Winter's Lament.

      
       The one thing we don't have going for us this winter are our highways and byways. It's not so much that they're suddenly going in the wrong direction as it is that they're making it hard for us to go in any direction. In case you haven't noticed, our roads have more potholes than flat areas. Of course those who make a living by doing alignments, replacing ruined tires and the like seem to enjoy road conditions just fine. But running the gauntlet of avoiding these PHMDs (Pot Holes of Mass Destruction) makes it look more like an intricate dance than a drive to grandmothers house.
       Now I realize that weather conditions are the cause of most of these road canyons, what with freezing and thawing, but some of these potholes are the same ones I hit last year, and a few are from the year before that. All of which leads me to believe that the highway department is either grossly underfunded or the new crop of political appointees have somehow stuck their noses into our road business.
       Oh, I understand the need our Governor, here in Pennsylvania, had to cut budgets in education, and numerous other areas in order to keep from taxing the gas companies and try to balance our state budget while still cutting taxes for major corporations, but I'm surprised that Mr. Corbett didn't foresee that bad roads affect even his favorite constituents.
       And I do understand this talk gives the impression that I'm less than thrilled with Gov. Corbett's performance. But how can I express any joy in that performance when the last hole I hit, trying to avoid several others, caused me to break a tooth? One thing I can assure you is not the Governor's fault is the extreme cold weather we've been facing. But then actually it's not all that extreme compared to winters of yesteryear. These temperatures have only become extreme in more recent years. You don't suppose the scarcity of these hard winters has anything to do with??? But I digress.

We've Got Some of The Prettiest Scenery.

       Ya know, this Winter provides us with at least one advantage we don't have in the Summer. If you've bothered to take a ride around the countryside to check out the scenery, you should have noticed. If you didn't notice this one single blessing, I'll tell you what it is. It's the fact that you can't see all the litter and trash that--- well--- litters the roadside. We Americans and especially Pennsylvanians understand freedom to be the right to throw litter out the car window.
       Now I understand that once you've thrown that empty wrapper or container out the window it is already behind you and therefore out of sight. Why, we'd never think of throwing the litter on our front lawns when we get home. Too much pride, I suppose.  But it doesn't seem to bother us too much to throw it onto someone else's front lawn, because like I said, it's already out of sight by then.
       Even more enticing is the feeling of throwing that trash onto public lands. For some reason, the thought of that empty plastic bottle flying through the air and bouncing along the ground at a particularly handsome setting of nature seems to be some sort of aphrodisiac to what must be a large segment of society. I suppose the thought of your contribution to the scene being a permanent  addition, must somehow be artistic, at least in your mind.
       I don't buy the idea that such acts are all simply thoughtless deeds of immaturity. I don't even think it's an act of rebellious stubbornness. Nor can I make myself believe these artesian are attempting to get even with someone. Who? Who would they be trying to get even with? Their parents? The Government? For what? No, it's because they can do it without ridicule or punishment. Of course there are laws against littering, and fines for doing it, and I suppose if the police see you do it and have nothing else to do, you could get a ticket. Therein lies the thrill in the act. So it is an act of artistic statement. Either that or it's an act of rebellion, laced with a thrill after all. Well, stop it!

If Your Boss loses Money, I'ts Okay.

       My prayer, "Lord make me impervious to any outside or inside distractions, failures or attacks that might cause my employer any financial disadvantage, like Jamie Dimon." He's a man of steel. No wait, he's a man of sterling silver. No, wait, he's a man of platinum. Maybe platinum coated with Teflon. Nothing sticks to this CEO and Chairman of the Board of J.P. Morgan Chase. What's a few fines totaling over $20 billion among shareholders anyway? J.P. still made a profit even if it could have been bigger.
       So don't fire this guy. Why not? Who knows, maybe his separation parachute would be too expensive for the bank to pay. Maybe he's got some juicy goods on some of the directors. Whatever, he's a man that can do no wrong in the eyes of his employers. Hey, maybe by now he owns a majority share of the company. It'd be pretty hard to fire the owner, now wouldn't it?
       It never ceases to amaze me that folks at the top of the financial world seem to be far too important to fire or indict. Apparently the world will quickly and disastrously come to an end if any of the Jamie Dimonds of the world were to stub their toes. Ya know, if you or I were to cost our company one tenth of a percent of it's profits, we'd be placed before the firing squad and, on the count of one, shot in every part of the body until dead, dead, D-E-D, DOD (dead on delivery). And then fired.
       What's he got that I don't have? I mean besides good looks, sharp clothes, good hair, loads of connections in the right places, nice cars, great home. Hey, just because he can turn a profit doesn't make him better than me, does it? It does? I guess I'm sunk, but at least I haven't broken any laws. Nobody knows if Jamie has, because nobody's talking. I'd love to have a heart to heart with his accountant, off the record of course. And his personal assistant. There's got to be a story on him somewhere.

