Okay, here's where we're at. In Washington, we have six branches of government. Yes, that's right, we have six, not three, branches of government. Now just wait until you hear me out. We have the Supreme Court, not often mentioned first, then comes the President. The President has the most power, except for the Supreme Court which can strike down anything the rest of government says or does.Next comes the other four branches. First you have, in the Senate, the Democrats who hold the majority except when somebody, seriously, wants to filibuster. Next you have the House of Representatives where the Republicans are in control, sort of.
So we have the Supremes, the Prez., the Democrats, the Republicans, but who are the other two? The first is a growing group known as Independents coming from both parties. They're critical for either party to govern. Mostly they're fed up with the party from whence they came. Then there is the last branch. That is the Tea Party. The importance of the Tea Party comes into play only if you want to dissolve the government.
If for any reason, you come to the decision that you think the government is worthless, a not uncommon feeling, then you can call on the Tea Party. That's because this branch of government is interested in only one thing. To make the federal government as dysfunctionable and dysfunctional as is humanly possible. This branch of government believes that no cure is too severe to use on any human being or on society as a whole.
So you see, by having all six branches working outside the concert or as is more commonly referred to as being disconcerted, we are assured that no branch will work smoothly. This enables the United States of America to be brought to it's knees, not by any enemy from outside of state, but by our own ineptitude. That is to say, we elected these fools, we got exactly what we deserved. Well, all except the Supremes, but we can blame all five of the other branches for that.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Why The Trickle Down Theory?
Several years ago now, we were told to celebrate because the Great Recession was over. Still we watched unemployment numbers not seen since the Great Depression. Now here we are being told the economy is making great strides in recovery and yet there are still many people unemployed or under-employed. How can this information, at odds with the facts on the ground, be true?
Well, the truth of the matter is that the economy, by nearly every measurement of economics, has recovered. The stock market is continually reaching record highs. Nationally, income rates are up, the GDP is up, corporate profits are up and millions of people, previously unemployed, have found employment. So why would anyone complain? What's not to love about these factoids? After all, isn't the whole country doing better then they were four years ago? If you were unemployed in 2009 or 10 or 11, but you're now employed, how could you possibly feel you're not better off now?
One possible reason might be that if you were making $25 per hour in 2007 and now you're making $12.50 per hour, you really aren't better off. Maybe as compared to when you weren't working at all, but still not better off enough to support yourself and your family, which is the measurement that every person has to consider.
If the Trickle Down Theory ever worked, it no longer works. Exactly what was the Trickle Down Theory? Well, the idea was that if you provide tax cuts and other economic breaks to business and wealthy Americans, then the benefits and money will trickle down to the needy. Forget whether or not you agreed with President Reagan on this, the fact is that business and industry and therefore the wealthy, no longer need to depend on a large American workforce. Much of industrial production has been shipped to markets with far less expensive labor. Much of what has stayed in America has done so because automation has allowed industry to make do with far fewer workers.
If that's true, and the evidence is irrefutable, then there really doesn't seem to be any reason to continue to provide industry, business and the wealthy with all those tax and other financial breaks. If the reason for those benefits and tax breaks no longer exist, then the reason to continue those tax and other financial breaks is gone.
So why haven't those tax breaks and benefits been done away with? Have you watched Congress of late? All of Washington depends on the largess of business, industry and the wealthy.
Well, the truth of the matter is that the economy, by nearly every measurement of economics, has recovered. The stock market is continually reaching record highs. Nationally, income rates are up, the GDP is up, corporate profits are up and millions of people, previously unemployed, have found employment. So why would anyone complain? What's not to love about these factoids? After all, isn't the whole country doing better then they were four years ago? If you were unemployed in 2009 or 10 or 11, but you're now employed, how could you possibly feel you're not better off now?
One possible reason might be that if you were making $25 per hour in 2007 and now you're making $12.50 per hour, you really aren't better off. Maybe as compared to when you weren't working at all, but still not better off enough to support yourself and your family, which is the measurement that every person has to consider.
If the Trickle Down Theory ever worked, it no longer works. Exactly what was the Trickle Down Theory? Well, the idea was that if you provide tax cuts and other economic breaks to business and wealthy Americans, then the benefits and money will trickle down to the needy. Forget whether or not you agreed with President Reagan on this, the fact is that business and industry and therefore the wealthy, no longer need to depend on a large American workforce. Much of industrial production has been shipped to markets with far less expensive labor. Much of what has stayed in America has done so because automation has allowed industry to make do with far fewer workers.
If that's true, and the evidence is irrefutable, then there really doesn't seem to be any reason to continue to provide industry, business and the wealthy with all those tax and other financial breaks. If the reason for those benefits and tax breaks no longer exist, then the reason to continue those tax and other financial breaks is gone.
