Huge Voter Turnout?

       Once again Texas proves itself to be the greatest democracy and a shining example of how to run a government. Texans have shown America and the world that it's not necessary to require photo voter ID to keep it's elections safe. All they had to do is hold primary elections and, presto, they had 7% voter turnout. With numbers like that it's obvious they don't need any ID system. With only 1 out of every 13 registered voters turning out to vote, chances are the election officials know each by their first name or nickname.
       Who do you suppose these voters are who took the time out of their busy day to go vote? My guess is the relatives of the candidates. So ya see, it's more important to be from a big family than it is to have any agenda. It really doesn't matter too much, in Texas, how you plan to lead the state, it only matters that you have lots of cousins, uncles and aunts.
       Now don't get me wrong, I'm not letting the other states off the hook. A vast majority of registered voters didn't or won't vote this year in the primaries. That's important because it allows the fanatics to have their way in presenting the finalists for the general election. So when, or if, you show up at the polls this November 3rd, you'll look at the lineup of contenders and wonder how such strange bedfellows are on the ballet. Who in the world let this guy or that one run for an office?
       The answer to that question is one nobody will believe. That's because the answer is that we did. People just won't accept that answer. It's not the kind of answer that makes your day. Folks simply don't like blaming themselves. If you ask the question: why can't we attract good men and women to run for office? The answer is that we can't even attract ourselves to vote. If we don't have the interest in the system, why should we expect good men and women to be interested?
       In order to have good government there must be a serious electorate to demand the best candidates, not the most loyal to a party or ideology, but the most willing to make the best deal they can, and the intelligence to know when they've done that. When's the last time you voted for such a person?

How Much Does Your Vote Count?

       200! That's right, 200 people will decide who gets elected from now on. In fact somewhere near half that number will make that decision. Now I know, I know, you're gonna tell me that the voters make that decision, right? Well officially that's the right answer, but in fact those deep pocketed one hundred on each side are the ones who decide which candidates get the nomination, because they buy enough advertising to assure their choice makes it to the general election.
       Of course, once their man, or woman, gets into the general, then it the voter's decision, right? Well, actually it isn't quite that easy. See it depends on how thorough their investigators and ad writers are. And the more money spent on these folks, the better the chance they'll hit the right chord and convince the voters that their candidate is the best choice.
       Well, okay, so what? It's still the voters that make all the difference, right? The voters only get to vote on who's gonna serve, but not what those who serve will do. Of course nobody can know what those people will do, right? Actually the deep pocketed folks do get to know what they're likely to do because all the elected officials want to get reelected, and to get reelected they have to please the deep pockets. Otherwise they're not likely to get the advertising exposure needed to win an election.
       So with all this in mind, we have kissed our rights to own our government goodbye. Yes, we still get to trudge to the polling booth and cast our ballets, but by then we've all been programed to vote the way deep pockets require us to vote. The occupy movement tried to change that, but they got a bad rap. The Tea Party tried to do that but got coopted by big money and probably still don't realize it. And both parties have been  outflanked by those same deep pockets. I wonder if that was the strategy of the Supreme Court when it voted in the Citizen's United v Federal Elections Commission?
      

Gun Rights My Foot.

       There were two articles in the news today. One in the N.Y. Times and the other in the National Memo. The two I'm speaking of are both about guns. The one in the NYT  is about  research done on the 2nd Amendment in which he finds that the original intent for allowing people to own firearms, in fact the requirement that people own firearms, was to join a well regulated militia so as to protect America, because the founding fathers hated the idea of a standing army. So, no regulated militia, no need for widespread ownership of guns.
       The second was in the NM and had to do with the near constant danger of mass shootings robbing us of humanity. It's getting to the point that you can't get through a week without another shooting spree. And single shootings and murders count in the scores on a daily basis. It's mind numbing to hear day in and day out how these atrocities continue. And then every other day some other state or city or municipality adds to the list of ways to own more guns and more places you are allowed to carry a gun, like church, school and bars.
       Here's the thing. If we continue down this cowboy, shoot-em-up mentality road, the time will come when police will no longer have the ability to protect us from lawlessness. The way it is may suit the NRA's idea of a utopia, but for most citizens, including most gun owners, life will become a hell on earth. Nobody will be safe to go outside or stay inside.
       The time has come when it's necessary to begin to put reins on these madmen. People simply don't need to carry a firearm to church or school or into a bar. In fact that last is the most foolhardy.
Carry a gun into a bar? Where you plan to drink too much, where others surely already have drunk too much? And you're all packing your favorite glock? Doesn't anyone see a problem with this scenario?
The worst part is that about 90% of those gun toters don't know the proper safety rules and haven't practiced with it under pressure. And that is the worst part. What you can do at a shooting range is completely different from being forced to shoot in a dangerous situation.

