What's A Lie Got To Do With It.

       There's something that's been bothering me for a while now. Our government has seen fit to protect us from liars. We have laws covering truth in lending and laws covering truth in advertising and a few more I can't even remember. But if you are trying to sell a product or service, you can't go out and make claims about it that are wildly untrue. Not all that long ago a yogurt maker had to prove its product did help you.
       The government has been very judicious about making sure that people and companies and banks can't tell you one thing and then do something else. But when it comes to politicians and especially donors, big donors, well they get a bye. Politicians can lie through their teeth and nothing is done about it. Folks who pay for attack ads can lie in those ads and it seems to be okay with the government.
       What if those ads had to be proven completely true before they could be run? What if a politician who lied had to pay a fine, just like anybody else? Well of course, that isn't the way it works. The way it works is some rich out of state billionaire gets to place ads about some local politician, destroy somebody's reputation  and it's okay. It was all in fun. Just playing politics. No harm intended.
       The next time you talk to your banker, ask him what's involved for him to comply with those truth in lending laws. Is it costly to him? Check out Dannon Activia to see how much it cost them to prove their ads were accurate. Then talk to a congressman who just got elected last time around because his SuperPack lied about his opponent. Ask him how much it cost him to lie. Why, it's just the cost of good government.
       So why is it that politicians have the right to lie on air and in print? Why aren't they called to a higher degree of honesty? Simply put, the reason they lie so much is because they can lie without recrimination. Why is that? Because its politicians that write the laws. No liar wants to punish himself.

How Many Tanks Do You Have?

       Have you noticed that polls suggest as many as 88% of Americans want background checks on the purchase of any firearm, anywhere? Have you noticed that most U.S. Senators agree, that the minority party in the House of Representatives also want it. Well if all of this is true, and it is, then just who is against background checks?
       Well, there's the NRA. They're against it. We're not sure about its membership. Then there's the majority party in the house. They seem to be against it. Probably because the NRA is against it. There's two more demographics that are against it. Gun show dealers and criminals. That's right, the folks who want to buy a gun but can't do it legally. They're against anything that might cramp their style.
       So what's the argument against any legislation? Why, they claim its against the second amendment  But the second amendment doesn't say that at all. In fact it states a "Well Regulated Militia" as the reason for allowing citizens to have and use firearms. But for a "Militia" to be well regulated, there should not only be background checks, there should be a registration process as well.
       But we're talking about gun safety, not militias. So how about some limits. I mean we already limit the number of tanks a family can own. And nobody is allowed an ICBM missile with nuclear warheads or even rocket launchers. Why not personal weapons of mass destruction? But no, this 12% only want to eliminate violent video games and movies and TV. Okay I go along with that. And mentally unstable or sick people shouldn't have guns. Okay I go along with that to. In fact some of those 12% should be checked out first.

Lessons On Lip Syncing.

       There was a cartoon in the Scranton Sunday Times today I especially enjoyed. It showed Lady Liberty exclaiming angrily that Beyonce lip-synced the Star spangled Banner at the inauguration. To which a rather bored looking Uncle Sam replied "Name one person in Washington D C who is not lip-syncing?" And to reinforce his statement, he's holding a newspaper with a headline stating "Money Talks in Nations Capital."
       Now wouldn't you agree with that statement and headline? I mean, let's face it. When it comes right down to decision time, the lobby with the most money available for campaigns is the lobby that's most likely to get its way. Which means that the lobbies write the legislation and then help the legislators to sign their names to it. How they do it is to wrap the pen with cash. Lots of cash.
       Now I don't want you to think that the lobbies are competing for legislators affections. Actually the way it works is that the lobbies work together to insure success for the groups they represent. The really big money comes from pharmaceuticals, big oil, Wall Street and the NRA. The very tiny money comes from public advocacy groups. They don't often even get a hearing. But big money does.
       That's true even during the campaign seasons. In fact, that's when big money really kicks in. Big money looks at it's tally books and decides who gets the multi-million dollar boosts and who gets bad mouthed. If you're on the receiving end of the money, you're in position to win. If you're on the receiving end of the bad mouthing, you're about to be overwhelmed by unfavorable, mostly untrue advertising.
       Why does this badmouthing matter? Because far too many folks believe that where there's smoke, there's fire. But those folks don't bother to check out where that smoke is coming from. They put the wrong fire out. Or they wet down no fire at all. Knowledge is everything. Not caring about truth kills democracy.
     