So why haven't those tax breaks and benefits been done away with? Have you watched Congress of late? All of Washington depends on the largess of business, industry and the wealthy.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
The Little Engine That Will Never Get there.
Okay class, here's your assignment. Assume you are the owner of a company that makes widgets. You have two groups of managers. One group suggests you make the widgets to fit the average person's hand. After much discussion, it's decided to go ahead with the plan to make that change. A vote of managers agrees and everything is set in motion.
Now some of the second group of managers decide they don't like the changes. They boycott those changes. They are overridden in votes by the first group and you, the owner. They continue to be dissatisfied with the change and go on to boycott and vote down the changes forty two times, and each time they are outvoted.
Here's the question for you, class. What would you do as owner of that company? A/ fire the boycotting group, B/ finally give in to their insistence, C/ hire a third group of managers to be a tiebreaker, D/ none of the above?
Now class, for your next question, write down what you would do if these boycotting managers were actually elected Congressmen. Let's assume they did not like the Affordable Care Act, even after it passed both houses of Congress. and so, against the advise of their own leadership and after the Supreme Court proclaimed it to be constitutional, they continue to try to dismantle the law or defund it forty two times, unsuccessfully.
Would you as president, agree to give in to their insistence because they threatened to shut down the government, and not pay rightful bills owed by America, or would you stand firm and not allow our government to be bartered away, because we are being held hostage? Should the government of the United States of America buckle under to terroristic threats or not?
Let's not forget class, that the Affordable Care Act was designed to insure as many as twenty million Americans currently without health care insurance, and to require insurance companies to cover people even with pre-existing conditions, just for starters. Wouldn't it make more sense to try to change and improve the Affordable Care Act instead of wasting so much time on votes that obviously can go nowhere?
Now some of the second group of managers decide they don't like the changes. They boycott those changes. They are overridden in votes by the first group and you, the owner. They continue to be dissatisfied with the change and go on to boycott and vote down the changes forty two times, and each time they are outvoted.
Here's the question for you, class. What would you do as owner of that company? A/ fire the boycotting group, B/ finally give in to their insistence, C/ hire a third group of managers to be a tiebreaker, D/ none of the above?
Now class, for your next question, write down what you would do if these boycotting managers were actually elected Congressmen. Let's assume they did not like the Affordable Care Act, even after it passed both houses of Congress. and so, against the advise of their own leadership and after the Supreme Court proclaimed it to be constitutional, they continue to try to dismantle the law or defund it forty two times, unsuccessfully.
Would you as president, agree to give in to their insistence because they threatened to shut down the government, and not pay rightful bills owed by America, or would you stand firm and not allow our government to be bartered away, because we are being held hostage? Should the government of the United States of America buckle under to terroristic threats or not?
Let's not forget class, that the Affordable Care Act was designed to insure as many as twenty million Americans currently without health care insurance, and to require insurance companies to cover people even with pre-existing conditions, just for starters. Wouldn't it make more sense to try to change and improve the Affordable Care Act instead of wasting so much time on votes that obviously can go nowhere?
Friday, September 20, 2013
Now We're Back To Clean Coal?
Well, the government program that came under fire for loaning so much money to renewable energy companies like Solyndra has now decided to begin to loan money again for clean energy. You remember them. The solar panel manufacturer who went belly up. Well anyway, now the program will target cleaner energy through oil and coal.
You heard it right. We're gonna pay out good money, lots of it, to make coal and oil burn clean. Now I believe that science can accomplish almost anything given a little time and a lot of money, including clean coal and oil. But it's not the cleaning that's the problem. They can figure out how to do that fairly easily, relatively speaking. No, the real problem is going to be how they can clean up all the stuff they have to remove from the coal and oil to make them clean. And if they can't clean it up, what are they gonna do with that stuff.
Remember, the stuff they remove from the coal and oil to make them 'clean' is toxic. It's killer stuff. It's like taking guns out of the hands of insane mass murderers. It would be fine if you don't put the guns in the hands of other mass murderers. Not that anyone would be that stupid. But once we remove these toxic pollutants from the coal and oil, exactly what are we supposed to do with all that stuff? I'll bet you don't want it in your back yard next to the pool.
Or should we just dump it into our rivers and hope it washes out to sea? That's silly, of course we wouldn't do that. But what then? Do we bury it? Would that be good for our drinking water? How about using it as fertilizer for our flower gardens? All except it would kill our flowers and probably the family dog, not to mention all the bees left over after Sudden Hive Collapse.
But we still haven't answered the question of what to do with all this poison we've managed to suck out of our coal and oil? Just cleaning up Canadian Tar Sands Oil in one single refinery near Detroit has created an actual mountain of these toxins. Is that the answer? Just pile it as high as we can and call it the Alps?
