Changing What You Write Should Be Up To You.

       Let's be honest, how many of you think the government is secretly doing things to your mind for the purpose of trying to make you more accepting of their rules? How about doing things to you in order to hide wrongdoings on their part? Or for the sake of research? These are conspiracy theories, but what about the private sector? Do they do such things? Well, if you think anyone is doing such things, it's probably the government, right?
       Well, as it turns out, Facebook is the culprit here. Facebook changed the status of somewhere around 100,000 people's entries to make them more positive. They did it to see if it would change their emotional states or their viewers states. It did, but that's not what was such a big deal. The big deal was that a website so heavily patronized as Facebook had the gall to just do it without consent or foreknowledge of the people involved. Why did they do it? Mainly because they could.
       So now the question is: did they break any laws and will they be punished if they did? Well, I think first somebody has to make a formal complaint and then show how they were harmed by the actions of the perp (Facebook). Ya know, I don't think there are any laws that cover what they did, And, let me say, here and now, that the author of the study has apologized. He's sorry for what he did. He said he's "very sorry." But at the same time, in the next breath, he defends the study as important research.
       Being sorry and saying so is what these folks should have been studying. It's become a fine art. It's been pretty well refined and perfected by politicians. No matter what one might have done. A good apologizer can end up looking like the injured party. A good "I'm Sorry" can even get you elected if you're good at it. Or in the case of these researchers at Facebook, it could get them a promotion. If they do a good job of apologizing. And as for Facebook, they'll most likely come out on top because of all the posts people are gonna make just to see if theirs got edited. And the folks who got theirs edited, well they may become celebrities over it.

How To Live Peacefully According To Xi.

       The Washington Post has a nice article today about China's explanation of how to peacefully coexist that all nations should follow. China basically suggests that other countries should not covet thy neighbor's belongings. The Chinese leader explains that in the case of China's claiming most, if not all, of the South China Sea as it's own, that it's not China that's at fault for claiming islands and seascape even if it's in somebody else's front yard, it's their fault.
       Based on that kind of thinking, the United States could reasonably claim all of the Gulf of Mexico and all of the Caribbean Sea and allow all those pesky island nations a half mile out as theirs. As for other countries bordering on those two bodies of water, well that's too bad for them. But remember, just don't covet what's ours and be peaceful. Live in peace and harmony.
       So, I guess as far as China is concerned, the issue is settled. The South China Sea and all it's little islands are theirs. So get over it and be peaceful. I can't imagine why Viet Nam, Japan and the Philippians can't see these universal opinions as fair, and besides they were settled in a treaty from 60 years ago between China, India and Burma. India? Burma? What do they have to do with the South China Sea? It's the principal that was agreed upon, don't you see? Me either. No such treaty exists between China and the other countries bordering the South China Sea.
       Still, China has no problem lecturing America about staying out of any discussions over this stretch of water. Why? Because everybody thinks there may be lots of oil down there. Until this development, nobody had any interest in claiming this region except a few fishermen. Now navy ships are playing dodgem cars and planes are required to register before entering the airspace. At least as far as China is concerned. BTW, we sent two jet bombers across that airspace as soon as they made the declaration. No, we didn't identify ourselves.

The News Is Chock Full Of Good Humor.

       There are some odd things happening in the news lately. I'm beginning to wonder if the moon is somehow stuck in it's full phase. Like the North Carolina's legislature that decided to change it's climate change study in order to please some beachfront property owners that I mentioned in a previous entry. I didn't realize reversing global warming could be so easy.
       Then there's the Colorado Senate race in which the challenger, who has been an ardent right to life adherent who believes that life begins at fertilization as does that life's rights to life, has suddenly changed his mind and has decided that, I'm not sure what he's decided? Does he believe that the life begins but doesn't qualify for citizenship yet, or if he believes that life doesn't begin quite that soon. Ya see, Colorado has voted twice by a wide margin that life rights do not begin at conception. Problem is, this challenger was one of the sponsors of the failed bills.
       Then there's the case of the Oklahoma challenger to a 20 year veteran of the U.S. House. The challenger  is claiming the incumbent is a Body Double or a Robot and that therefore all his votes should be turned over to the challenger. And this was a close race. The incumbent won with an 82% plurality. It seems the challenger in this primary race is convinced that the incumbent was killed in the Ukraine a couple of years ago. But somebody used his DNA to build the double/robot.
       Then there's Speaker John Boehner who has decided to sue President Obama over taking executive actions. But since the President has taken far fewer actions than most other Presidents, we're not sure if the suit finds fault for taking too few or too many actions. Or is, as many are suggesting, it's simply a trial run for an impeachment. Either way, so far as I'm aware, it's the first time a Speaker has sued a President. And it's one of the first actions the Speaker has performed in some considerable time. I wonder why the President hasn't considered a countersuit for non-action.
     

