPS stations in order for them to further develop their own GPS system (global positioning system). It seems the Russians do not have sufficient confidence in our GPS system.
       Now there are any number of reasons for wanting to develop their own GPS systems. For one important reason, such systems has led to spawn new industries and applications. So, for instance, they could help to direct folks to local fast foods, like our system does, track satellites, like ours does and another aid, that of helping to guide missiles. For some unknown reason, they don't want to have to depend on our system. Why do you suppose that is?
       Russia isn't alone in wanting to develop their own GPS system. China wants to have such a system as do a couple of European countries. Now is that a good idea? For everybody to have the ability to more accurately guide weapons of mass destruction to anywhere in the world?  Should we help this to take place? Will refusing to allow it in some way stop us from providing our GPS service to whom we will? Will it disrupt our accuracy? Hey, ours is already up and running fairly smoothly.
       Let's look at some facts and ask some questions. Do we depend on Russia for our system? Could it be potentially harmful to assist Russia in improving on their system? Even though it could come back to bite us? What has Russia done for us lately? Why is it that we need to help Vladimir Putin place his country in a better strategic position? What's he promising in return? Hmmm, it seems I'm short on facts and long on questions. I'm not alone. The U.S. spy services are questioning the idea of allowing this to happen. It's a bit like helping a gunman to load his firearm so he can shoot you more times. I'm not in favor of anybody shooting me.

Why Our Courts Are Political.

       Tom Toles, the Washington Post's cartoonist makes a great point with one of his latest cartoons. If you recall, the minority in the Senate is against President Obama appointing any more judges to the circuit court for the middle district for Washington, D.C. The Senate minority claims there are enough judges on the court already. It doesn't need more judges for the amount of work it does. So the cartoon asks the question; Exactly how many of you are there in Congress?
       Based on the amount of work that gets done by Congress, my guess would be three is all that's needed. Maybe two for the house and one for the Senate. You could call the rest advisors to the Congress. In fact, by doing that, we could eliminate all lobbyists because that would be a duplication of effort. After all, by having more than one source of advise would just confuse these leaders. In fact as a measure of cost savings, we could reduce Congress to two. One for the Senate and one for the House. After all, at the level of accomplishments currently being demonstrated, even that number may be too high.
       I read an article a while back that stated the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, as it is formally known, was the busiest of all the appellate courts. These courts act like State Supreme Courts for the Federal judicial system.
       The question is, why would a court that has operated with nine judges for most of the time, but is currently understaffed, that now has fewer judges with arguably more work than usual be deemed as having no need for the full court? You don't suppose politics has entered into the discussion do you? Now, having more or less judges wouldn't make a difference unless the current staff leans in one direction while the President, who would make appointments, leans in the other direction. But that would mean that those opposing more justices are doing so for political gain. If the status quo pleases them, and any new appointments probably wouldn't please them, well then....

Poor Michelle.

       I just learned from the Drudge Report that Michelle Bachmann is claiming she has lost her healthcare insurance. As though the Affordable Care Act has singled her out. Actually the deal is that Congress, that means every Congressman and Senator, will no longer have their special "Cadillac" policy from the government. They'll have to buy their own insurance like everybody else. So now she's complaining that her insurance will go up when she finally decides to sign up. Well, let's hope so. Members of Congress have enjoyed a low cost, high quality policy for decades and the government has been subsidizing it. Which means taxpayers have been subsidizing it.
       It's interesting how a certain portion of Congress continues to claim the ACA is unfixable and must be repealed. Over and over they claim the law has no redeeming qualities. That is until you start ticking off the parts everyone likes. No pre-existing exceptions, children up to 26 can be insured under parents policy, 20 million or more uninsured get to have insurance now, thus relieving hospitals and taxpayers from the costs of unpaid emergency room expenses, just to name a few.
       Actually that last one isn't counted as a plus by these folks who are against the ACA. Presumably they prefer a sicker uninsured lower class. I don't know what these folks have against the poor. Why is it that they hate the poor so much? I don't think they hate them individually, but as a collection of folks living in poverty, these good souls dislike them for.... what? It must be slothfulness. I'll bet that's it. These folks are working several jobs trying to support their families and that is just un-American in the minds of our ACA haters.
       If you're not extremely successful, you aren't one of them and that seems to be unforgivable. Now to be fair, the poor are liked at times. If only the poor would vote for these extreme candidates with their extreme ideology, then they'd be loved until right after election day. Ya see, when some folks take their marching orders from corporate America, then what you get is lower wages, no benefits and a life of struggle. Ain't it great?