Raising Cash For Elections.

       It's getting so you shouldn't own a phone or computer or accept mail from the post office. It used to be you got a flyer from a candidate or two, a month or so before the elections. Then you got a few more. Then signs started appearing on people's front lawns. Next came some ads on TV. Then bigger money started getting involved. That's when you stopped hearing about stump speeches so much and ads started getting nasty. Bigger lies brought on even bigger lies.
       It was getting to be so much fun that the Supreme Court decided to let corporations and very wealthy people get more involved. And now we have year round campaign ads for campaigns that haven't even started, for elections that won't take place for two or more years. Now the GOP is suing to be allowed to hit up everyone for all the money they can get from you.
       The next thing you know, we'll begin to hear how old Aunt Matilda was hoodwinked out of her life saving to help get some young candidate elected to be the local dog catcher or Senator or something. It won't be long before there's no money left for robbers and confidence men.  Meantime we still get hammered with dozens of appeals for money every day on each of our phone, computer and mailbox. Do you realize that if you gave just $1 to each appeal, you'd have to file for bankruptcy within a month. And that's just the wealthy. The rest of us wouldn't last a week.  And yet they want more all the time. If you got a dozen requests today, tomorrow you'll get two dozen. Wouldn't it make more sense to just hand over your paycheck and let them give you back some sort of an allowance?
       I realize that politics is a growth industry, but it's reaching the point where politics will become the only industry. Why does the GOP need to be able to go after everyone for all they can get? And to be sure, the DNC will be right behind the GOP with their hands outstretched.

What's Free May Not Be Good For Us. Especially Speech.

       How does freedom of speech enter into the conversation when a wealthy individual decides to donate substantial funding to a candidate for office in a different state for an office that does not represent that individual? Is that the freedom of speech that must and should be protected under the first amendment? How is it, why is it, a right to financially influence that candidate who will represent people other than those who are bankrolling his campaign? If I am to represent you, why should I take funds from someone who I will not, nor cannot, represent?
       It's even worse when that candidate seeks a judgeship where the donor does not live or work. This seems to me to be a misuse of the term freedom of speech. Just having more money than the next guy shouldn't give anyone more freedom of speech or even more speech than that next guy. How is it that money is the determining factor in freedom of speech? Or at least the shear volume of speech?
       I look at it like this. One man, one vote = one man, one speech. Wouldn't that be a great rule for campaigns? What if candidates could only give one speech? They could answer questions, but only one speech, one time. They'd have to make sure that what they said was really important instead of all the drivel we get now. What if your money would only buy you one speech for your candidate? But the next guy, who doesn't have your money, would get that one speech too. There'd be a better chance for the most respected person to win the election.
       The way it is now, it's not so much the best man, or woman, but the best funded and therefore the best campaign strategist and the best TV ads. I think I'd like it better the other way. I think I'd rather have the best person for the job, not the best funded. And I have to say that the folks we've been getting have been the best funded in many cases, but few have been the best person for the job.
       Another thing I don't understand is how come freedom of speech means you can lie all you want and it's still freedom of speech? If it's a lie, and it often is, it's still protected. Why isn't lying illegal? It is illegal if you lie to a cop or judge, but okay to lie to the people. Then again, sometimes it is illegal to lie to some people. Try to figure that one out.

Let Me Share A Secret. The Media Ain't Perfect Either.

