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.