It's Those Darned Fingers Again.

       I keep listening to the NRA and it's shills trying to tell people that "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE." Has that gimmicky phrase convinced you? Do you really think that guns don't kill people? Have you ever thrown a bullet at someone? Well I'm here to tell you that throwing a bullet at someone ain't gonna kill them. It could knock their eye out maybe, but it ain't gonna kill them. It takes a gun to make that bullet kill people.
       Here's a better phrase, "Guns don't kill people, Fingers on guns kill people." We need to keep fingers off guns. If nobody can get their fingers on guns, nobody's gonna get shot. Now doesn't that make better sense than what the NRA is trying to sell you? And make no mistake, the NRA is trying to sell you, on buying more guns. That's what a gun lobby does.
       Now if you want to own and use a gun, properly, and if you can safely store it where the wrong people can't get their fingers on it, go ahead and have at it. It's your right to own it and use it. It is not your right, however, to make it available to others without your supervision. If you own a gun, you are responsible for that gun. Just like you're responsible for your car.
       And if you read the constitution, it doesn't say you can't be required to be registered or checked out before you buy a gun. In fact, you could say that a "well regulated militia" gives the government the authority to demand a background check. Even that you be registered if it wanted. Or that some guns will be outlawed. Read the second amendment yourself.
       Guns Don't Kill People. Give me a break.

Talk About Indecision.

       Hey, wait a minute. What just happened there? We were promised another debt ceiling crisis. Now they say they've put it off for three or four or six months. What did they do, raise the ceiling without a fight? Listen, we paid for a fight and by golly we want a fight. We elected these folks for the reason that we knew they couldn't agree on anything. Now they're singing Kum Ba Yah.
       So what does this mean? Did they raise the debt ceiling? No? Did they eliminate the debt ceiling process? No? Then what? Oh, you mean to tell me they just kicked the can down the road and said that after those three or four or six months, we'll get the Senate to pass a budget, which isn't really needed anyway because it's just a suggestion about how to spend money without actually having any power to force anything?
       So that's what all the fuss has been all about? The House is mad at the Senate for not passing a budget and taking some of the heat? If I had my belt on, I'd go down to Washington and smack these folks on the backside with that belt, until they couldn't sit down.
       So what's the chances that they'll agree on everything and so won't need to fight over the budget or the debt ceiling in three or four or six months?  What's that you say, there's no chance they will solve the problem? So does that mean we get to have a fight, but it won't take place for a while? But I took the day off so I could watch them duke it out. Now I have to take another day off.
       Okay, when do I ask for the day off? What's that? Anytime between now and then? I can't believe it. The U.S. Congress can't even decide on what day to have a fight.

Our Senate, Working Late Into The Night.

       And to think they say there's no bi-partisanship in Congress. Here's an example of two Senators working in unison. One a Democrat, Senator Max Baucus and a Republican, Orrin Hatch. Yep, during the year end fiscal cliff negotiations, the two managed to have a Senate aid slip in a provision that allows Amgen, a drug manufacturer, to evade cost cutting controls for Medicare.
       This bipartisan effort cost Medicare about $500 million. And the best part is that nobody knew it until just hours before the bill was passed. So ya see, there is cooperation between the parties. When something really important comes up, like giving a helping hand to a needy constituent, our boys in Washington are ready to help.
       Now just how does something like this little helper get started? Well, first Amgen hires a couple of former Chiefs of Staff to the Senators in question. Then these new Amgen employees go to work lobbying the two Senator's aids and also Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell.
       Still that doesn't explain why these leaders agreed to push this little goody through. I suppose that the political action committees of the three having received $68,000. $59,000 and $73,000 might have helped. In fact, you could say it's a clue as to why they made arrangements for the midnight insertion.
       Now please don't get me wrong. I think the world of these great statesmen. I think the help they provide to needy multi-billion dollar corporations like Amgen is important. Why, without such help, Amgen might be unable to give such big bonuses to management, large dividends to investors and a big pay raise to those new lobbyists. So it's only fair that Medicare pay for it.
     