       There's a report that Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that Obama got Syria right. You're sure to hear all about it on FOX news and even the, so called, "Lame Stream Media." He called it "the one ray of light in a very dark region." He thinks the elimination of chemical weapons to be a success. At least about 90% successful. That's a pretty good accomplishment when you think about it.
       I suspect the word from our most prized news outlets will be either an "Oh yes, Netanyahu has some small hope for Syria" or they'll completely ignore it. Now it's not that news networks should be required to make big announcements of success every time something goes right. But then, they seem to have no problem in announcing loudly when things don't go well.
       The reason I find some fault there is that when they only announce failures and not successes, it serves to give a false sense of failure on the part of the whole country. I mean, look at Congress. You'd think to hear the media talk that Congress does nothing. Well in the case of Congress, it does do some work. It does pass legislation, and sometimes it doesn't need the impetus of emergency. Sometimes Congress can act and pass legislation just because it's the right thing to do. Like naming a Post office. Things like that.
       But when the President does something right, like in Syria or on healthcare, that same media will always find something to find fault with.  Sure, the rollout of the Affordable Care Act was rocky and sure there have been problems with it and sure it needs some tuning to make it work, but it's done great good for millions of Americans, even if nobody's willing to admit it. But getting back to the Middle East, even the Pope is calling for peace there. That got a mention, but it's not going to saturate the media unless they can use it to find fault.

It's Nice To Remember Veterans Today, But....

       The way Veterans are being treated by the VA is a scandal and a stain on the Obama Administration. But then it was a scandal and stain on the G.W. Bush Administration as well. In fact it was a scandal and stain on Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy and Ike. In fact the way our Veterans have been treated has been a scandal and a stain going back to the Veterans of the Revolutionary war where vets captured Congress and held it hostage for a day or so. Or the Veterans of WWI who picketed and rioted against Congress because they had not received the bonus they had been promised.
       It seems that we Americans are really good at claiming to be proud of our servicemen and women. We're even more than happy to promise them anything we have to, in order to get them to serve. It's the following up on those promises we have a problem with. Veterans have, over the years, learned to understand that we citizens are more interested in keeping our taxes low than in living up to our promises. It's just the way things are. Making is easy, doing is hard.
       Look at how our Congress passes budgets and spending bills and promises to pay and then turns around and argues over signing the bill that allows the government to pay the bills. Can you imagine if you or I agreed to pay a certain amount for a new car, signed all the paperwork, took the car home and then decided not to make the payments? How long do you think you'd get to keep the car. But what if you did that for your grocery bill. You took the food home, ate it and then when the bill came, you said 'thanks but no thanks'? Why do you suppose the doctor, dentist, and grocer wants to be paid in advance? They all want to be paid in advance because they know that Americans are deadbeats. We must be, because we've made promises to our veterans but when it comes time to pay up, we forget what it was that we promised. But even though the Johnny Rebs and Yankee blue coats of yester year were unhappy with what they got, is not a good reason to ignore promises to the current crop of vets.

Which Is Worse: Big Government Or Big Corporations?

       Why is it that so many Americans are against big government, but seem to be in favor of big corporations? You'd think that the reasoning for disliking big government would be the same reasons for disliking big corporations. Let's see, big government means having it's fingers on everything that touches it's citizens. But lots of folks don't like government intruding on those things they cherish.
       Even if government is protecting them from disease, contamination, exploitation, and overpricing, they don't like it. Well at least unless the government fails to protect them from disease, contamination, exploitation and overpricing. Then the pancake batter hits the fan. At which point there's likely to be at least four investigations. One each for the two houses of Congress, one presidential and one blue ribbon task force. The findings always range from; nothings wrong, to the government did too much , to the government did too little, to nothing happened, it was mistake.
       Which brings us back to the government's too big. The solution is simple. What we need is to eliminate Congress and the Presidency (and vice Presidency) and elect a King for life. This king should have a national credit card to cover all his expenses, but he should receive no pay. When he retires or dies, he has nothing to pass on to his heirs but that which he brought with him to the job. His rulings would be final.
       In other words, he would outrank the Supreme Court. Just like in Merry Old England. Oh! Wait! Somebody already tried that. Merry Old England. So how did that work out? England has a similar government to our own now. Except that the House of Commons (see U.S. House of Representatives) is in charge of pretty much everything. Just imagine how that would work here in America with our current U.S.H.O.R. It would truly usher in new national order.
       After giving this some considerable thought, I think we'd be better off with larger government and smaller corporations.