The New Welfare Queens.

       What's the face of a welfare queen look like these days? Well according to the National Memo today, it looks a lot like Walmart and McDonalds. Now I know you're probably wondering how these extremely profitable and huge corporations are connected to welfare. Do they actually get direct government aid? Not really, but they do in a round about way.
       Here's what happens according to the article. Because most of the employees of corporations like Walmart and McDonalds and a bunch of others, are so poorly paid, they're mostly eligible for government aid and food stamps. In fact Walmart's average employee gets about $1000 and McDonalds has a help line "McResource" that explains to it's employees how to apply for both state and federal aid. How that helps the Walmarts and McDonalds of the country is that they don't have to pay their people very much, they let the government pick up the tab for supporting the employees. So the Welfare Queen doesn't always live in inner cities anymore. More like plush boardrooms.
       What the article doesn't talk about is all the welfare queens in Congress. Say what? There's a whole bunch of Congressmen and Senators who receive aid because they're "farmers". Folks like Michelle Bachmann and her husband. She's been a Congresswoman for quite a while and her husband is an extremely successful businessman. I don't know how they manage to get out and plow the south forty, but I do know they get a hefty farm aid check every year. And they're not alone.
       Then there've been several stories in the last couple of weeks in the news about defense contractors and both civilian and military officers making a killing on some shady deals. If you add all these "takers" up, it amounts to a whole lot more than the poor folks trying to put food on the table and keep the home fires lit. We need to worry less about folks buying junk food with food stamps and  begin to worry about all these mega companies and fat cat legislators feeding off the government teat. The surest way to get folks off the welfare rolls is to require companies to pay a living minimum wage. That and eliminate aid to the wealthy.

Ah. The Trials And Tribulations

       As some of you may know, I've written a couple of children's stories. As some of you may also know it's very hard to get a book published. At least it is unless you are a sitting Congressman or Senator or Governor or President, or have been such in the past. Or unless you are a TV personality or TV wannabee personality. Of course these folks don't actually write these books so much as they "co-write" them. Which is to say, they hire a writer to write the book for them.
       Now of course there is always the self publishing route for those folks who are not among the wordsmiths listed above. There's even an entire industry of publishing companies who will publish anything you would like to write down. You could write down the names of everyone you know backwards and these publishers will put it in print, for a "small fee."
       But if you want a literary agent and a big name publisher to handle your work, you've got to be someone of considerable importance. Or you have to already be a successfully published author, although I'm not sure how you go about being successful without first being new at it. Therefore, I've decided to resurrect my candidacy for whatever office it takes to be accepted by the literary community. That leaves out dogcatcher I believe. I'll let you be the judge as to what office you feel I'm fit for. Although I still like the idea of President.
       It didn't used to be like this, there was a time when someone could get an idea for a story, sit down and type it up and send it in, get turned down a dozen times or so and then, BAM, you get your book published and you become a big wealthy star. Maybe even get your story made into a blockbuster movie. But not anymore. Now you have to be somebody important. Obviously I'm not. That's why I need to run for elective office. And this time I'm going to have to win.
       So unless you want to listen to me whine about not getting rich the rest of your life, you're gonna have to help me get elected. You can start by making an obscene donation to my new PAC. Actually it's my old PAC, P.I.M.P., Put In My Pocket. Hey if enough of you give enough, I won't have to run for office or publish anything either.

Beware A Terrorist In Shorts.