Wouldn't it make more sense to take a chance on losing more money to failed renewable energy companies until that science can bring us some good clean energy sources? If you do think it makes more sense, then call your congressman and tell him so. If you don't agree, then invest in a good filtration manufacturer.
You heard it right. We're gonna pay out good money, lots of it, to make coal and oil burn clean. Now I believe that science can accomplish almost anything given a little time and a lot of money, including clean coal and oil. But it's not the cleaning that's the problem. They can figure out how to do that fairly easily, relatively speaking. No, the real problem is going to be how they can clean up all the stuff they have to remove from the coal and oil to make them clean. And if they can't clean it up, what are they gonna do with that stuff.
Remember, the stuff they remove from the coal and oil to make them 'clean' is toxic. It's killer stuff. It's like taking guns out of the hands of insane mass murderers. It would be fine if you don't put the guns in the hands of other mass murderers. Not that anyone would be that stupid. But once we remove these toxic pollutants from the coal and oil, exactly what are we supposed to do with all that stuff? I'll bet you don't want it in your back yard next to the pool.
Or should we just dump it into our rivers and hope it washes out to sea? That's silly, of course we wouldn't do that. But what then? Do we bury it? Would that be good for our drinking water? How about using it as fertilizer for our flower gardens? All except it would kill our flowers and probably the family dog, not to mention all the bees left over after Sudden Hive Collapse.
But we still haven't answered the question of what to do with all this poison we've managed to suck out of our coal and oil? Just cleaning up Canadian Tar Sands Oil in one single refinery near Detroit has created an actual mountain of these toxins. Is that the answer? Just pile it as high as we can and call it the Alps?
Wouldn't it make more sense to take a chance on losing more money to failed renewable energy companies until that science can bring us some good clean energy sources? If you do think it makes more sense, then call your congressman and tell him so. If you don't agree, then invest in a good filtration manufacturer.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Oh Those Nasty Safety Net Programs.
There continues to be a push to curtail safety net programs of the federal government. The latest attack on safety nets is the suggestion that we are losing the war on poverty. The idea follows that in the 1970s there were just over 11% of the population listed as poor. But today that figure is about 15%. If that isn't a losing strategy, I don't know what is.
What that figure doesn't take into consideration, though, is that safety net programs like food stamps (SNAP) and earned income tax credits actually raise nearly ten million out of poverty. It also doesn't take into consideration the tremendous growth in inequality in this country. Corporate profits add to the economic growth of our country substantially, but that growth does not trickle down to the poor as was expected. In fact, while rich Americans see double and triple digit growth in wealth, poor and lower middle class citizens see no growth or are even losing ground.
So here's the thing, if we were to allow these safety net programs to go away, while the listed numbers on the rolls of the poor would remain unchanged, the true numbers of poor and hungry would increase by that same ten million. Just because some bureaucrat in accounting is instructed to use certain measures to determine percentages, doesn't mean that it is the truest and best picture of life in America.
So what's my point? The point is that if you want to save the government money and beat poverty, then keep the safety net programs and start taxing the wealthy for the benefits they've been receiving over the last three or four decades. You know what benefits I'm talking about. Like increased income tens of millions and more while allowing their fellow Americans to wallow around in poverty. Their increased wealth may look good on paper for America, but it doesn't help the average American one bit. If all the profits go to a few, than the many don't get to enjoy any of it. Then take that increased revenue and invest in our infrastructure and education and research.
We hear a lot about class warfare from those few wealthy about the 99%, but don't you think the real class warfare has been about the few wealthy conspiring to take everything and leave nothing for the rest?
What that figure doesn't take into consideration, though, is that safety net programs like food stamps (SNAP) and earned income tax credits actually raise nearly ten million out of poverty. It also doesn't take into consideration the tremendous growth in inequality in this country. Corporate profits add to the economic growth of our country substantially, but that growth does not trickle down to the poor as was expected. In fact, while rich Americans see double and triple digit growth in wealth, poor and lower middle class citizens see no growth or are even losing ground.
So here's the thing, if we were to allow these safety net programs to go away, while the listed numbers on the rolls of the poor would remain unchanged, the true numbers of poor and hungry would increase by that same ten million. Just because some bureaucrat in accounting is instructed to use certain measures to determine percentages, doesn't mean that it is the truest and best picture of life in America.
So what's my point? The point is that if you want to save the government money and beat poverty, then keep the safety net programs and start taxing the wealthy for the benefits they've been receiving over the last three or four decades. You know what benefits I'm talking about. Like increased income tens of millions and more while allowing their fellow Americans to wallow around in poverty. Their increased wealth may look good on paper for America, but it doesn't help the average American one bit. If all the profits go to a few, than the many don't get to enjoy any of it. Then take that increased revenue and invest in our infrastructure and education and research.
We hear a lot about class warfare from those few wealthy about the 99%, but don't you think the real class warfare has been about the few wealthy conspiring to take everything and leave nothing for the rest?