School Vouchers Pick Winners And Losers, Including The Students.

       Morning Joe this morning on MSNBC had a segment on education. Actually it had a discussion on segregation in education. Guess which state has the most school segregation? New York. Can you imagine? I would have said North Carolina or Alabama  or Texas or someplace like that, but New York? Even the New York Education Secretary admitted it. And Arne Dunkin the National Education Secretary agreed. They all went on to explain how they planned to fix the problem.
       They had me on their side until they started talking about vouchers and such. That's when these highly educated men who are well versed on the problem stopped looking for solutions for all youth and started looking for solutions for kids with the means to attend schools outside their normal school district. Kids whose parents could transport them to better schools, dress them to fit in, provide them with the niceties like IPhones and the like. And that's fine for them.
       But that leaves those who can't afford transportation costs and the rest. So they're stuck in the same old schools with less money being spent on those already stressed and underachieving schools. So how does that program help those students? I don't think anyone is suggesting these kids be ignored, but that seems to be exactly what's going to happen to them.
       Wouldn't it make more sense to arrange for specialized funding for underachieving schools and specific students to provide for trained teams of educators to descend on those schools to help bring them up to level? The teams could work with teachers, students and administrations to solve the problems being faced. Additional funds could be made available to provide for the teaching aids that correspond to that of higher achieving schools. After that, state and federal funding should be directed to help these schools to provide higher teacher wages and to keep pace with technology.
      

Can You Believe that?

       A little while ago, I mentioned the inequality of wealth and opportunity in America. That Canada and much of Europe was passing us out. The scary part of that report is that some of the countries where people fled from to come to America for a chance to succeed are looking more and more like the countries we should consider returning to in order succeed, because it ain't in America any more.
       That's not to say that you can't be successful in America, but it does mean that you're less likely to have it happen here than in these other countries. And some of the statistics blow my mind. Did you know that the wealthiest 1% of Americans own assets worth more than that of the bottom 90% of Americans? How about this one, the six Walmart heirs are worth more than the bottom 41%. Walmart! The folks who can't afford to pay their employees a living wage. But in fairness to those six heirs, they do teach those employees how to apply for government assistance.
       So what we're saying is that six people own more wealth than 155,800,000 people in America. That comes to 1 Walmart owner to every 25,970,000 people. I think they call that income inequality. But it's the opportunity inequality that's really hurting America. If you're poor or even middle class, the likelihood that you can succeed in America is much lower than in many other industrialized nations. How is it that we became also-rans? We can't even lay claim to the education superiority we used to have, anymore. As I've said before, the only statistic we can claim to be winning at is that we have more poor people than other industrialized countries.
       So, what should we do about this? Well, if you ask one of those Walmart heirs, they'll tell you to just get another part time job or two and quit whining. If you ask one of those 41%, you might hear something about redistribution of wealth. To be honest, neither way will help much. Creating an atmosphere where education is paramount and affordable would help, but we need changes to our immigration policies that make it possible that foreign entrepreneurs have a chance to come here and stay. We need to start electing people who actually have a desire to get important things done without digging in and demanding ideological correctness. Fat chance on that.
   

If You've Got It. You Can Learn How To Use It.