What's Sugar Got To Do With Anything?

       Hey, do ya have to be a woman to get help from Uncle Sugar? I mean I could use a little help getting my book published. Could I count on Uncle Sugar for that help? I mean, just a word or two in the right places, at the right time, and I'm sure my book would be a great success. Now if you're suggesting that only women can benefit from Uncle Sugar, then I have to say it is sexist and must be a violation of my civil rights. Maybe if I wanted condoms, but that's not what I need. In fact at my age, they might not help anyway.
       Ya know, I don't think Uncle Sugar is even running for office now-a-days. Mike Huckabee might be running for president in 2016, but not Uncle S. And the only reason Mr. Huckabee might be running is because frontrunner Chris Christy is pretty much toast, at least for now. So Mr. Huckabee thinks there might be an opening for a moderate in the GOP lineup. The thing is though, with statements like this Uncle Sugar deal, he's not likely to be seen as moderate.
       Now ordinarily I wouldn't pick on Mike, but I do enjoy pointing out silly comments made by  savvy political figures. Gov. Huckabee should stick with his country and western band and leave the cute analogies to more clever people. And no, I don't include myself in that crowd. I'm more of a Mike Huckabee kinda guy, more prone to foot in mouth syndrome. But Big Mike's plan was to point out that the Democrats are secretly trying to get more women on birth control pills and Republicans are trying to free women from those devil's pills.
       Not that Democrats are above using some sort of trick to get more votes, but I don't see how this particular accusation would produce more votes for Democrats. Maybe an anti-voter ID plan would work better. You know, something that Uncle Sugar could do. Like e-mail the needed IDs to women. Printable, of course. That way the women could all vote for the candidate they want. Perhaps a female candidate who could work for women's rights

What Does "Clean" Coal Leave Behind?

       West Virginia is still having trouble over that spill of chemicals into the river from whence so many people get their drinking water. The chemical is used to "clean" coal for use. But that isn't the only problem between coal and water in the state. The practice of mountaintop removal mining, which is now illegal, was used for a long time. The waste earth and rocks were dumped into the valleys, polluting the streams. But mixed in with that waste dirt and rocks is some coal and toxic chemicals long buried deep underground.
       How do I know this? I know because here in Northeastern Pennsylvania in the anthracite coal region, many decades ago, the coal was mined and the mine waste was dumped onto culm piles. Eventually some caught fire. A variety of reasons including human mistakes and natural occurrences like lightning cause them to burn. Every time folks thought they had put the fires out, they reappeared. What had happened is they burned underground and into the coal veins, creating their own oxygen as they went.
       These fires continued for dozens of years. homes and towns were forced to be evacuated because of the toxic fumes seeping to the surface. Visit Eckley Villege, Pa. Or drive up to Carbondale, Pa. where several new underground fires have started. Every time I hear someone suggest that coal can be cleaned, I want to shout  H E L L  N O ! Because whatever you "clean" off of or out of coal, winds up somewhere that will cause you trouble down the road. And coal, after it's cleaned, is still a pollutant. Big time.
       It's like knocking a tiger out with a baseball bat. Just because it's out cold, for now, doesn't mean it ain't gonna wake up and take a chunk out of you later. Better yet, try washing an alligator clean. It's gonna bite you while you're washing it and once you think you've got it clean, it's gonna take another chunk outta you.
       I don't mean to be completely negative toward these types of fuel. I admit I don't like natural gas, but it is a whole lot cleaner than coal. Hey, even oil is cleaner than coal. Well, except for Canadian Tar Sands Oil. That stuff is just as bad as coal.

What Does Smoke Have To Do With Social Security?