Wow. I Can See The Future.

       I'm a bit late in making my predictions for this new year of 2013. Never-the-less, herewith are my predictions. A look at 2013 will be a look at 2012 without the campaigns. Well, at least the actual political campaigns. The campaigns to make the other party look bad and your party look good, will continue. But in 2013 you'll be able to watch TV without being bombarded with ads about how bad some politician is.
       Now if you miss having that sort of information or misinformation plastered all over the small screen, why, you can just tune into one of the many talk shows or faux news shows. You can watch either side find fault with the other side 24/7. I'll bet you can even find someone who doesn't agree with some portion of the constitution although nobody would admit it.
       So, my prediction is that things will not change this new year. We'll still have two parties that won't agree on very much of anything. Not that that's bad. Actually that's good. What's bad is that they won't figure out a way to compromise for the good of the country. What they will do is go back to their talking heads and ask those talking heads to find more fault with the other party. Talking heads love to accommodate this kind of request. It's what they do best.
       But I know that you want to know how this will all play out in 2013. Well, odds are that the government will not default. That we will not be able to purchase a trillion dollar platinum coin for our or your collection. That the military budget will not be cut by the amount it should, that we will still continue to fund pork barrel projects we don't need and don't want.
       Taxes will go up, but not as much as some folks want and more than other folks think is wise. The rich will continue to get richer and the middle class will get poorer and the poor will struggle more. The one thing that business and industrial leaders keep asking for is stability, to know what the future holds for them. Well the stability they will get is that things won't change. There won't be any golden answer in 2013.

Whether Coal Or Gas, No Responsibility.

       There were two articles in the paper today that interested me. The first is about the EPA. It found reason to shut down Fracking in a Texas town near Fort Worth, Texas, because of contamination to drinking wells. But then they reversed their stand when the company, Range Resources, got mad and said they wouldn't cooperate in a national study of the practice of Fracking.
       The second story is about a mine fire in the borough of Olyphant, Pennsylvania. The ground is on fire, but the Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection has declared that it is safe and that no harm will come to anyone nearby or, presumably, far away. That, even though smoke can be seen rising from the ground. Coal veins underground are on fire.
       Pa. D.E.P. dug a trench around the effected area 3,200 feet long and up to 160 feet deep. Now they're just going to wait until it burns itself out of coal. This isn't new to NEPA, in fact the coal barons of yesteryear left many such burning mounds around the anthracite region. Most have finally burned themselves out after many years of smoldering.
       So why are these two stories related? In both cases the agencies of government assigned the task of keeping us safe and providing us with a healthy environment, are backing away from protecting us and providing us with a healthy environment.
       But what it smells like, is that the modern barons, the Natural Gas Barons, are going to be given a pass on problems they create. How come? Because big money is involved and with big money, you can buy almost anyone.

It's Those Damn Unions Again.

       Whatta ya think of unions? Whatta ya think of people who belong to unions? Whatta ya think of people who are anti-union? I can tell you this much. The trouble with unions is the same as the trouble with corporations. Every time you hear of a union that causes a problem, you almost always hear about a corporation that is causing a problem, if you really listen.
       The main problem with unions is management and the main problem with corporations is management. If you read about a company forced to go out of business because of a union that refused to negotiate on wages or benefits or working conditions, and you look into the situation, you generally find out that the company management has refused to negotiate their own wages or benefits or working conditions.
       Remember Hostess Twinkies? That company's demise was blamed on a union that refused to take pay cuts and went on strike. But in a previous negotiation the union did give in to pay cuts which was followed immediately by management pay increases and bonuses. It was also preceded by venture capitalists taking $800,000 out of the company. The loans the company needed to pay the Vulture Capitalists, killed the company.
       So how come we hear so much more about bad unions? Because they're the ones we see carrying placards on the picket lines.You never see management carrying placards on a picket line. They're the ones who are telling their board of directors how they can get the unions to give in, if only the board will give the management a bonus for doing so.
       So then, what good are unions? Unions gave us safe working conditions and a living wage. Unions aren't very strong anymore. Maybe that's why it's so hard to find a job with a living wage anymore.
     

This Too Will Pass.