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Widgets And Buggy Whips.
The average American worker is making over $2,500 less now than they did in 2009. But that same worker is producing almost ten percent more product for manufacturers then they did only five years ago. Why do you suppose that is? If you were working on the production line making that infamous 'widget' and back in 2007 you were able to make ten widgets per day and you were making, let's say, $20 per hour, then today you will be able to make eleven widget per day, but you're only going to get paid about $18.50 per hour. Now the company is still selling those widgets for the same price, or more likely a somewhat higher price, so how come you don't get any share of the increased profits? How can this be? It must be a misprint.
Well, it's true and accurate. So if this is true, then where are the increased profits going? Who's taking the workers share for themselves? The answer is that it's just good business to pay labor less to make more profits. Workers aren't nearly as important as the bottom line. In fact, the company can cut back workers hours and still produce the same number of widgets per day. The nice part about that is that by doing so the company won't have to provide the benefits required for full time employees. Thus increasing profits even more.
Ya see? CEOs are smarter than you may have thought. That's because the CEOs income hasn't fallen. In fact CEO income has risen sharply. And the value of the company's stock? Why, that went way up as well. Ya see, the economy can grow at a fast clip without workers making as much as they did in the past. And it ain't just widget makers that are profiting by this phenomenon, it's pretty much every industry. But there's another kicker in the CEOs bag of tricks. If profits don't rise quick enough, there's always a country with slave labor ready and willing to welcome that company to open manufacturing there.
What I can't figure out is how that widget maker, as well as buggy whip makers and all the other manufacturers, will find people who can afford to buy the widgets being made. If I was making $20 an hour and I could just afford one, how will I be able to afford one now that the price went up and my pay went down? And if I lost my job to a Bangladeshi and now I'm flipping burgers, who's gonna buy your widget now?
Well, it's true and accurate. So if this is true, then where are the increased profits going? Who's taking the workers share for themselves? The answer is that it's just good business to pay labor less to make more profits. Workers aren't nearly as important as the bottom line. In fact, the company can cut back workers hours and still produce the same number of widgets per day. The nice part about that is that by doing so the company won't have to provide the benefits required for full time employees. Thus increasing profits even more.
Ya see? CEOs are smarter than you may have thought. That's because the CEOs income hasn't fallen. In fact CEO income has risen sharply. And the value of the company's stock? Why, that went way up as well. Ya see, the economy can grow at a fast clip without workers making as much as they did in the past. And it ain't just widget makers that are profiting by this phenomenon, it's pretty much every industry. But there's another kicker in the CEOs bag of tricks. If profits don't rise quick enough, there's always a country with slave labor ready and willing to welcome that company to open manufacturing there.
What I can't figure out is how that widget maker, as well as buggy whip makers and all the other manufacturers, will find people who can afford to buy the widgets being made. If I was making $20 an hour and I could just afford one, how will I be able to afford one now that the price went up and my pay went down? And if I lost my job to a Bangladeshi and now I'm flipping burgers, who's gonna buy your widget now?
Sunday, September 15, 2013
You Can't Sue The Big Guys.
Just like coal, Old King Gas is a merry old soul. Why is gas so pleased with itself? Well for one thing they're pretty much free to do as they please and state and federal legislators are afraid to do anything about it. Take the case of a couple in northeast Pennsylvania where the governor, Tom Corbett, is known as belonging to the Gas Party. This couple and 40 other property owners sued Cabot oil & Gas for polluting their drinking water wells.
On the advice of their lawyers, the other forty settled the case, unsatisfactorily. But, as is their right, this couple sued on their own. They couldn't find a law firm to represent just one client in this suit so they decided to sue without a lawyer. Now suing a large wealthy corporation all by yourselves is extremely difficult at best. However, a lawyer who had worked for the firm that had represented them and the other forty but now on his own, volunteered to help write some of the forms necessary to bring the suit. Eventually a second lawyer agreed to help.
Are you following this so far? Well, after many delays, the exclusive and expensive law firm representing Cabot has filed suit against the couple and the lawyers who helped them with the proper forms. Apparently it's against the law for a lawyer to help someone file a law suit if they claim they want to do so without legal representation. Did I explain the couple will not be represented in the suit by legal council. They still plan to do so. It seems that a person can't accept any help at all against a big law firm. Not even to make sure the paperwork is correct to start the process.
By the way, did I explain that this all took place because of a drinking water well problem in 2009. So four years later and this thing hasn't even been looked at by a judge yet. That's what big expensive law firms do. They suck you dry with delays and counter suits until, presumably you give up. That's what makes King Gas happy. Not having to pay the person who's been harmed anything. Now, to be sure, this isn't the only case like this, nor will it be the last, nor is King Gas the only Oilcan Harry out there. Most large corporations look on lawsuits as a pesky fly to be avoided by any means possible. It's best to just outwait the fly, and the big law firm is on retainer to make sure of it.