       Of all the important concerns facing America these days, which problem, in your opinion, is the most vexing and at the same time, important, problem needing to be worked out as quickly as possible? Is it the economy? Perhaps healthcare, or immigration, inequality, jobs, taxes, politics, foreign policy? Just what is the biggest problem?
       May I suggest one not previously mentioned? There is a divorced couple in New York City, according to the New York Post, who share custody of their 4 year old son. On a weekend recently, the dad wanted to take his son to their usual restaurant for dinner. The son threw a temper tantrum because he demanded to be taken to McDonalds. Dad refused, and finally gave the boy a choice, either anywhere else but McDonalds, or no supper at all. The 4 year old son chose no supper at all.
       On the way back to mom's dad tried to sooth things over and get the boy to go out for dinner. The boy refused. When he got home, the boy tattled on dad. Mom took the boy to McDonalds at once, presumably as a reward, and then sued to remove dad from custody as an unfit parent. A court appointed psychiatrist agreed with mom so now dad is suing the shrink.
       As you can see, this is the real problem facing America today. Joe Scarborough put it this way this morning on Morning Jo, "you don't negotiate with terrorists." So the real question before us today is, do we negotiate with children? Do we just give in? Or do we send them to bed with no supper? Remember you're dealing with a shrink who has already stated you were wrong to deprive that child of fries with that. No super-sizing means no visitations. If the child goes Big Mac-less, dad goes child-less. Worthless toy or no? Which parent did the right thing?
       If mom had refused to allow the boy to play in the street, should the father then have allowed it? If the son wanted to go sky-diving and dad said he could go to MacDonald's instead, should mom have taken the boy sky-diving? Perhaps a compromise that would be to allow the boy to eat a Big Mac while floating to earth? The answer here is simple. There's only really two possible answers. Yes or no. Was the shrink and therefore the mom, correct or not. Well, the psychiatrist is doing a forensic evaluation of the facts. In other words, she'll get back to you. Or in this case, she'll get back to the judge.

A Call To Arms. We're At War Again.

       Oh my gosh. We're at war again. America seems to be at war most of the time and we've fought more enemies than anyone since the ancient Romans. But this time it's different, our government promises. This time we'll actually be saving lives. When have we heard that one before? Well, this time the enemy is transfats. I don't even know what country transfats are from. But one thing is for sure. They have invaded America and they are killing people left and right. It's pretty much a bipartisan problem. The enemy is among us. This enemy is not our true friend, even though the transfats have given us exactly what we wanted, great taste.
       These transfats with their partially hydrogenated oils stealth fighters, have found their way into our food chain. It must have been thought that the hydrogenated oil would lubricate the food chain, but it clogs things up instead. Now some folks are still not convinced of the danger this enemy presents. After all, being gratified by having so many, otherwise un-tasty edibles, become favorite  taste tempters is cause to pause, for another of those sumptuous treats.
       We should have known of this danger. After all partially hydrogenated oil! Hydrogen- ated as in hydrogen bomb! These transfats have been feeding us mini-bombs all these years and some of those bombs are exploding, killing people. It's sortta like hiding something in plain sight. Hydrogenated, right in the name and nobody caught the real meaning. What an insidious enemy.
       We would have been far better off if we had declared war on these transfats long ago, along with sugar, salt, litterbugs and a whole host of other problem causers. We could have overlooked at least half a dozen wars of choice by waging war one or all of these dastardly Doolittle's. Then there's the oil part. Don't forget that. We've been preparing to do battle with the forces of oil for nearly a century. At least foreign oil. We don't mind our own, but them danged foreigners!
       Now you may think I'm poking fun at this problem. Well I am, but it really is a health problem. And with this country's track record on healthcare, it's about time we started doing something right.
So banning your favorite snack is a small sacrifice for the greater good.
      

I Feel Bad For Those Hospitals.

         The New York Times has an article this morning about how the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, has eliminated special funding to hospitals so they can care for poor sick people, people with no insurance. How could the president do such a mean spirited thing? So I read the article to find out more. Turns out hospitals in those states that refused to participate in Obamacare, and therefore effectively blocking those patients from getting insurance, are pointing fingers at the president's healthcare law, along with those states, for this dastardly deed.
       Turns out the special funding is being eliminated by the Affordable Care Act because those poor uninsured folks will now have insurance to pay for their hospital visits. Now the law was passed before those bright red states decided to boycott Obamacare. Actually it was the Supreme Court that gave those states permission to do the boycotting. The thing is though, it isn't the Affordable Care Act that's causing these hospitals to suffer financially, it's the fault of the states that are doing the boycotting that should be faulted.
       It really doesn't matter whether you like or dislike the law. Since it's free to the states for three years and 90% free afterwards, not taking advantage of the program is almost exclusively a political choice. Those states could still join in the program or at least help those who want that insurance. So since the hospitals are struggling as a result of their states' intransigence, it seems to me the states should pick up the tab.
       I think those hospitals need to complain to and about the states, not Obamacare. By the way, the good citizens of those states still have to pay taxes, and whatever costs to the government for Obamacare, those good folks are still helping to pay for those costs. Still the argument is out there that the federal government should pay these hospitals in states that won't agree to participate. Why? The federal government came up with a solution. It's the states that refuse to accept that solution. Those states need to pay the hospitals if they don't like the solution provided. Again, it's a political problem created by those states.