       Well, now they've done it. Now you can go to Harvard University and you can take a course in how to take advantage of your privileges. That is to say, if you or your family is well connected, this course will help you to learn how to take advantage of these privileges. Apparently there is no course on how to get by without these privileges. I suppose that at Harvard, it's assumed you are of privilege.
       Just how important is it to teach young people from wealthy, well connected families, how to use those connections to their best interests? But again, if you happen to be a student at Harvard and aren't from a wealthy, well connected, family, it's just your tough luck. Perhaps it's a way of telling poorer students that they shouldn't be there in the first place. Now to be fair, I can't honestly state there is no such course for poorer students. But there was no mention of such a course in the article I read.
       The question I have is; how necessary is it to teach children of privilege how to take advantage of privilege? Haven't they already learned that as a child with far more expensive gifts at birthdays and Christmas and more of them? Didn't they learn it at the private prep schools they attended. Or the "shoe in" acceptance at the best colleges in the country? Exactly who is it that thinks these kids don't already know they're privileged, or how best put those privileges to work on their behalf?
       The folks who really need this kind of course are the kids who don't have privilege and need to learn how to develop connections that will help them to succeed in life. When Harvard and other schools start offering that kind of course, then they'll be doing a service for society. But then I guess doing a service for society isn't what they're in business for. It seems the reason for Harvard's existence is to help the already privileged to become privileged in their own right.
       I suppose there is good reason for that training. After all, daddy isn't gonna live forever. Although at 15% tax on estates, most of his fortune will.

Why Do We Think It's Not Our Fault?

       Why is it that we all have our garbage and trash picked up at the curb and hauled off to a landfill, and pay for that service? Why is it that we're all connected to a sewer line to get rid of our waste and pay for that service, or spend the money to construct our own, on site, sewer system? We pretty much take these things for granted. We could cut down on the need for sewers and garbage collection if we conserved more, but we'd still need to use these services somewhat.
       But why is it that when it comes to our waste and pollution of our air and water, we're not willing to pay for the waste that causes those pollutants? When it comes to cleaning up our own mess in these areas, we sit there and claim it "wasn't me" that caused it. Why does it matter if it was you or I or someone else? Doesn't the mess still have to be cleaned up? Don't we still need clean air and water?       
       Now I understand some folks still refuse to believe in the science of climate change and the idea that we humans are to blame for much of the problem. What I don't understand is why, just on the off chance that the 97% of scientists might be right, why we don't all accept this as a problem we should address. Even on the off chance there's no human responsibility for the warming or if there's no warming, what would be the harm in introducing measures to clean up our act?
       I also understand the confusion over the costs of fighting climate change, but those costs would be outweighed by the new jobs in new industries coming into existence to offset that global warming. I'll bet the concerns have more to do with plain old fashioned politics than with any science. The funny part of it is that the party that's fighting against climate science is the same party that led the way, some few years ago. What caused them to change? I'll bet they think it cost them an election once? Now isn't that silly? I mean, taking a chance on killing all of us off over an election?

Why Were They Great?

       There's a book out about the four freedoms of everyone. It's titled THE FIGHT FOR FOUR FREEDOMS "What made FDR and the Greatest Generation truly great." The four freedom it talks about are Freedom from want and fear, and freedom of speech and religion. Neither our Congress nor our Supreme Court have been of great help in these matters of late.  It's a book I want to read.
       But it also got me to thinking about some thoughts I've had lately about the Greatest Generation. The Greatest Generation became great because of it's steadfast opposition to the Axes powers and won World War II. But it also became the Greatest Generation because of the GI Bill. It allowed any veteran who wanted to, to go to college for free.
       What that meant is that America became blessed with a great abundance of well educated men and women who drove the engines of industry that made America the Greatest Nation in the industrialized world. But without that educated generation we might not have reached the heights we did. And that's what I see as the greatest danger to our society and economy. That's because a college education is quickly becoming unaffordable to the average young person today.
       Except for the children of the wealthy, those who do finish college are so laden with debt, they will be years paying off those loans. There are far too many who, having started school, find it necessary to drop out for financial reasons, or never even try to go to school. Unfortunately in todays economy an untrained or undereducated person finds employment opportunities severely limited.
       The time has come for America to look into the possibilities of post high school education being free, just like it was for so many of the greatest generation. We just might find it would give America the same kind of lift it gave to the post WWII veterans. We need to do something other than argue among ourselves as to which party is correct and which isn't. Because that isn't getting us anywhere.
Why not give our young people a chance to prove they too can be great.

What Is A Hedge Fund Manager?