On the advice of their lawyers, the other forty settled the case, unsatisfactorily. But, as is their right, this couple sued on their own. They couldn't find a law firm to represent just one client in this suit so they decided to sue without a lawyer. Now suing a large wealthy corporation all by yourselves is extremely difficult at best. However, a lawyer who had worked for the firm that had represented them and the other forty but now on his own, volunteered to help write some of the forms necessary to bring the suit. Eventually a second lawyer agreed to help.
Are you following this so far? Well, after many delays, the exclusive and expensive law firm representing Cabot has filed suit against the couple and the lawyers who helped them with the proper forms. Apparently it's against the law for a lawyer to help someone file a law suit if they claim they want to do so without legal representation. Did I explain the couple will not be represented in the suit by legal council. They still plan to do so. It seems that a person can't accept any help at all against a big law firm. Not even to make sure the paperwork is correct to start the process.
By the way, did I explain that this all took place because of a drinking water well problem in 2009. So four years later and this thing hasn't even been looked at by a judge yet. That's what big expensive law firms do. They suck you dry with delays and counter suits until, presumably you give up. That's what makes King Gas happy. Not having to pay the person who's been harmed anything. Now, to be sure, this isn't the only case like this, nor will it be the last, nor is King Gas the only Oilcan Harry out there. Most large corporations look on lawsuits as a pesky fly to be avoided by any means possible. It's best to just outwait the fly, and the big law firm is on retainer to make sure of it.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Those Dog Gone I-pads.
I was involved in a discussion the other day about how wrong it is for poor people to own I-pads and the like while demanding food stamps and additional government handouts. As usual in such discussions, nobody wins the argument. On the one side you can point to this and claim these ingrates should have spent their money on food, housing and clothes that fit. On the other hand you can claim that everyone needs to enjoy at least some small pleasures in life.
But I guess it really comes down to one thing. Who makes the mistake of spending beyond their capacity to pay? Do these poor people who can't make it on their own and so must depend on the government to help support them, have the moral right to waste money on such things as I-pads and cellphones that do anything you ask it to do and then some? Is that just a mistake or are these folks thumbing their noses at government?
Let's look at the possibility of it just being a mistake. A dumb mistake, maybe, but a mistake nevertheless. So who makes dumb mistakes? Do only poor people make dumb mistakes? Mistakes that cost the government or some other third party? What about rich people? Have you ever heard of the rich making dumb mistakes? I can think of some quickly. I can think of going to war unnecessarily, of losing an election because you didn't believe other polls, of seeing another country from your back porch, even President Obama seems to be making some mistakes. In fact I don't think I've ever met or heard of anyone who hasn't made more than one mistake.
Would it be wiser if folks who need a helping hand didn't go out and buy some item the folks who are helping them can't afford? Well of course it would. But just because it would be wiser won't actually make them wiser. Just like the folks who helped them through their tax money, should show a little understanding and compassion and try to explain how it makes them feel, instead of characterizing these folks as immoral, (expletive deleted) good for nothing, (another expletive) lazy, hustlers. The folks who help the poor should remember, they make mistakes too. Sometime whoppers. And sometimes the mistakes of the wealthy cost every American more than they can afford.
But I guess it really comes down to one thing. Who makes the mistake of spending beyond their capacity to pay? Do these poor people who can't make it on their own and so must depend on the government to help support them, have the moral right to waste money on such things as I-pads and cellphones that do anything you ask it to do and then some? Is that just a mistake or are these folks thumbing their noses at government?
Let's look at the possibility of it just being a mistake. A dumb mistake, maybe, but a mistake nevertheless. So who makes dumb mistakes? Do only poor people make dumb mistakes? Mistakes that cost the government or some other third party? What about rich people? Have you ever heard of the rich making dumb mistakes? I can think of some quickly. I can think of going to war unnecessarily, of losing an election because you didn't believe other polls, of seeing another country from your back porch, even President Obama seems to be making some mistakes. In fact I don't think I've ever met or heard of anyone who hasn't made more than one mistake.
Would it be wiser if folks who need a helping hand didn't go out and buy some item the folks who are helping them can't afford? Well of course it would. But just because it would be wiser won't actually make them wiser. Just like the folks who helped them through their tax money, should show a little understanding and compassion and try to explain how it makes them feel, instead of characterizing these folks as immoral, (expletive deleted) good for nothing, (another expletive) lazy, hustlers. The folks who help the poor should remember, they make mistakes too. Sometime whoppers. And sometimes the mistakes of the wealthy cost every American more than they can afford.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Anthony Loses His Bid As Mayor Of New York
Well, poor Anthony Hotdog lost his bid to become the mayor of New York City. Weiner, or Hotdog, as he should be referred to, did his best to be the real hotdog in the race. Ever notice that there is often someone in any political race who just isn't of the same caliber as any other candidate in that race? Well that's Anthony.