School Taxes!

       What is it about taxes and schools? People seem to be against anything that might cost a little more in taxes. No matter if it means better or worse education. In fact it seems there are a lot of folks out there that believe less tax money means better education. Maybe they don't actually think that, they just don't want their taxes to go up, no matter what. Fair enough, but we still need to improve our education in this country. Because America is falling behind other countries in that department.
       Of course even in that department, some folks don't believe it for one minute. Some folks don't care, they still won't vote for higher taxes. How come? Well, partly because some folks don't have any kids in school now, so why should I have to pay for somebody else's kids. Of course somebody else paid for your kids and for you to get a good education. Opps, ears are now closed.
       Here's another argument; When you get ready to retire, who's gonna pay for your retirement? It'll have to be the kids in school today or the near future. Social Security and the economy that you will be forced to depend upon will be forced to depend upon the level of education and the caliber of that education these kids have received. That's because the countries with the best educational systems will get the best jobs. And that will determine those country's economies and ours.
       So while more money just thrown at the current system probably won't help much, cutting teachers and programs will hurt. What needs to happen is politicians need to quit ignoring and complaining about our educational system and start working to redesign it. Look at the countries that are excelling in education. Countries like South Korea, Finland and even Canada. How can we claim some programs are too hard for our kids when Canadian kids are doing these programs and surpassing our kids? We should be ashamed that we're not holding our kids to a higher standard.
       I don't blame folks for not wanting to pay higher taxes for a system that's not producing the way we need it to. But when new approaches are suggested, we need to stand behind them. That didn't happen in Colorado this week. When inequality is killing the chances for success for poor communities and their children, we need to correct the imbalance. That didn't happen in Colorado this week either. Ya know what that is? That's just plain DUMB. Penny wise and pound foolish.

Don't Pester My Drilling Rig.

       Have you heard about the Greenpeace ship that was boarded by fifteen armed Russian security agents back in September? The folks on board the arctic Sunrise were peacefully protesting against a Russian drilling rig owned by Gazprom. They were taken to Murmansk and charged with piracy. Now, Putin's people have added the dreaded HOOLIGAN charge to the offenses against the prisoners.
       Well, I don't know what you may think of Greenpeace, whether busybodies or interferers or just plain old fashioned tree huggers, but I'm aghast to learn these interlopers have taken to piracy on the high seas. Can you imagine a crew of unarmed environmentalists turned pirates attacking a drilling rig in the Arctic ocean? I presume the plan was to take this 'prize' to the nearest port and seeking to outfit it into a stealth attack drilling rig in order to sally forth to capture additional drilling rigs for the treasure chests on board these Russian Galleons.
       But for these peaceful pirates to actually have turned into HOOLIGANS is reprehensible. Why I'm surprised that it only took fifteen armed agents to subdue the thirty people from around the world. To capture that many HOOLIGANS I'd have expected a fleet of warships complete with no less than fifteen hundred marines. Russian Security Agents must be far more scary than I had previously thought. Especially when fully armed and ready to match up with unarmed pirates.
       That's the part I don't understand. Unarmed pirates? Where were these pirates' combat signs? You know, NO DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC, or OIL IS BAD or DRINK VODKA NOT GASOLINE. But no such weaponry was mentioned. Unless the mere charge of HOOLIGANISM is sufficient to explain the danger they presented to the crew of that ill-fated drilling rig under full sail. How fast did the Arctic Sunrise had to travel to catch up with that drilling rig? Were they flying the skull and crossbones or were they sneaking up on the unsuspecting crew? This would be the stuff of a new piracy on the high seas thriller if it weren't for the fact that a nation member of the United Nations, Permanent Security Council is actually using these silly charges against a pesky environmental group simply because the group was, well, pesky.

As Fatal Flaws Go, We've Got A Beaut.