       It really doesn't matter whether you're retired or still working. What you paid into Social Security or are still paying into the trust fund you can be sure that the government has never paid any interest on that money. the federal government is supposed to hold that money in trust for us. They are allowed to borrow from that account, but they have never paid any interest on what they borrowed.
       So now when you hear that the fund doesn't have, or won't have, enough to pay retirees in a couple of decades, they don't mention the interest they should have paid, but didn't, on all the money the federal government borrowed. See, here's the thing. Congress likes to give the people nice things. Like highways and bridges to nowhere, you know, the pork that our legislators have depended on for as long as memory serves.
       In order to pay for all these great helpful gifts to their constituents, Congress has always borrowed from the S.S. Trust Fund. Now, I can tell you with the utmost assurance, that while Congress borrowed that money, they never mentioned that fact in any of their speeches and they certainly never paid it back, even without interest.
       In order to create a smoke screen to hide that fact from us, they began calling Social Security an "entitlement" and part of the national budget So, is something that you paid into your whole working life and that should have been paid an interest on, truly an entitlement? Or is it more the case of a debt unpaid by the government? Of course for the government to admit it's a debt, it would have to acknowledge that they've been cheating us all along. Ya see, if they factored in even a minimal interest and included all the folks who paid in but never collected because they died before they reached the age to receive any payments, there'd be more than enough to pay it's debt to retirees into the next century.
       But it's easier to claim the fund is running out of money by using that smoke screen to confuse us than it would be to begin to pay for the things they want to give to their constituents (you and me) by raising our taxes to pay for the pork. So just what is pork? It's a $200 screw driver, a $300 toilet seat, a $2500 per person party, a billion $$$ airplane that still can't be flown and a bridge to nowhere, just to mention a few.
       So the next time you hear a politician talk about this Social Security entitlement, just be careful not to breath too much of that second hand smoke. It's bad for your health and it's bad for your pocketbook's health too.

America Is The Tough Guy In Town And We Want To Prove It.

       Here's the thing I don't understand. Congress has, for some considerable time, been levying firmer and stronger sanctions against Iran in order to bring them to the table to force them to step away from building a nuclear bomb, or the ability to build one. They preferred to use this peaceful approach to invading Iran. It made sense to at least try this approach before invasion and war.
       Well, who would have guessed, the Iranians have begun to agree to such a decision. It's beginning to look like the sanctions worked. Iran has indeed come to the table and is beginning to agree to stepping back from the abyss. Now isn't that a great outcome? Of course there are still chances that the whole thing could fall apart, but for now, it looks like something that has eluded at least several administrations could actually come to pass. A lessening of nuclear tensions in the world, especially in the middle east.
       One of the demands Iran has requested is that no new sanctions be placed against them, and that some of the tightest sanctions be loosened a little bit to help their struggling economy. In exchange they're willing to stop some of the processing necessary to developing the bomb. So. Is this a good time to shove a middle finger up their nose? It's sortta like compromise. No, actually it's exactly like compromise. I'll give you something in return for you giving me something.
       But how come Congress isn't satisfied with what they wanted? How come, now, they want what they wanted but still want to pile more sanctions on Iran? Do you suppose they never thought it would actually work and if it does there will be no reason to continue to harm Iran's economy? Is it because they secretly want war? Or do they just like hurting the Iranian people? I understand they don't trust the Iranian leadership, but if they're right, there's always time to slap ever more restraints on that country, or even invade it. It always seems that when America thinks it can push people around, we wind up being forced to go to war to prove it. Shouldn't we stop trying to be the neighborhood bully and see if we can't work thing out in a more congenial way?

Uh Oh,. Now They've Done It.