Poliotical Science Ain't What You Think It Is.

       Did you know that in North Carolina, the legislature voted that there would be no appreciable sea level rise over the next 100 years, regardless of whether the ice packs in Antarctica or Greenland melted? Here's what happened, the state commissioned a study that found there would be a sea level rise of about 39 inches over the rest of this century. Sound research and sensible predictions, right?
       Well, the folks at the North Carolina sea shore hit the ceiling. They decided, probably rightly so, that their real estate values would drop through the floor. We're talking lost money here. Right out of these poor folks pockets. There was a near assault of the state capital. So the state legislature created a new study that states there will be about an eight inch sea rise. The good coastal folks decided they could live with this science.
       So from now on science should be a matter of political expediency and financial security for people who are effected by it. Elected politicians will forever more be the heads of all scientific conclusions. And their decisions will be made based on line items issues on the ballet.
       As I see it, if science locates a comet barreling toward earth, big enough to destroy all life on earth, a special election will be held to determine whether or not the comet actually exists. Depending on how the vote turns out, the response to the news of the comet will be either a holiday declared for watching the near earth passage of this phenomenon, or plans to send some space cowboys up to destroy this thing. My guess would be the holiday scenario, because instead of tremendous costs, there would be enormous opportunities to profit from the celebrations.
       Getting back to those melting ice caps, while most Americans may know climate scientists predict that, because of humans causing global warming sea levels will rise dramatically, never the less half of all Americans don't believe it. Or at least half of all politicians claim not to believe it, and that's what matters when it comes to doing anything about the problem. Even if there's lots of money to be made solving the problem.

Anybody Can Sue Over Anything, but...

       Speaker of the House, John Boehner is suing President Barak Obama. Isn't that a fine kettle of fish? So what's the beef? Well, speaker Boehner is mad that President Obama is taking some actions on his own without Congressional approval. President Obama is taking actions where he thinks Congress won't or can't do anything. What's this really about? Should the presidency be no more than a figurehead position or should the presidency have a wide latitude for action, especially when the Congress doesn't act?
       Well according to an article in the Washington Post today, the law suite is really about executive authority. Does the president have any, or should the president have any? Presidents have been using executive authority for most if not all of the 20th century and of course all of the 21st century. In fact Obama has used that authority less than almost any other president. But the Speaker is greatly upset that Obama is using this authority to get things done that the majority in the house don't want done, but can't actually get a vote to disapprove those actions. It's what we in the human world like to call a bunch of silliness, or un-American, depending on which side you're on.
       So now the question might be put, eventually, to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is getting exciting. All three branches of the country will be embroiled in a real controversy. There's gonna be a full court press by the press to grow this into a 24/7/52 news story, but seriously, I suppose it needs to be answered. Should the presidency be just a rubber stamp for Congress or should the president be allowed to do anything he wants or is there some middle ground to be determined and who's gonna make that determination and how will they be able to cover every single example?
       If you think this is some small thing easily decided, you'd better think again. The thing is, during times when there is a relatively smooth running congress, there is probably less need for presidential actions, but when things are like they are now, well then, somebody's gotta be the adult in the room.
     

Judges And Travel And Crude And Crud.