       I know a guy who says, of all the political turmoil in America that, "this too will pass." Can you imagine suggesting that the vitriol that we see between the extreme right and left against any suggestion of agreement between the two factions and the potential for unfair outcomes if one side were to get the upper hand and be more exclusionary toward the other side, not to get too worked up about it?
       What am I saying? We already have that in some of the state laws passed to make it more difficult to vote or live in America, or proposed legislation that suggests anyone who upholds national laws will be arrested.
       But if I understand this guy, he is saying, "Don't worry, this too will pass."That's sorta like calling 911 and saying my husband is having a heart attack, then the 911 operator says, don't worry, this too will pass. Of course that operator would be right. Either the husband will get better or die. Either way, it too will pass.
       But here's the thing; one way is great, but the other way is not so great. If you don't worry and therefore don't ask for the ambulance and don't give the husband an aspirin or nitro pill, you make the second possibility more likely.
       Likewise, if you don't stand up against extreme ideas, you invite extreme outcomes. Now you may not always agree with my opinions, but hopefully you do speak out against extremism. Extremism like arguing for free access to PERSONAL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
       You know what I mean. Firearms specifically designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. They're not designed to kill as many deer of rabbits or ducks as possible in the shortest amount of time. It's people they're designed to kill. Do you really need one, or several of these things?
       Or high capacity ammunition magazines, or bullets that explode on impact? Maybe what we need to do is calm down a bit. Maybe we really do need to tell these extremists that "this too will pass." But we shouldn't just wish it. We should say it.

The Interview Of A Lifetime.

       Have you ever heard people talk about whether Jesus is a Republican or Democrat? Sure you have. Well, just the other day I had the opportunity to interview Jesus. I put that very question to him. Here's what he said. He told me that he had been a Republican ever since the party's beginnings. He said that when the Republicans nominated and then elected Abe Lincoln, he was sold on their bravery and commitment to the idea that all men are created equal.
       He continued for many decades to agree with and side with the Republicans. But then he noticed some unusual changes in the party's allegiances. They began to favor the favored over the needy. They began to prefer to sup with the rich man over the poor man. Soon they wanted to lessen the constraints on the rich man and put the restraints on the poor man.
       Then Jesus told me he left the Republicans in favor of the Independents. For the Independents refused to do the bidding of either party. It was the feeling of Independents that they could and should support whichever side did the right thing.
       But as time went on, the Independents found that, more and more often, they were forced to side with the Democrats because of the Republican's intolerance. Surely not most Republicans, but by smaller more vocal sects and by it's leadership.
       Then Jesus told me he felt forced to become a Democrat. That's because the Republicans were not only intolerant but were becoming too violent with their guns and threats. And besides Republicans were beginning to try to exclude him from voting. And then the Republicans demanded to know when they had done any of these things to Jesus.
       Jesus answered; When-so-ever you have done these things to the least of these my brothers, you have done it unto me.  

Did You Know Carbon Can Bite?

       What's in a carbon tax? Why are conservatives are so against a carbon tax? What's so bad about carbon? Well, a carbon tax would be a tax levied against the production and introduction of carbon into the air. When we heat or cool our homes, drive our cars, buy food, discard trash, manufacture anything, in fact if we do almost anything, we introduce carbon into the air. Even breathing adds to the carbon in the air. But no, they aren't suggesting a tax on breathing.
       Okay, so we put carbon into the air, but then so does nature, right? Yes, and nature takes care of the carbon it puts in the air. So it's time for us to take care of the carbon we put into the air. The thing is, though, humans talk a better game than they play. And when their leaders try to fix the problem, things can get worse instead of better.
       But if we put a tax on anything that introduces large amounts of carbon into the air, the problem is likely to solve itself. And before you ask, it's because nobody likes to pay a tax. Not citizens, and not companies. Companies will do anything to avoid paying taxes because it increases the costs of their products. People might well stop buying their products if the prices go up. So companies will figure out a way to do their work without putting carbon in the air, on their own.
       Why do conservatives hate a carbon tax? Because they hate any and all taxes. They especially don't want to see a tax on any industry that supports their cause. And because they don't believe in science or global warming. Or that humans are causing global warming if it actually does exist.
       But isn't carbon the most common element in the world? Isn't carbon what makes up most of the world? Yes, and therein lies the problem with carbon. Nature has it pretty carefully distributed in the ground, on top of the ground and in the air. But if we humans take it out of the ground and introduce it into the air, we upset the balance nature set. When you mess with nature, nature has a way of turning around and biting you.