       Did you hear about the top 25 hedge fund managers last year? What's that, you don't care? Well, did you know that each of these 25 men made more than all the kindergarten teachers in the country combined? That they made over $21 billion between themselves? You do know that the average income for each of these guys is more than you and your extended family will make in a lifetime, don't you? That is, unless you happen to be one of these guys.
       The good part is that they pay less in taxes than you do. And don't let anyone try to convince you that these guys are job creators. They're about as far from being job creators as the pizza delivery boy is. The only jobs they might create is their own personal maids and groundskeepers and chauffeurs. which doesn't amount to a whole lot of new positions.
       Ya know what they do? They get paid fees for suggesting what stocks or companies or commodities to buy or sell for their customer funds. Then for some unknown reason, they get to claim those fees are capital gains. The thing is, using that tangled route to taxation, the money you earn working 40 hours a week doing plumbing work could also be defined as capital gains. After all the money you earn is in fact capital, and since you gained that much capital on payday, it is therefore capital gains. The difference is that the gains in capital you had is taxed at somewhere near 35% while these guys pay somewhere near $15%.
       But look at it this way. If you earn $50,000 per year, it would take you 17 million years to equal what these guys earn in one year. For the good of the country, how important is it for these guys to earn this much money? What if we raised their taxes from 15% to 35%? What would that mean? It means their taxes would go from $3,750 billion to $7.365 billion. But that would still leave them with over $13 billion and a half to live on. Don't you think America could find a use for the additional $3.715 billion? Still, each would have about $10,500,000 per week to live on. I'll bet they could scrape by on that.
P.S. My brother-in-law suggests a better title for these folks would be Hedge-Hog.

When Smart Guns Are Smarter Than You.

        Did you happen to notice all the hullabaloo over a couple of gun stores offering to sell a new "smart" gun? It seems that the  gun lobbies and NRA and gun rights enthusiasts and 2nd amendment freedom fighters really got stirred up over such a horrible attack on their rights. You got it, the folks who demand the right to have guns are dead set against guns. The safe kind.
       Apparently the right to keep and bare arms applies only to firearms that can be fired by anyone, including small children who find them in closets or under beds or criminals who steal them. But guns that are made to make it impossible for those children or those criminals to use them are contrary to that 2nd amendment and a grave danger to those rights to own and carry firearms.
       My understanding is that by allowing these guns to be sold, our government can somehow deny anyone and everyone from owning any firearms at all. Or that the government can somehow keep a registry of gun owners because of these guns, though I'm not sure how these guns alone can accomplish that.
       But there must be some way for these "smart" guns to do all this damage to our rights, because the two gun shop owners who had decided to sell these "smart" guns, one in California and one in Maryland, have received threats against their stores and their lives by a large number of irate citizens and the NRA (notice, the NRA is the bullying lobby of the gun manufacturers association).
       So what we have here is the folks who care most deeply about our right to keep and bare arms, only want us to keep and bare the arms they alone approve of. And when it comes to any gun that's smarter than them, they definitely do not approve. And that makes all the sense in the world if your world is smaller than a mustard seed.

The Fraud Was Not With The Voters

       With all the other important stuff happening, like the ring George Clooney gave his fiancée or how long soldiers can have their hair or the fact that GIs can't have tattoos, you may have missed the fact that the Supreme Court got one right for a change. That is to say, the justices saw through a number of states' attempts to limit voting rights for the purpose of gaining voting advantages for their party. What caught these states was the fact that the phony reason for the limiting of voter rights to eliminate voter fraud, was in fact a fraud.
       The states in question could not show a single case of voter fraud that their laws would have prevented. But the laws would have prevented thousands of legitimate voters from exercising their rights. So, okay, what does it all mean? It means that about 20 or so states that had similar laws are done for. Not the states, but those laws are history in all but name. They'll all be taken to court and reversed, and good riddance.
       These laws were and are transparently anti-minority, anti-Democratic and completely unfair. Look at Pennsylvania for further proof, where the speaker of the Republican led house stated publically that it's law made it possible for Romney to win the state. Fortunately a state Appeals Court justice struck it down before the 2012 election.
       What America needs most is some way to get more people to vote in elections, not fewer. When elections are decided by subterfuge rather than majority votes, we lose the last vestige of freedom we have. We can little afford to give up this last opportunity to exercise that freedom by allowing money and power to engineer elections in their favor.