Here's a guy who was a U.S. Representative in Congress. That's no small accomplishment. It's a respected position of power in America. Of course these days, it's less so, but still it's impressive. That wasn't enough for Oscar Mayer. He wanted more. He had his eyes set on higher glory. He wanted to be known, by women far and wide, as a big man, in spite of his small stature.
So he began his quest by resigning his seat in Congress. I seem to forget the reason for that, but will surely be reminded as I continue with his historic rise. Ahh, yes. That was the reason. Now he had visions of rising to the top of New York City, and beyond, to who knows where. But you should never use the internet in quite that way, if you hope to succeed in politics.
Rolled up towels under your garments are no substitution for sound planning and a good strategy. Now he may have thought that his strategy was sound, but his planning wouldn't have gotten him a walk on role in a XXX movie. I hope someday he'll come to his senses, but in the meantime, I hope his wife finds a different life. As far away from him as possible.
As for Tony Hotdog, I wait with baited breath to see what his next goal will be. What constituency will be saddled with that ring of bologna around their necks? There have been men for whom it can be said "they were men of distinction", Tony is not among them. Tony is what I would classify as a cull hotdog. A cull is a hotdog that is unworthy of being considered a marketable hotdog. I think they may feed cull hotdogs to the hogs. And they are not the first choice of the hogs.
Here's a guy who was a U.S. Representative in Congress. That's no small accomplishment. It's a respected position of power in America. Of course these days, it's less so, but still it's impressive. That wasn't enough for Oscar Mayer. He wanted more. He had his eyes set on higher glory. He wanted to be known, by women far and wide, as a big man, in spite of his small stature.
So he began his quest by resigning his seat in Congress. I seem to forget the reason for that, but will surely be reminded as I continue with his historic rise. Ahh, yes. That was the reason. Now he had visions of rising to the top of New York City, and beyond, to who knows where. But you should never use the internet in quite that way, if you hope to succeed in politics.
Rolled up towels under your garments are no substitution for sound planning and a good strategy. Now he may have thought that his strategy was sound, but his planning wouldn't have gotten him a walk on role in a XXX movie. I hope someday he'll come to his senses, but in the meantime, I hope his wife finds a different life. As far away from him as possible.
As for Tony Hotdog, I wait with baited breath to see what his next goal will be. What constituency will be saddled with that ring of bologna around their necks? There have been men for whom it can be said "they were men of distinction", Tony is not among them. Tony is what I would classify as a cull hotdog. A cull is a hotdog that is unworthy of being considered a marketable hotdog. I think they may feed cull hotdogs to the hogs. And they are not the first choice of the hogs.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Ready! Fire! Where Ever You Are.
Ya know, I really thought the gun debate had heard from both sides of the issue and that both sides had pretty much explained their side and the rational for their thinking. I thought that, but I was wrong. I was wrong because the sovereign state of Iowa has just passed a new law allowing for some hear-to-for disallowed people to now carry a gun.
That's right friends. Now if you're a resident of Iowa and even if you're blind, you can register to carry a gun. That's right, according to the Des Moines Register newspaper. The law forbids county officials from not providing a permit to someone because they have a disability. Even blindness is not a reason to refuse a permit. Even complete blindness. Fortunately, I suppose, the Iowa state legislature has not as yet decided to issue Drivers Licenses to the blind. Not that guns are safer than cars. Not that guns in the hands of the blind could be considered rational, as a general rule.
Now what if states like Florida were to decide to issue permits to the blind as well. Remember, Florida has that Stand Your Ground law. So, I can see it now "two drunk blind men have a fight in a bar. They both draw their guns and start firing. Six people are killed and nine are wounded. Both blind men survive. They both plead to the SYG law and are released with no charges being brought against them."
What a comedy movie that would make. Except nobody would believe it even if it were true. And with laws like these, it could be. I don't mean to be picky, and I'm sure the legislators for the state of Iowa are good sensible men and women trying to do their job as best they can. It just seems to me that they may have reached and surpassed the Peter Principal Pinnacle. In other words, they may be in over their heads. And where does the governor fit into this picture? He must have signed the bill.
So what about that massive liberal effort to take away the second amendment rights to own firearms? How's that going? Based on Iowan standards, I'd say liberals need to change their game plan if they want to eliminate gun ownership. Maybe lobotomies for Iowan legislators would help.
That's right friends. Now if you're a resident of Iowa and even if you're blind, you can register to carry a gun. That's right, according to the Des Moines Register newspaper. The law forbids county officials from not providing a permit to someone because they have a disability. Even blindness is not a reason to refuse a permit. Even complete blindness. Fortunately, I suppose, the Iowa state legislature has not as yet decided to issue Drivers Licenses to the blind. Not that guns are safer than cars. Not that guns in the hands of the blind could be considered rational, as a general rule.