To Big To Fail, Not too Big To Sue, Almost.

       Say, whatta ya think of AIG? You know, the insurance/bank that was determined to be too big to fail and so got bailed out with the, so called, TARP Fund. Then they turned around and considered suing the USA for some reason. They later backed off when they found out how mad people were getting. Yeah, that AIG.
        But what about that "Too Big To Fail" thing? How big do you have to be to be too big to fail? So all the biggest banks and insurance companies got money from the Federal Government to insure they didn't fail. Now I agree with the idea of the cost to the nation if these giant financial corporations declared bankruptcy. It would have been a catastrophe.
       But lots of things are too big. I admit I'm over weight. Why wasn't I considered too big to fail. I wouldn't have minded if they had dropped a couple million on me. Except that that idea doesn't go with my thinking that if a company is too big to fail, then it must be too big. And if it's too big, then shouldn't the Government require that the company get split up into smaller companies that aren't too big to fail? I wouldn't have wanted to get split up. Although, as it turned out, that wouldn't have been a worry.
       Look, AIG is still considered too big to fail. Now I know the government put some watered down rules on them. But when it comes right down to it, AIG could easily find itself right back in the same fix or a slightly different fix, and have to have their bacon saved again.
       AIG didn't cause the financial crisis, in fact you could say it was a victim of that crisis. But that doesn't change the fact that while it was in danger of collapsing, the management received the biggest bonuses in the history of AIG. Or that they and the banks they saved from collapse, didn't show the same kind of mercy to the homeowners whose mortgages they held.
       And by the way, weren't all those banks supposed to help home owners who were in trouble with their mortgages because of the crisis? And wasn't the government supposed to do the same? How well did that work out? Don't even talk about it. What I'd like to know is who's responsible for this mess? Oh. You think Washington is to blame? And we don't mean George.

By Golly, It Is Redistribution

       Here's some interesting information I noticed in the Washington post today, by Harold Meyerson. It's all about redistribution of income, just as the Republicans have been claiming all along. Well except that it's happening in just the reverse of what they claimed.
       It seems that the percentage of income from wages and salaries to GDP is the lowest since WWII, while the percentage of income from after tax corporate profits are the highest since, guess when? Since WWII again. So investments are growing in profits while working for a living is shrinking in profits.
       In other words, you may be working harder, but you ain't making more money. Is anyone surprised by this? It's the same tired old story about the rich get richer and the rest of us pay for them to get richer. Where did you think their riches come from?
       So as long as we keep giving them better tax breaks and as long as we keep allowing them to keep profits made overseas from being taxed, the more we lose ground and the more wealth they get to keep.  Like Meyerson says. a GE investor gets to keep more of his profits than a GE employee gets to keep of his paycheck.
       Of course, thirty years ago, Ronald Reagan told us that if we gave the rich more, eventually some of those riches would trickle down to us. I'm still waiting, but so far, those riches have only defied gravity and trickled up.
       Now, I'm a patient man, and I know things take time, but a lifetime or two seems to be too slow. So just when do we start seeing that golden goose laying a few eggs for us? Seems like a lottery ticket has a better chance of providing for us, than those rich folks will trickle down to us.

American Budgetary Problems.