       It's hard to believe. No it's nearly impossible to believe, and yet Congress is about to pass a budget. And yet that budget actually includes additional funding for programs like Head Start. The vote could come as soon as today. Not only that but it appears that it could actually pass. It's a budget that includes more than conservatives want but less that Pres. Obama asked for. I think they call that compromise. Hard to imagine isn't it?
       But that's not what's most striking about this budget. What's most startling is the fact that in an election year, the budget runs until October. Now I understand all about fiscal budgets and that our federal budget runs from October to October each year. Actually, I mean it's supposed to. But did I mention it's an election year for all of the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate?
       So with elections coming up the next month after this budget runs out, what's gonna happen on a new budget before election day? You don't suppose it'll become a campaign issue do ya? I suppose they all realized that folks won't notice no new budget is getting voted on since no budgets are voted on, on time, anymore. Ahh the camaraderie of Congress. What a blessing it is to know that no matter the vitriol of the campaign trail when they all come together in Washington, there is a chorus of Kum-By-Yah before the gavel brings the separate chambers into session.
       But what about that date in October? Hey, with all the great minds in Congress, it's hard to believe they couldn't come up with a plan to carry into mid November, at least. Or after the first of the year, even better. It's gonna be hard for either side to raise the question of any other issue in the campaign conversation. Like immigration; Is it in the budget? How about jobs; What line item in the budget is that? Well we do need to talk about Iran; Not in the budget. Guns, no. Voter rights, no. Education, it's in the budget isn't it? States rights, what? Taxes, Now you're talking.
       Well, maybe with luck, it won't pass. Congress could get a bad reputation if they wound up passing a budget with bi-partisan support. That's no way to run gridlock. Good gridlock means no compromising. Not even for the good of the country. it just isn't done.

When Is A State A Dictatorship?

       The New York Times columnist David Brooks is someone I don't always agree with, but today he points out that nearly everyone in Washington is a good person who went there with good intentions. The problem in Washington is that we have bad governance because we have a lack of good leadership. Now the folks elected to be our leaders in Washington are in fact, our leaders. It's just that very, very few of them are good leaders. And that's why we have such bad governance, like gridlock, shutdowns, debt crises and constant squabbling.
       Brooks suggests new electees should find an older mentor. Someone who is skilled in governing. Who knows how to compromise and when to do it. Then stick to that person like glue. That's all fine, but it doesn't solve the problem of gridlock. it only improves the level of leadership. The real problem in Washington isn't even centered in Washington. The real problem is the lack of honest representation. In far too many states you have one party dominance in the state legislatures ad governorship and in the U.S. House of Representatives' districts and how they got to be the dragons they are.
       See, in nearly every state, the state legislature draws the boundaries of the legislative districts, both for the state and for federal districts. Now on the face of it, that sounds fair, but far too many states have managed to become "one party states" at least in the state capitals. That allows them to gerrymander the districts so that their party can never be driven out of control, even if they are outnumbered by the voters in the state. My friend Stephen explains that a state where both houses of the legislature and the governor are of the same party is no different than a dictatorship. They're able to force through any legislation they wish. And with the mountainous amounts of cash spent on these campaigns especially from out of state groups bent on controlling the country, we the voters are losing our control of our own states and the country.
       Now I suppose a state where the vast majority of citizens are of that one party, a one party state government is to be expected, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to gerrymander the districts to eliminate any chance of the other party getting to have any representation. There is a simple solution to the problem. A law that requires all electoral districts be determined by a non-partisan committee based on a square or as close to that shape as is reasonable and possible. And that party registration may not be considered in drawing those lines.

Hey, They All look The Same From The Air.

        The next time you decide to fly to Dallas, Texas, you might want to check to see if you're scheduled to go by way of Chicago and Branson, Mo. If that is the route you're taking, or if your intended destination is Branson, perhaps to take in a show or two, you might want to ask to speak to the pilot. You might ask him or her if he's aware of the fact that there are two airports near Branson. It's just a suggestion.
       The reason I bring it up is that there really are two airports near Branson, one has a 7140 foot runway and the other has a 3738 foot runway. Now it's not that a 737-700 airliner can't land on the smaller runway, it's just that there isn't quite enough runway to take off fully loaded. And the thing is, Branson doesn't have enough taxis to transport all the passengers the extra seven miles all in the same day. Of course they do have access to buses, if that's okay with you.
       The thing is, if the pilot only had access to some directional advisory device like a GPS gadget, this problem might not happen. As an alternative, you could take your own personal GPS along with you. I'm sure the flight crew would be grateful for the added help.
       Now this story is interesting but not without redundancy. About a month earlier a 747 with a flight crew of  two, the only ones aboard, landed at the wrong airbase in Kansas. So it appears that there may be a "dark zone" located in the Midwest and you might be well advised to steer clear of that portion of the country. This theory will be well tested come the presidential campaign year of 2016, so there is time to fix it. On the other hand, the country might be better served to allow it to continue it's existence until after the 2016 elections. Or maybe not.
       At any rate all the passengers and crew were shuttled to the larger airport and another plane was flown into Branson, this time to the correct airport, and everyone continued on to Dallas. I presume the original flight crew flew the new plane on to it's intended destination, but not until after a short course on GPS reading for the pilots.