       There are two interesting items in the news today. Why is it that our Supreme Court Justices get reimbursed for trips to foreign countries and weddings? Aside from a salary of around a quarter of a million per year, and book royalties and speaking fees, the nine justices are reimbursed for travel including to foreign countries. One even turned in travel expenses to a wedding. I'm just not sure we need to pay for our Supreme Court Justices to go all over the world. Do they need to see how other countries handle their laws? I thought our judges decided cases dealing with our laws, not Norway's or Uruguay's or wherever's laws. I think it's fine if a Supreme Court Justice wants to visit Italy or Japan, but do we have to pay for them to do it.
       Then for the first time in four decades America will begin to export oil. Really? Well yes, but we've been exporting gasoline and other oil products all along. So the real question is; are we or are we not already energy independent? I mean, if we stopped exporting oil or it's refined products, would we then have enough oil to meet our own needs? And if we would, then why do we need the Keystone XL pipeline? From everything I've read, and with all the hype about needing that pipeline to provide oil for our needs, and the fact that if the XL is built, most if not all of that oil is already spoken for. And that 'spoken for' oil will be shipped over seas. So that the result of the pipeline would mean that America would be left with none of that oil, but all the crud removed from it in the process of cleaning and refining it would be our gift.
       Don't we have enough problem getting rid of the crud we generate with our own oil? Why do we need Canada's crud? How does that help us? Oh I understand that a few international corporations will make a ton of money off this project. They may call themselves American companies, but really they're far more international than just national. They're AINO (American In Name only) and while they do generate lots of jobs, they're not gonna quit generating those jobs if they don't get their way on the Keystone XL pipeline. They still want to sell our oil.

It Ain't Easy Placing Blame.

       I'd like to know just who's to blame for all the problems in the middle east today. Who can we look in the eye and say "it's your fault?" Well, okay, but we're gonna have to go back a ways. After WWI, the "big war". The War to end all wars, the European winners of that conflict, got to build new countries out of the middle east. I don't think the U.S. was interested in any of it at the time. So England and France sort of drew lines on a map and named the countries.
       The problem with that was they didn't give any consideration to ethnic or religious hatreds. They just divided up the land and claimed sovereignty over their chosen pieces of sand. That threw Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds and anyone else who happened to be there into the same states, then ruled them with iron fists until tribal strongmen and dictators took over.
       Now fast forward to the 1980s. America was now mad as all get out with the Iranians. We helped Saddam Husain because he went to war with Iran. We secretly gave him all sorts of help including poison gas, which he later used on Iran and his own people, but he was still our darling in the mid-east. Then at the end of that decade, he decided he'd like Kuwait. Saddam was no different than most dictators in that he was never satisfied with that he had. So he had his people ask our people if it was okay with us if he took Kuwait. The answer he got back was yeah, yeah, whatever.
       So he took Kuwait and suddenly we were mortified. We forced him out of Kuwait after a short but memorable war. Then in 2002 our Administration was looking for an excuse to kick this bad guy out. He had weapons of mass destruction and was trying for the nuclear advantage. Not really, but it sounded good to a lot of people. So we kicked out the only guy in the middle east that actually was keeping a lid on all the sectarian hatreds. Brutally, but effectively. This was to be the second short war with Iraq. This quick, slick, clean operation lasted a brief 10 years.
       Then the democratically elected government of Iraq kicked us out. They didn't want us and if we left any troops in Iraq, Al Maliki wouldn't promise not to arrest any of our soldiers. So we left. And as sure as the rising and setting of the sun, the various factions and religions and ethnicities started fighting. So getting back to who we should blame, I'd say we should blame every president and advisor to presidents we've had since WWI. Equally. But anyway you slice it, because they have oil, they're gonna be a thorn in our side.

The Redistribution Of Wealth.