       When it comes to spending, America has two big problems right now. Defense and Healthcare. There's a whole bunch of smaller problems, like education, infrastructure, energy, research, and etc. Now, you might call them centers of spending, but I prefer the problem title because they're all problems. By that I mean they're all necessary and important, but we can't afford all of them in their current levels of demand for funds.
       There's a third major problem in global warming, but so far we've been unable to agree to rate it where it belongs. That will come. But getting back to the first two big problems, Healthcare and Defense, the difference is that healthcare costs keep growing faster than we will be able to afford with our current system. But the Healthcare Industrial complex won't yet allow us to change the system.
       The Defense problem is similar in that the Military Industrial complex won't allow us to change either. But it's likely that this will be an easier fix than the Healthcare problem. The reason is that we only have two Defense choices. Shrink and change or stay the same. Healthcare presents a different set of opportunities. We can shrink by cutting out care for those who cannot afford it or cut costs so everyone can afford it, or leave it the way it is. In both problems, leaving it alone will break the piggy bank.
       Now, if you're one of the lucky ones who can afford healthcare, the answer is simple. If you're one of the vast majority, the answer is also simple, make the changes that will lower the costs. Well okay, majority rules, right? Huh, not always. All too often money rules. It'll be a tough fight.
       On Defense, the answer is similar. We can make the reductions that make sense for the needs we have now and into the future, or we can keep producing the military we needed for major invasions as we have in the past. Now there's an easy one to answer, right? Prepare for the future. But that's not likely to meet with the approval of the Military Industrial complex. And remember, money talks.

GE Gets Subsidies, Why Not You And I.

       Ya know, I worry about our Congress. I worry because our economy is beginning to flourish. Not much yet, mind you, but it is beginning to grow. What I'm afraid of is that the Congress will find out that it's growing and do something incredibly stupid. You know, like start a debt ceiling crisis or something. And that will reverse the momentum and send us back into recession.
       Did you know there are members of Congress who actually think that's a good idea. They think people need to suffer even more than they already have before this problem can be addressed properly. You know, people like you and me. That is unless you are independently wealthy. If you are, then these legislators think you should be rewarded rather than be punished.
       Now if you're unemployed or very underemployed, you should suffer some more. If you have a job, maybe you should lose it, or at least take a cut in pay, maybe. You know, anything that might be considered painful. Now, they believe this is necessary and they have good reasons for believing so. I just can't figure out why or what those reasons are.
       Partly they don't like the big entitlements like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Of course they do like the big entitlements that giant corporations have, like the farm subsidy bill. I still can't understand how it is that GE and others get to use the farm subsidy. Anyway, they'd like us to do away with things of little use like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. So I guess until we're willing to give up those entitlements, they feel we'll just need to bare a little more pain.
      Funny thing is though, the so called Red States, where these legislators are mostly from, are the states that use entitlements the most. The Blue States folks are paying for the Red States folks to enjoy the entitlements. But it's the Red States Legislators that want to do away with them. I wonder if those Red State folks realize that?

Just How Much Is A Trillion Dollars.

       Hey friend, ya got change for this Trillion dollar bill I got? No I ain't kidding. It's really a Trillion dollar bill. I got it from the Federal Reserve. You've heard that thing was one of the options some folks say the President has to solve the Debt Ceiling crisis, haven't you? I mean The Debt Ceiling Crisis.
       Does everyone know what the debt ceiling is all about? That's when the amount of money that Congress has said they will allow to be spent, is reached. Then the Congress has to pass new legislation authorizing a higher limit. No problem for many years, but now the Republicans say they will again demand cuts to entitlements and other government programs before they'll agree to raise the ceiling.
       But if the Trillion dollar bill idea is actually legal, then no President will have to go to Congress on the Debt Ceiling anymore. They can just print another trillion dollar bill. So is that fair? Well, it is if you consider that Congress already voted to spend the money in the first place. Congress bought the programs, wars and everything else that caused the debt. How can they now decide not to pay the bills they racked up? I can tell you that if I decided to buy a house in the Florida Keys and then decided not to make the payments, I know what would happen. They'd take the house and sell it. If the selling price didn't cover the loan, they'd come after me for the balance.
       So what if Congress decided to let the country go bankrupt by defaulting? Who would get hurt? Some foreign countries?  Like China, maybe? Well too bad for them, right? But what about lots of retired people and pension plans and IRAs that have invested in America. They'd lose everything. Different story isn't it. So maybe that trillion dollar bill doesn't look so foolish after all. There's just one big question left. Which one of you has change?
     

Praised Be Our Good Governor.

       Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbitt has just sued the NCAA over it's sanctions against Penn State University last year. Now I do think those sanctions were, at least. partly unfair and I think the NCAA often acts more like a despot than a leader of collegiate sports activities. But it does seem a little late for the good governor to try to get fair treatment for Penn State.
       Let's look at the good governor's past history in connection to this problem. First, as the Pennsylvania Attorney General, he made a choice not to prosecute ex assistant coach Sandusky on child molestation charges. Instead he convened a Grand Jury that took nearly a decade to indict the man. I should point out that Corbitt received substantial donations towards his campaign for Governor from friends of Sandusky. I'm not accusing him of anything, but I do agree that he must be investigated in this matter.
       Then we need to remember that he agreed with the findings at the time and was silent for all this time. So the question has to be, why now? Why is Governor Corbitt suddenly outraged by these sanctions?
       Could it be that he's running for reelection in two years? That his campaign will begin in earnest in one year" That his poll numbers are in the tank? Does he fear that his too close friendship with the natural gas industry might hurt him? Why? Because he refused to levy a gas severance tax on the industry. And instead, after taking much heat for not doing it, levied a much less fruitful tax per well.
       So the good governor is trying to make up for his mistakes. Or, the good governor is trying to spruce up his image for his upcoming election campaign. Or, there's something's in it for our good governor. Do Penn State Fans vote? Perish the thought.

This Too Will Pass, or Not.

       I had a conversation, the other day, with a friend about politics in general. We talked about the fiscal cliff, the looming debt ceiling crisis and Washington polarization. He didn't seem to think any of my suggestions would be helpful or needed. His answer was, THIS TOO WILL PASS.
       In other words, his advise was, don't worry about things. You can't change anything so just sit back and weather the storm. Everything will work out, one way or the other. We'll all either have higher taxes or not, the country will avoid defaulting on debt or not, and congress will begin to work together to do what's needed, or not.
       Now I'd agree with that way of thinking if I didn't believe that individuals, especially if joined together, can make a difference. But there's that silly obstacle in front of me. That obstacle that tells me that I and we can make a difference, and therefore should try our best to do just that.
       Let's be honest, I don't have the ear of my congressman or Senators. When I write an email to one of them, their answers usually don't match or address my concerns. A staffer glances at my letter and picks a pre-written statement that somewhat closely discusses my subject, or not. So unless it's a letter a staffer thinks might help the legislator's next campaign, it gets filed in the circular file.
       I'm relatively sure none of my letters will ever get used in the Senator's or Congressman's campaign. The reason I know that is because my letters are never complimentary.I simply don't write flattering letters to my representatives. That's because there's rarely anything they've done for which they should be complimented. That's proven by the ratings of our current congress. And, just doing their job, doesn't qualify for a pat on the back.
       But getting back to my friends comment of That Too Will Pass, the comment doesn't take into consideration the harm this congress does to so many thousands of people. When congress does little but bicker with each other, folks suffer loss. Children in school, graduates from High School, or college find it impossible to get a decent job. Working folks see taxes go up, or layoffs in the wind.
       Now most folks can weather almost any storm, with a little help.Where the real problem cones in is not knowing what to expect and how to plan. So, yes, this too might pass, but somebody has to tell Washington to stop, and think about what they're doing. And if all you say is This Too Will Pass, you ain't helping.

When Should A Diplomat Keep Quiet?

       What's a Diplomatic Illness? The reason I ask is because former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton accused Sec'y of State Hillary Clinton of having a diplomatic illness. Bolton went on to explain that a diplomatic illness is used by diplomats as an excuse not to testify before congress. So he basically claimed Clinton was faking it. Others demanded proof and medical records.
       Then came the unfortunate news that Secretary Clinton had a blood clot near her brain. Now, I say unfortunate because it is unfortunate that Hillary is placed in this dangerous state. But you could also claim that folks like Bolton consider it unfortunate because it shoots down the claims against her.
       Well, whatever you may think of the Secretary of State, the bologna pushed by Bolton and friends shows them up for what they are. They are obviously people of low character, low moral fiber. Next you'll question me on that statement, I know. Well, it's been my experience that when people shoot their mouths off without first obtaining all the information on the subject, and especially when speaking against someone, it's nearly always because of low character.
       So you might suggest that I've entered into the same activity as Bolton and company. But the truth is, this is far from the first time he has attacked people of honor. It's a trait Mr. Bolton has honed to a sharp cutting edge. If your not on his side, he'll find a way to get you. That is, if it'll get him space and time with the media.