The Full Pew.

       In church this morning, the sermon was all about sinners. Everybody who goes to church is a sinner. I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying I'm one of the sinners and sometimes that's fun. Not that I'm saying fun is good or bad. Or that sinning, when it's fun, is good. Sometimes it's one and sometimes it's tuther. I will admit that often I have fun and sometimes it's good and sometimes it just might not be so good. But while you're in church, sinning is frowned on.
       Another thing I'm not saying is that those who don't go to church are therefore all good. Some are good and some aren't quite so good. So you see, now everybody who doesn't go to church can claim to be one of the good ones while regular church-goers can claim those non attendees are all the bad ones. Everybody is happy. Well, all except the pastors who want to know why those folks aren't in the pews on Sunday morning.
       But getting back to the sinners, it's as though people go to church because they have sinned and want a reprieve so they can go back and sin some more. It's like having a sack that's full. You can't shop any more until you go home and empty the sack. At least that seems to be the way we act. Now I realize it sounds a little funny saying it like this, but then isn't that pretty much the way we all act? Come on, be honest now. It's like making the same New Year's resolution every year and then breaking it within the first week or two, but you go back every new year and make the same promise to yourself.
       I suspect that some of those folks that don't go to church think they have figured out that they can be good without going to church. Or maybe bad if they don't go to church to get rid of the bad stored up. After all, if you're only gonna get bad on Monday and stay that way until Saturday night, maybe it would be better for them to just stay bad. After all, they think they're having fun all the time. Of course none of this covers those of us who just want to be seen.

Just How Cheap Is Human Life?

       There are two stories that stand out in my mind of late. The chemical spilled in Charleston, West Virginia, is used to process coal and the story of an Indian woman who was given diplomatic status when she was caught keeping a servant in near indentured servant status. These two stories really aren't related in any way, except they bring into question how we treat human life.
       On the one hand the spill was an accidental chemical loss into a river that provides the drinking water for 300,000 people. This stuff is used to "process coal". In other words some of this stuff has to get into the environment all the time. So even if it's no big deal in small amounts, how long have they been using this stuff? A bunch of small amounts adds up to a big bunch.
       Then there's this diplomat, sort of, who felt she was above the rules. By that I mean diplomats are supposed to respect the rules and laws of the countries they serve in. Because they can't be prosecuted in those countries without their home country's approval, isn't an excuse not to abide by those rules. And if paying servants so little they cannot afford to leave the employ of such a person is acceptable in India, then shame on India.
       The problem I see that brings these two cases together is the apparent disregard for human life. It's okay to use toxic chemicals to make a profit and it's okay to use slave-like conditions for employees because , I guess, because you're cheap. Either way, there's no conscious thought for how that person should be treated. Nobody thinks about how it would be to have the shoe on the other foot.
       I'll bet this Ms. Khobragade, the Indian diplomat, would find it unsettling to serve in the same capacity and under the same conditions as her servant, now wouldn't she? And what about the owners of all the coal processing plants? Ya think that 4-methacyclohexane is used on their steak as a condiment? Well, maybe as a condemn-ment. So why doesn't our government show more concern over the well-being of all Americans and why does India allow some of it's citizens to treat others like virtual slaves?

I Wish I Was Too Big To Fail Too?

       There's a good editorial in the New York Times today titled "Why Bankers Have Gotten A Pass." And by the way, how does a bank get fined millions or even over a billion and even have to admit they did something illegal, but no person gets arrested, tried and sent to jail? Was it the Corporation, the bank? How does a bank do something wrong without a person being involved?
       Inquiring minds want to know, in fact even Judge Jed Rakoff of the Federal District Court in Manhattan wants to know. How can a bank break the law and the prosecution can offer enough proof to make the bank pay up to as much as $17 billion in fines and restitution but can't or won't use that proof to try a single person? Not even the night watchman. This Judge Rakoff is the same judge who refused to accept a settlement from Citigroup because it didn't require the bank to admit guilt.
       The article points out that it wasn't always like this, but over the last three decades, there has been a lightening up of prosecution of these folks, at least in part because, they might just be too big to fail and that morphed into people being too important to prosecute for the good of the economy. Can you believe that? People who nearly caused the total destruction of our economy are too important to the economy to prosecute? If that's true, then these folks actually rule America not the government. The Presidency must be just a figurehead position for the convenience of the bankers. Congress is meant to handle just the mundane and clear the way for the banks, while the president should just handle war, "on demand", for the bankers financial gain.
       I don't get it. All I know is that if a small-fry business tried to pull the kind of business dealings these banks seem to do on a daily basis, the owner of that business, not the business, would go to jail and his business would be fined as well, leaving nothing for the businessman's family. But these big banks just keep doing business as usual. The fines are just part of doing business. Why aren't banks that are too big to fail cut down to size? America has broken up banks and other industries like Bell Telephone in the past, why can't we do that anymore? Did we pass a new law that prohibits the government from exercising good judgment? It certainly appears so.