       Do you know what a "fatal flaw" is? Charles Blow, in the New York Times this morning explained one when he suggested that Republicans in Congress seem to think the way things were two or three decades ago are so much better than any way they could be in the future. It seems that nothing can improve what we had 'back then' so let's get back to then, now.
       The problem is that things weren't all that great back then, but they could be much better now if only people would begin to try to work together. And let's not forget that Democrats are not without faults. While the Affordable Care Act is a good start, it isn't the panacea Democrats seem to think it is. And things certainly aren't all that much better than they were a few decades ago.
       Now I wouldn't expect the Republicans and Democrats in Congress and elsewhere to sit down around the old campfire and sing Kum be Yah. Nor do I expect that they will huddle around in a think-tank setting to come up with the kind of legislation we need for our country to succeed. Ya know, actually I do expect them to do just that. Not the Kum be Yah, but the think-tank and the kind of legislation we need. They won't, but that's what I expect of them. Conservatives and progressives have different ideas of the way things should be. Unfortunately neither way would work well on it's own, for everyone, but an amalgam of something between the two just might work out to be a great solution.
       So what are the chances of that happening? Well, that's the real fatal flaw in our world and in our country. Nobody trusts the other side enough to try it out. Everybody seems to hate the idea that the other side might have a better idea, and they hate it so much they aren't willing to try. I'll bet that if you put an ultra-conservative and an ultra-liberal in a room together, between the two of them they couldn't figure out how to get out of the room. Even if the door was left open. They'd be too busy accusing each other of getting themselves into this sorry fix.
       What if we had a law that stated that anyone elected to national office who could not agree to work together with the whole Congress to create fair and helpful laws within 30 days would be ushered out of office and not be allowed to run again for four years? But what Congressman would vote for such a law? I guess it would be fair to say Congress is a fatal flaw.

Win If You Win, Win If You Lose.

       I've talked about Farm Subsidies before, but this is about crop insurance. Now, I think crop insurance is a smart idea. It requires that farmers pay a premium for loss of crops because of weather. Then if they do lose their crops, they get paid by the insurance for the loss instead of experiencing catastrophic loss and the government stepping in after the fact like after hurricanes. This all sounds good, right? And it is, as far as it goes.
       The problem, though, and you know there's always a problem, is that when they get paid for their loss, farmers get repaid by the government, in other words taxpayers. But after all, food is too important to overlook. The thing is, however, that even if a farmer is in an area where they know they're going to be in a  severe drought, as long as he plants the seeds, he's gonna get paid by the insurance. So as far as the farmer is concerned, and the seed company, the insurance is a great deal.
       There's another kicker though. If the farmer plants his seeds, knowing they will die, he still gets paid, but he gets paid at the inflated price those crops would get  during the drought because of scarcity. So he gets a higher price, because if somehow he had been able to sell real product during the drought, he'd have reaped a larger than usual profit. This makes the farmer hope for dry years, or early frost to kill the crop. So farmers can actually make more if they lose their crop than if they harvest a good crop.
       I don't think that's what Congress had in mind when they passed the law. At least I hope Congress didn't have that in mind. Although given that a number of Congressmen own "working" farms, you never know. Now, if you don't believe in climate change, it's no big deal to you, but for the rest of the country, we could wind up paying these farmers and seed companies way too much money for doing pretty much nothing. I can see smart entrepreneurs buying fallow land in drought stricken areas and planting whatever seeds are most likely to fail as an investment.
       I guess the thing Congress should do is limit the consecutive years of drought it will pay for. Then stop the loophole that would allow phony farmers from taking part. Of course that's asking a lot of a Congress that has trouble agreeing on what day it is.

The Problem Is That Everybody Has A Different Idea.

       I'm trying to figure out how they think this will all work out. They say we need to reduce our deficit. They say we need to improve our economy. They say lower taxes is the first thing to do. They say we need to develop jobs. But everybody seems to have a different idea as to which is more important, here and now. And a different idea as to how to overcome each of those problems. Why, there are even folks who think that education is the most important concern.
       Of course when you look at each one, you find other folks who will explain why each one isn't the most important issue. Take education for instance. Some say we need to spend more on education, some tell you throwing more money at education won't improver the outcome. The retort is that less money certainly won't improve the outcome. A lot of states have decided to cut funding to education, presumably to see if it helps or hurts.
       But if you ask companies why they don't bring more jobs back, they'll tell you our workers aren't prepared to handle today's hi tech jobs. Now whether or not you agree with that, that's the answer you get from the companies with the jobs. Well, that and the taxes are too high. But after you look into it, you find most companies pay very little in taxes for one reason or another.
       So, in order to reduce the deficit, if you cut taxes, how do you pay down the deficit? With lower revenue? How do you improve the economy if jobs refuse to comer back. It makes sense to me to concentrate on education. If our workers were better able to handle the newer hi tech jobs, they'd make more, thereby providing more revenue, even with lower taxes. Of course just spending more on education really won't guarantee a better outcome. We have to be smarter about how we make our kids smarter.
       We need to stop teaching to tests and start teaching critical thinking, especially in math and science. Students need to learn how to think. For themselves. Multiple choice and true-false tests are too easy to guess at. It's time to make students think about a question. About how to answer it. How to communicate that they actually know what the question is asking and that they have figured out how to answer it. Because that's what job creators want from the people they hire. That's what will tell us how much to spend on education.