Now what if states like Florida were to decide to issue permits to the blind as well. Remember, Florida has that Stand Your Ground law. So, I can see it now "two drunk blind men have a fight in a bar. They both draw their guns and start firing. Six people are killed and nine are wounded. Both blind men survive. They both plead to the SYG law and are released with no charges being brought against them."
What a comedy movie that would make. Except nobody would believe it even if it were true. And with laws like these, it could be. I don't mean to be picky, and I'm sure the legislators for the state of Iowa are good sensible men and women trying to do their job as best they can. It just seems to me that they may have reached and surpassed the Peter Principal Pinnacle. In other words, they may be in over their heads. And where does the governor fit into this picture? He must have signed the bill.
So what about that massive liberal effort to take away the second amendment rights to own firearms? How's that going? Based on Iowan standards, I'd say liberals need to change their game plan if they want to eliminate gun ownership. Maybe lobotomies for Iowan legislators would help.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Let's Talk Spending Cuts.
Mr. President, I realize you've got your hands full with Syria and all, but I also know that soon the discussion is going to get back to budgets and debt limits and the sequester and what to cut as well as how much and where to make cuts in order to reduce spending. And when those discussions come up again, we all know there will be a full court press to rein in entitlement spending.
As sure as the earth turns, there will be strong voices demanding severe cuts to the safety nets that provide help to the poorest among us. So, rather than fight this onslaught, I'd like to make a suggestion on how to apportion the cuts that will be demanded. When the time comes to vote on these draconian cuts, you should make it clear and very public, that the districts that are represented by the yes votes in favor of the cuts, will be the districts where such cuts will be assigned.
In other words, lets make sure that the folks who vote to cut entitlements are the Representatives and Senators who's constituents will be effected. On the other hand, those legislators who vote against cuts to the entitlements will be able to reward their constituents with uncut entitlements.
I realize that by using this apportionment system, those districts to face cuts will, of necessity, face more drastic cuts in order for those more fortunate districts not to be forced to face any cuts. I believe that it will work out quite fairly though, since it is the most conservative states and districts that use the most in entitlements and pay in the least, while the more liberal districts and states pay in the most and use the least.
So you see, there would be real equity in such a solution. It would force each Congressman and Senator to look deep into their own hearts and into the eyes of those within their districts and know that their decision and vote will directly affect the folks who will vote for or against them in their next election. It could spur them to find other means of saving money and cutting spending. Perhaps they might even consider a bill to reduce their own pay and perks. Well, maybe not.
As sure as the earth turns, there will be strong voices demanding severe cuts to the safety nets that provide help to the poorest among us. So, rather than fight this onslaught, I'd like to make a suggestion on how to apportion the cuts that will be demanded. When the time comes to vote on these draconian cuts, you should make it clear and very public, that the districts that are represented by the yes votes in favor of the cuts, will be the districts where such cuts will be assigned.
In other words, lets make sure that the folks who vote to cut entitlements are the Representatives and Senators who's constituents will be effected. On the other hand, those legislators who vote against cuts to the entitlements will be able to reward their constituents with uncut entitlements.
I realize that by using this apportionment system, those districts to face cuts will, of necessity, face more drastic cuts in order for those more fortunate districts not to be forced to face any cuts. I believe that it will work out quite fairly though, since it is the most conservative states and districts that use the most in entitlements and pay in the least, while the more liberal districts and states pay in the most and use the least.
So you see, there would be real equity in such a solution. It would force each Congressman and Senator to look deep into their own hearts and into the eyes of those within their districts and know that their decision and vote will directly affect the folks who will vote for or against them in their next election. It could spur them to find other means of saving money and cutting spending. Perhaps they might even consider a bill to reduce their own pay and perks. Well, maybe not.
Monday, September 2, 2013
He's Got A Bridge To Sell.
How do they do that? How do people like Senator Ted Cruz and FOX news and so many other people with no scientific background get to claim there is no such thing as global warming at one point, then move to where there might be global warming, but we're not the cause, all against overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary? The newest statements are that global warming is over. We haven't seen any evidence of global warming since 1998. 1998 was during the time they claimed there was no such thing as global warming.
So tell me how something that doesn't exist suddenly become something that might exist, but only if you don't blame us, to something that's all over, and has been over since 1998 when it didn't exist? After all, if it doesn't exist, then scientifically it can't be anyone's fault and it certainly can't suddenly be over. To be over, it had to exist. To be anyone's fault, or not, it had to exist. So were they correct at first or were they correct on the second try or are they finally right now?