I'll See Your Round-up And Raise You 2,4-D.

       Hey gang, I recently wrote an entry that suggested meat wasn't the best thing you could eat. Well there's an article in Mother Jones this morning about CMO seeds. It seems that the seeds engineered to withstand Round-up have, over time, infected weeds so that they too are resistant to the Round-up herbicide. So now Dow has come up with a seed that resists 2,4-D herbicide. 2,4-D is part of the Viet-Nam era defoliant used by our military known as Agent Orange.
       So now we have the prospect of training our weeds to resist Agent Orange style weed killer, but also, that stuff is inside the seeds and will be inside the harvested crops. Do you remember the kill off of our honeybees? It's still going on, ya know. How will this extra killer affect our bees? But also, how will this added 2,4-D affect us? Of course Dow Agriscience will tell you it's harmless to us because of the small doses we get. Humph, just because they find glowing in the dark acceptable doesn't mean I do. And what harm will that 2,4-D do in the environment over time?
       And there's the sticking point. No not the glowing part, but the fact that these chemicals do wind up inside us along with the additives in our meat and especially our poultry products. Remember the old adage that too much of a good thing is bad for you? Well it's true. Now if you calculate what little harm one single thing like this new defoliant will do to you then, yes it's true, not much harm can come from it. But when you begin to add up all the single little additives, you come up with a pretty big number. And it's the aggregate that may not be so good for you.
       Now I will admit that a lot of what's been done over the years and decades to improve our food chain has helped us to improve our lives and health and even longevity. On the other hand, some have been detrimental to both us and the environment we depend on. What these companies are unwilling to admit is that they don't know what harm they might be doing. All they want to know is that they aren't doing any harm in the near term and the profits they stand to make are astronomical.

The Unemployment Vortex is like a Polar Vortex.

       On a fashionably bitter cold day, how fashionable is it to be unemployed for more than 26 weeks? If you think a Polar Vortex is cold, consider an Unemployment Vortex during a Polar Vortex. In fact an Unemployment Vortex in any kind of weather can't be a whole lot of fun. It's just hard to enjoy such bitter cold outside when it's probably fairly cold inside. Ya know what makes the cold seem even colder? An empty stomach.
       Speaking of fashion, if you've been unemployed for any extended period, you're not likely in the mood to join into conversations about the latest vacation to the Caribbean or plans for jetting off to the Mediterranean. You're more likely to be interested in hearing about a job opening at the local D Q Dairy Queen, or the news that Burger King is offering Assistant manager training.
       By the way, do you know what the training for assistant manager for a fast food means? An entry level burger flipper pay for added responsibility with future prospects of someday becoming a manager at an older less profitable location with the warning to make it successful or you'll be replaced with another assistant manager trainee. And you should be grateful for the opportunity. And here's the worst part, you really are grateful for this poverty building job. That's because you can now join the Poverty Vortex. You'll be a full fledged member of the new Poverty Vortex, especially designed by Congress as a favor to you and your family. Hope they can count on your vote.
       Of course it could be worse, in fact it is worse for 1.3 million good citizens and their families. There will be a vote coming up in Congress in the not too distant future on this issue. Some will befriend the unemployed by voting to reinstate extended unemployment compensation, and some will befriend the unemployed by relieving them of the humility of choosing not to work because you got used to the free ride.
       And free ride it has been. What with taking home half of what you were making before you lost your job. Hmm, lost just isn't the right word. Likely you didn't "lose" your job, you know right where it went. But now that you aren't working for pay anymore you probably can't afford your mortgage, and all extras are ended, like going out on the town or the kids music lessons, but at least you were able to put food on the table. Used to be able.