The A B Cs of Spying.

       Okay, here's where we're at. We've been spying on our enemies and our friends and everybody in between for years. In fact for decades, to varying degrees and with varying degrees of success. So have our enemies and friends and everybody in between been spying on us to varying degrees with varying degrees of success. That's really been what's called a secret everybody knows but nobody admits to. Everybody does it and nobody talks about it. Sortta like cheating on taxes.
       Then all of a sudden a couple of guys have spilled the beans. And now the French and Germans have to act shocked and displeased. And maybe they are, even though they know they do it themselves. Now it's time for us to act contrite. We're very sorry, we'll be more careful in the future. Of course it'll take time for the French and Germans to get over it, but they will. Especially if they get something juicy in the meantime.
       It's sortta much ado about little. When you spy on your friends, it's mostly to figure out how much they'll agree with what you want to do. Of course you don't hear anything from our enemies. They know we're spying. They're doing it to us. That's how they found out we were spying on them, a long time ago. Of course spying has gotten much more sophisticated, but that's progress.
       So what's all the hullabaloo? Well it's not about spying on other countries that has folks so upset. It's about spying on ourselves. That's what has folks upset.  And we've been upset since 2001. Ever since 9-11 and that awful day, our government has been doing everything it can to protect us from terrorists. The problem is that our government gave permission to our spies to spy on us, more and more every time we 've turned around. We knew they were listening in to our phone calls and computer emails, almost from the day after 9-11, or at least a short time later.
       Some folks haven't liked it at all, and some folks were satisfied that it was keeping us safe. Then those two guys started releasing secret information and people found out that all that spying was actually taking place. Well duh! They told you they were doing it. You apparently didn't believe them. It took two guys to make official secrets public for us to believe the government was spying on us. We would never believe the government because you can't trust anything politicians say. It's time for our government leaders to be contrite. To say they're sorry and that they'll be more careful in the future. Then they can get back to spying and we can get back to feeling safer. See how it all works out in  the end?
      

How Much Does That Burger Cost?

       Say, how are you enjoying those burgers and fries or pizza or fish or chicken or whatever? Taste great? Well, that's what fast food is all about, taste. So you should enjoy them and for a very good reason. You should enjoy them not only because they taste good, but because you paid for them. In fact you paid for them.... twice. Now why would I make a statement like that?
       Well for one thing, when you walk into your favorite local fast food vender, you belly up to the counter and place your order. The very next thing you do is pay for your fast food. Of course first you're asked if this is take out or eat in. Either way, when you're done, you leave. So how can I say you paid twice for that great tasting food? Is it because I think it's unhealthy? Hey, I don't care if it's unhealthy or not, and that doesn't enter into this conversation.
       So you're still wondering what I mean by saying you pay twice for your fast food. Well, have you ever noticed that not everybody behind the counter is some youngster? In fact, most fast food workers are adults or young adults. Either way, they're not making a living wage. And that means that they're not paying taxes because they don't make enough to put food on the table never mind pay taxes.
       All of which means you're subsidizing them. Yep, you're paying for their food stamps, rent supplement, free emergency room care or healthcare and other safety net assistance. Now you could run out and bad-mouth these folks for not paying their fair share, but just what would be the fair share of someone's income when they don't have any spare change left over after eating?
        Well, who's to blame then for your burger and fries costing you twice? Well, let me see.... If I didn't get paid enough to pay for these fancy frills like healthcare, food, a roof over my head and the like, the problem might be with the fact that I don't get paid enough. Didn't I just say that? Weren't you paying attention?
       Now I realize you don't want to pay any more for that tasty burger, but is that a sound reason for not getting paid enough to live on? Maybe a spot under a nearby bridge would suffice as housing. Then the garbage cans could supply food for the makeshift table. I guess anything is possible in the search for cheap tasty fast food. It may be okay for you, but what about the other guy?