Even after they financed a study by a scientist who agreed with them about the non-existence of global warming and at the end of the study, that scientist stated that he now realized he had been wrong. That global warming truly did exist and the evidence pointed to humans being mainly at fault, even then these pillars of intelligence stated global warming was a hoax perpetrated by scientists.
How many times do these folks get to be completely wrong before people stop believing them? How long will people continue to be led around by the rings in their noses before they figure out these leaders are leading them down the wrong path to the slaughterhouse, metaphorically speaking? Now to be fair, there are still those who do not believe there is any such thing as global warming except in the normal cycles of earth's climates. At least those folks are consistent. At least there is scientific evidence that the earth warms and cools naturally, if only over hundreds of thousands of years, not a relatively few decades.
My guess is that if Senator Cruz said he owned a bridge over the Mississippi River to New York City and that he wanted to sell it, there'd be a bunch of people willing to buy it. And FOX news would televise the auction and I'll bet even Sarah Palin would offer to be the auctioneer. After all, she can probably see New York from her back porch.
So tell me how something that doesn't exist suddenly become something that might exist, but only if you don't blame us, to something that's all over, and has been over since 1998 when it didn't exist? After all, if it doesn't exist, then scientifically it can't be anyone's fault and it certainly can't suddenly be over. To be over, it had to exist. To be anyone's fault, or not, it had to exist. So were they correct at first or were they correct on the second try or are they finally right now?
Even after they financed a study by a scientist who agreed with them about the non-existence of global warming and at the end of the study, that scientist stated that he now realized he had been wrong. That global warming truly did exist and the evidence pointed to humans being mainly at fault, even then these pillars of intelligence stated global warming was a hoax perpetrated by scientists.
How many times do these folks get to be completely wrong before people stop believing them? How long will people continue to be led around by the rings in their noses before they figure out these leaders are leading them down the wrong path to the slaughterhouse, metaphorically speaking? Now to be fair, there are still those who do not believe there is any such thing as global warming except in the normal cycles of earth's climates. At least those folks are consistent. At least there is scientific evidence that the earth warms and cools naturally, if only over hundreds of thousands of years, not a relatively few decades.
My guess is that if Senator Cruz said he owned a bridge over the Mississippi River to New York City and that he wanted to sell it, there'd be a bunch of people willing to buy it. And FOX news would televise the auction and I'll bet even Sarah Palin would offer to be the auctioneer. After all, she can probably see New York from her back porch.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Who Cares If Syria Uses Gas?
Ross Douthat made a really good point in the NY Times this morning. What he said, basically, is that since America is the only Superpower left, it's up to us to demand certain standards be kept in the world. Now I don't like the idea of going to war in Syria even a little bit. But I grudgingly have to agree that some standard of civil strife be maintained.
When you think about it, you have to admit that no matter what, people are going to disagree from time to time. Some people will come to blows over disagreements. That's just the way some folks are wired. Some countries will find the need to fight over some things. America can't stop it all the time, no matter what. Differing factions will from time to time need some release mechanism. Civil wars and small international conflicts have and will always crop up in spite of the best diplomatic efforts to the contrary.
But what must be in the best interests of all people and all nations is that some limitations be placed on societies in the name of humanity. That means that if one group or country or even person crosses the line of those limitations, there must be some repercussions for those offenses. A measured response. If it happens again, repercussions again, and so on until the offenses cease. And the responses need to be sufficient to inform the offender that he or she must cease to offend.
If two drunks start swinging at each other, friends usually try to break it up. But if they keep it up, then the friends usually throw their hands up and walk away. Now if one pulls a knife or gun, then it's time for the police to step in. In Syria, Assad pulled the gas. Who else can teach him not to do that, but America? We can wish the other guy would do it, but there just isn't another guy. We just need to clearly understand that it's a measured response. And then keep reminding ourselves.
When you think about it, you have to admit that no matter what, people are going to disagree from time to time. Some people will come to blows over disagreements. That's just the way some folks are wired. Some countries will find the need to fight over some things. America can't stop it all the time, no matter what. Differing factions will from time to time need some release mechanism. Civil wars and small international conflicts have and will always crop up in spite of the best diplomatic efforts to the contrary.
But what must be in the best interests of all people and all nations is that some limitations be placed on societies in the name of humanity. That means that if one group or country or even person crosses the line of those limitations, there must be some repercussions for those offenses. A measured response. If it happens again, repercussions again, and so on until the offenses cease. And the responses need to be sufficient to inform the offender that he or she must cease to offend.
If two drunks start swinging at each other, friends usually try to break it up. But if they keep it up, then the friends usually throw their hands up and walk away. Now if one pulls a knife or gun, then it's time for the police to step in. In Syria, Assad pulled the gas. Who else can teach him not to do that, but America? We can wish the other guy would do it, but there just isn't another guy. We just need to clearly understand that it's a measured response. And then keep reminding ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)