History Suggests.

       Lets see how well you know your ancient history. In 2002 America went to war against a brutal dictator, Saddam Husain, of Iraq. The people would welcome American soldiers with open arms as their liberators and saviors. This war was to last for only a few weeks. Actually it turned out to be a mere single decade. American troops were welcomed with open arms and roadside bombs. And the  WMDs that Saddam was holding evaporated into thin air. Fortunately we had only several thousand killed and tens of thousands wounded.
       Now Saddam was a Sunni Muslim while most of the citizenry were Shiite Muslims. So as soon as Saddam's government was toppled all Sunnis were never again allowed to be a part of the new Iraq. Well like any normal person who found themselves on the outside and being persecuted, they decided to more or less go to war with the Shiites. If you remember that far back, you'll remember the claims that Al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq which was completely untrue. Saddam would never have permitted such a group into his dictatorship. Well now an Al-Qaeda linked group has spilled over into Iraq from Syria to help the Sunnis try to form a new country of their own by taking control of part of Iraq.
       So now some folks are demanding that we send troops back into Iraq. Actually, the President has no intention of putting any American boots on the ground, but will help with weapons and advise. Now why would anyone want us to go back in there? Haven't we spilled enough young American blood there? Does anyone actually think we'd be welcomed this time and become the saviors we thought we'd be last time?
       Iraq, like many other countries in the middle east was artificially constructed by England, France and America After the 1st and 2nd World Wars. No thought was given to the fact that the countries were made up of different tribes who hated each other. In Iraq, there are at least three tribes or religious divisions. Shiite, Sunni and the Kurds. The Kurds are also Muslim, but of a different tribe completely. Then within each are smaller tribal interests.
       These groups have never gotten along and likely never will. At least not to the point of being ruled by a single government. So should we go back into another war in Iraq? Are you mindful of our history there? Are you insane?

Tax Free Voting.

       There is no question that voting is a right for every American citizen. But where America is missing out on this right is not also admitting that voting is a responsibility. Now we could easily state that voting is a responsibility and leave it there, and nothing would change. In most elections we would continue to see fewer than 50% of eligible voters turn out to exercise their right and responsibility.
       Why this apathy, I'm not sure, but there is a way to encourage voters to take the time to do their duty. Simply place a tax on anyone who does not vote in any election. Let's say the tax for not voting was $50. Then if you vote, you take the stub from your paper ballet or a receipt from the election board handed out at the polls. You would simply attach those stubs or receipts to your tax return and receive a tax cut of the $100 for the primary and general election. To save $100, who wouldn't get out and vote? And for those who still fail to fulfill their responsibility and exercise their right to vote, well let em pay the $100. Must be they feel they can afford it.
       See the reason for this tax is that if only about 50% or less of the population actually vote, then the representation we get is elected by about 25% of the eligible voters. So if only a quarter of the folks vote for a person and he or she wins, that means that we are led by a vast minority. Is that the best leadership we can achieve? Shouldn't we expect more? Shouldn't an elected official be able to say the majority of the residents in my district or state or the country agree with my position? The best they can say now is that at least a quarter of my constituents agree with me.
       There is another aspect to this kind of law. That is at least some increased income for our government to do its job. And finally, there would be a substantial argument to discontinue any activity that might limit people's right to vote. Rules like rigid voter ID laws would be forced to cease to be erected, since to do so would illegally require those folks to pay a tax they would otherwise be exempted from should they vote.

An Assessment Of The War On Poverty.