It's All About Afrikaners.

       Once upon a time in the country of the Union of South Africa, there was a group of folk of European heritage who ruled the country completely. Even though these White folk were not native Africans, they alone had the rights of citizenship such as voting or holding office. Blacks who had lived in South Africa since the beginning of time still were not allowed to vote or hold office or live in White districts or even own land. These White people were called Afrikaners. Then one day it all changed and Black people were allowed to vote and own land and hold office. And South Africa didn't even come to an end. The country still exists.
       Now, in America we have a group of White people who believe that America is or should be only for people just like them. People who look just like them and think like them and no Hispanics or Blacks should be allowed to vote or become citizens. These folks like to be called Tea Partiers, but are really Amerikaners. It's actually a disservice to true Tea Party ideals. If you stood these Amerikaners side by side with the Afrikaners of old, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. Not the way they look or in the way they think. There is virtually no difference between them.
       It's not really racism, they'll be the first to tell you they are not racist, and they really do believe that. They just think that America was set aside for the Whites and more specifically the ultra-conservative Whites and they are terrified of the changes they see coming in the makeup of our America.  So they have picked up the playbook of the Afrikaners and have added even more tricks to discourage the unwanted from voting or becoming citizens.
       The problem for these Amerikaners is that they started about a hundred and fifty years too late. America is changing and there just isn't any stopping it. Maybe in the short term these Amerikaners will enjoy some successes, but in the long term, change is coming. Get used to it. Even enjoy it. Because it's good for all of America, even Amerikaners.
   

What's Happening in Argentina These Days?

       In some parts of Argentina, that's in South America next to Brazil, there are some sections of the country where cancer rates have quadrupled and some where birth defects have also quadrupled. Many are in the same sections of the country. Coincidentally, a few other changes are taking place in those regions. Previously they had a crop rotation from grain growing to beef raising every five years. Now they are almost exclusively grain growing.
       The cattle to grain changes, every five years, kept the weeds and insects in check naturally. But now the changes require heavy use of insecticides and herbicides. The use of insecticides increased from 4000 in 1995 to 30,000 metric tons in 2007, and herbicides from 20,000 tons in 1993 to 220,000 in 2011.
       Now far be it from me to suggest any correlation between cause and effect. The chemists will tell you their products don't cause cancer or birth defects. Any increase in either must be from some other source. They claim that, but if you look at the charts and maps, it's pretty hard to miss the coincidents. If your foot suddenly starts to hurt, and when you look down to find someone has just stepped on it, you might assume that to be the cause of the pain. You'd be right.
       But of course this is all about Argentina, not good the ole US of A. That's true, but at the same time, our giant farms of the Midwest, and west, and south, and east and north. are now using the same insecticides and herbicides. It just might be a good idea for our government to keep track of what brands and formula's are being used and track them against illnesses and  birth defects being experienced in those regions of America. That is if government is allowed to do that sort of thing.
       Being allowed to do that sort of thing depends on how much money is spent to stop government, and who's paying and receiving that money. If you watch legislation on the subject that's being proposed, and by whom, and then who works hardest to stop that legislation, you'll begin to get an idea of who's being paid and by whom. Just remember this; sometimes a little bigger government can save your life.

What's New In The News?

       I assume you've heard of California. It's that state taking up half of our west coast. Well, they've instituted some changes in the way they govern. Not that California making changes is unusual. They've been doing that for years. But this time it's a little more drastic and it's proving a little bit, or maybe a whole lot better.The first time in who knows how long that partisan gridlock is lessening.
       Are you listening Washington? California did a couple of things that has changed everything. This should even please my cousin who moved out of California because he was fed up with it. First they redrew all their electoral districts by a completely non-partisan commission. With no input from the state legislature. Now there will be very few completely safe districts for candidates.
       Next they changed primary elections to a completely non-partisan primary where the top two vote getters regardless of the candidates' party affiliations, move on to the general election. Yep, the two candidates that most people prefer go against each other in the general election. That way you will finally end up with the person most people want. Nobody can sneak in because of a fluke.
       Most Californians are quite happy with these changes. Of course there are some folks who are very unhappy with the changes. Mostly people who want stronger political parties and who prefer gridlock. Fortunately, in California, they're in the minority. Now you're beginning to see Republicans and Democrats working together to pass laws, or even to defeat legislation they would have forced through in the past in order to satisfy their party base.
       I suppose it's not perfect, very few things are but, boy oh boy, what a start. Can you imagine a federal government actually working together, for the good of the people, instead of the good of the party ideology? You don't suppose these kinds of changes would help Washington, do you? I wonder how many heart attacks we'd see by people like party bosses and party fundraisers? I know, I know, folks like the Tea Party would hate such changes because extreme rhetoric or policy would get you nowhere, unlike nowadays.