       According to the Huffington Post today, LBJ's War On Poverty started fifty years ago this month. So how are we doing? Well inequality is through the roof and starting this week 1.3 million unemployed will be cut from their unemployment income and food stamps will be cut back as well. 57,000 children have been dropped from the Head Start Program and the minimum wage has been kept at 1980s rates insuring that even if one of those unemployed can get a job flipping burgers, he or she won't be able to feed their families. Whereas the wealthiest 1% have doubled their share of the take.
       I think I agree with the Huffington Post in saying America has become much more stingy toward the poor. It seems to me to be the perfect plan to eliminate poverty in America within ten years. The reason I believe this is possible is because by then the last poor person will have self deported to China to look for a job. And to be sure nobody else tries to become poor, we've made it almost impossibly expensive to attend college, although I'm not sure how that will ensure no more poverty. It will however eliminate most of the competition for the really good jobs, reserving those jobs for the sons and daughters of the 1%.
       One thing's for certain in this life; either you make it to comfortable wealth or you're gonna starve because there ain't gonna be any middle ground. Now lest you think I'm blowing this all out of proportion, let me introduce you to Joe Nopack. I say Nopack because he can no longer afford the six needed to make a six pack. The reason he can't is because the only jobs he's ever been trained for have all been shipped to China, so he's been out of work for 36 weeks. He can't afford to go back to school to learn a new trade because of the costs, and fast food wages won't feed his family. For that he depended on food stamps, but now those too have been cut back so that he'll only be able to feed his two kids every other day.
       His youngest was attending preschool at the local Head Start, but he was one of the ones cut, so now he sits around all day watching cartoons and dreaming of the day when he too can earn too little to survive and continue to vote for the folks who have counted him out.

NPR Explained Phosphorous To Me.

       This morning as I listened to the news on NPR, I heard a segment that interested me a little more than usual. It was about phosphorous in our waterways like the Chesapeake Bay. The thing is the amounts of it in such places is much higher than it was fifty years ago, by a bunch.
       What the reporter talked about was agriculture and how it's changed and how those changes are causing all the phosphorous in the water. See, years ago farmers raised grain and animals like cows, pigs and chickens. The waste from the animals was spread on the grain fields as natural fertilizer. The grain fed the animals, the animals fed the grain, so to speak.
       But that all changed when the interstate highway system made it easy for feed with phosphorous in it for the animals and as fertilizer for the fields to be manufactured and shipped to the farm. All this made it possible for the factory farms. Now animals are raised by the millions like mass production on the assembly line. But it's too expensive to ship the animal waste to the giant grain farms. Guess what happens to the unneeded waste? It's dumped on lands that already have all the phosphorous it needs or can store. Guess what happens? It runs off into streams and rivers and lakes and Bays.
       Phosphorous is like most things, a little bit goes a long ways. Everything that grows needs some of it, but too much causes a lot of damage. It's like a burger and fries, supersized. One tastes great, but one or two every day and soon you begin to look like one and your arteries are clogged like the Chesapeake. That's the main reason why the Chesapeake Bay is suffering from large dead zones and algae blooms. Oh, by the way, you can't use an algae bloom in a floral bouquet. And we're a long way from converting it to oil. So until we can find a good use for it, we need to figure out how to stop putting it in our waters.

The Deficit And The Workers.

       Ahh, it's a new year. Happy New Year. Here's a thought, let's resolve to accept actual facts that are proven beyond any doubt. No I don't mean global warming or even evolution. They're theories and I'm talking about the real verifiable facts. So if you're one of those folks who think Adam and Eve kept a herd of dairy dinosaurs or that we're just experiencing natural heating and cooling, so be it. But what about something that is actual, visible, true, verifiable, proven and cross my heart hope to die, the real thing?
       Well then, the U.S. deficit is shrinking, both in dollar amount, from over $1 trillion to $680 billion, and counting, a total decrease of $409 billion. As a percentage of the GDP , it's less than half, down from 9.2% of GDP in 2009 to 4.1% now. These numbers aren't theories, they're actual facts. Now, I'm not going to argue whether having a deficit is a good thing or bad thing, but during a period of high unemployment having a quickly shrinking deficit is definitely not a good thing.
       Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of folks are laboring under the misconception that the deficit is growing not shrinking. When you come to an incorrect conclusion, you're likely to make some costly mistakes. So our country would be far better served if everyone, and especially all those in Washington, were on the same page, and preferably the right page. Don't you agree?
       And I'm not even going to argue who should get the credit for this shrinking of the deficit. It's a good thing, let's just accept that and move on. I do think that everybody agrees that high unemployment is not good for the country and concentrate on fixing that. The only folks who might be happy with high unemployment would be a selfish corporate executive who likes the fact that too many people out of work drives down wages for workers.
       So what if we started doing things that would encourage job growth. Now we could give business and industry more tax cuts, but that won't stop them from sending more jobs overseas or using more robotics to replace workers. But how about an excessive profits tax? How about spending some money on roads and infrastructure improvements? Corporate interests have been well groomed, it's time to groom workers.