Election Year News Flash.

       Well, here we are folks, we're right down to the wire. For today's news audio we have excerpts of Republican nominee, Senator Ted Cruz's stump speech. "It has been said and I now ask you, did Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton actually come from Mars? Does she hide her green color with a lot of makeup? I'm not saying it's true, I'm merely asking, is it true? And my opponent's ridiculous suggestion that I constantly use innuendo is just another of her fiendish attacks against my good name. Is it possible that the sightings of UFOs dating back to the time of her birth, an indication that those flying saucers were actually bringing her egg here? I'm simply asking. And did those aliens actually land and plant the announcements of her birth? Again, I'm just asking. But could all these convenient coincidences have just remarkably happened, with all the stars aligned as never before, or is she an alien from Mars? I'm not saying it's so, I'm just asking. And again, let me reiterate, I do not use the tactic of innuendo."
       Now we here from Secretary Hillary Clinton in her stump speech. "The man is nuts. Thank you very much. Now are there any questions? Yes. I have said that my nutty opponent is nuts. I've also said he specializes in innuendo. I've also stated that he single-handedly caused the government shutdown and credit default which started in October of 2013 and is still going three years later now in October 2016. You notice he hasn't denied that. The man is certified nuts."
       Oh wait. Audience we have Sen. Cruz on live hookup. "These suggestions that I use innuendo, I must say, it's been said, and I ask you now, is it not Hillary that is the one to use innuendo? And as for the government shutdown and credit default, I submit this was just another part or her fiendish scheme to get elected? I'm not saying it's so, I'm just submitting. Is it possible she has caused all this pain to Americans simply to bring more attention to herself?"
       I'm told that Secretary Clinton has a response to these allegations. "He's nuts, period."
       Well, there you have it listeners. With only days to go before the presidential election, both candidates have sharp words for each other. And with Secretary Clinton leading in the polls by double digits, it's simply too close to call.

Oh Boy. Do We Have Problems.

       Ya want a good laugh? Listen to people place blame for the government shutdown and upcoming debt ceiling crisis. On the one hand you've got Conservatives, Republicans and Tea Partiers pointing fingers at a weak President unwilling or unable to govern, and unresponsive Democratic Senators for not doing their jobs while Americans suffer.
       On the other hand, you've got Liberals, Progressives and Democrats asking why the House Republicans and especially John Boehner won't put forward a clean bill to reopen the government and remove the  obstacles to a debt ceiling increase without  repealing Obamacare. It's simple, they say, the ACA has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. It's the law. Live with it. Put the country back to work and then negotiate. All this while Americans suffer.
       Both sides have legitimate points, and both sides overlook their own deficiencies, but to hear each side, theirs is the only fair game in town. The one side says if they can't have Obamacare brought down, then lets cut much of the entitlements. Or even better, let's do both. The other side says they're in the right because nobody wants the entitlements cut or Obamacare defunded.
       It's a real dilemma. On the one hand, the debt ceiling they're all talking about is for bills on stuff they already spent. So, do we pay our bills or do we become a deadbeat nation? On the other hand our debt is out of hand. The cuts being proposed only cut the deficit. The monthly bills for our debt. The debt keeps increasing.
       Look at it this way, if we stopped paying all entitlements from today on, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and all the safety-net programs, we'd begin to pay off our debt, if slowly. Unfortunately an extremely large segment of our population would begin to starve to death. Maybe as much as forty percent of the population. That's because about half the small businesses in the country would go belly up before we could make a serious dent in the debt. And then most of the other businesses in the country would close their doors. Which means we'd have about fifty to sixty percent unemployment. That's if major the corporations don't do the same.
       On the other hand we could cut our defense budget in half and still have the largest military in the world. Which would begin to lower our debt also. But then countries who are our enemies or wannabees would begin to get ideas about attacking us, or at least more ideas than now.
       The point to all this is that we already have more than enough problems without Congress causing us these extra problems.