       For a goodly number of years, we've been fighting about redistribution instead of  plain old distribution. In America that argument has pitted progressives against conservatives. Progressives complain that the wealthy elite in this country have been getting, by far, the largest piece of the pie and it's time to take some back and give it to those who have been left behind. In the meantime, conservatives have moaned that taking away wealth from those who have earned it will stunt growth because they're the job creators.
       Actually neither approach is completely wrong, but neither approach is completely correct. There's a little truth in the liturgy of both political theologies. Which makes both just ever so slightly dangerous. In order to make a real difference, progressives would have to take substantial wealth from the 1%. In fact, so much that it would likely drive many to leave the country, where their wealth would be out of reach of our government.
       But what if we decided to change course and stop asking for redistribution of wealth. If they've earned it then let em keep it. But let's stop allowing the wealthy to continue to reap astronomical incomes in the future. Let's demand that employees make a much larger share of the profits. So you may think that would simply push more companies to go more mechanized, more robotics. and you'd be right, but that wouldn't change the trend. That's happening anyway. But that would only mean that the fewer employees would make even more. As it is now, the biggest share of profits go to the top, but in this plan, the biggest share would have to go to the bottom. Think of it as a pyramid where you need to strengthen the base to support the structure
       So, what happens to those who would still be left behind? In our current economic plan, the majority of citizens are left behind. In this plan fewer, but still many would be left behind. The difference is that in this new plan, even with our current tax atmosphere, more people would be paying higher taxes and that increased tax revenue would have to be targeted to aid the poor.
       It would mean lower income for the wealthy, but it wouldn't touch what they already have. And it wouldn't change their current tax structure. I'm just saying.

Time To Stop Wasting Time.

       As near as I can determine, all of Washington is completely fixated on the Iraq crisis. There are calls for Obama to step down, there's even calls for his entire National Security team to be fired. There were calls for former Gen. David Petraeus  to make recommendations. At least until he made a speech in which he suggested we stay out of it, militarily.
       All of this talk is important stuff, but it doesn't address the most important stuff. Nobody seems to be trying to figure out how to help the poor, middle class and unemployed. It's the economy stupid! Now if the reason for not working on it is because they don't know what to do or how to get it passed in Congress, then there's a really simple solution. All these folks who don't know how to solve the problems or how to get them passed need to step down themselves.
       The thing we all have to remember is that all these folks in Washington were sent there to serve our needs. We supposedly picked smart people to lead us, but if they can't do that, then we need to replace them. Now I don't expect to hear them all break out in a round of Kum-Ba-Yah around the campfire, but I do expect them to honestly and earnestly work on these problems. The thing is, you can't hate the President or your opposite number and actually do the job you're there for.
       Now if the problem is that the electorate doesn't want to worry about the poor, middle class or unemployed, then these good folks, who mostly profess to be Christians, need to read the bible. Especially the first book of John, chapter three, verse 17. No, not the gospel of John, John's first letter. Read it over several times to be sure you understand it. Then, like it or not, you ought to follow that advise. Thus endeth my preaching. Back in Washington, those folks need to begin to do the work they were selected to do. Or we need to replace them. Pay attention class.

So, How's Your State Doing?

       Well, our economy has been slowly improving, but not for everyone, as is obvious. That's true even for our states. I was just looking at a list of the poorest economies among the states. The lowest states starting with # 10 are Maine, Illinois, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and the worst is Alaska according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. If you look at them, six are red states, 2 are purple and two are blue. Penna. has more blue voters but the Governor and legislature are red. Virginia has just changed from a red to a blue governor.
       So what does all this mean? I suppose some talking heads can expound on this question for hours on end. But what it boils down to is they all could be doing better if they weren't so involved in the political maneuvering that grips the whole country.
Here's what I think. Democratic leadership or Republican leadership could both do a bang up job on the economy with just a little support from the opposition and a little less rhetoric of negative sound bites from both sides. And the worst part is that outside interests are the worst agitators and liars of all. These bad actors make up untruths about opposition leaders they don't know anything about and don't care to know. Their only interest is to get their man elected by any means, even if it takes outright lies. And a no-nothing electorate facilitates them.
       Back to the states. So if you live in one of these poor performing states, you might want to remember that fact come November when it comes time for you to vote for your favorite neighbor. Maybe that neighbor isn't helping you much. In fact, maybe he's hindering you and holding you back. Maybe you should consider voting against him this time. Ya know, folks always say things should change. We should vote all those bums out of office. But in the next breath they say, "but my guy is a good guy." NO HE ISN'T. VOTE HIM OUT TOO.

Well! This Is A Fine Kettle Of Fish.

       How come Eric Cantor lost his primary election? He was majority leader in the House of Representatives for goodness sakes. He was a conservative, I really mean that, he was. He was pretty far right. Who could be more far right and still get elected in America? Well, as it turns out, there are lots of folks farther right and that's why he got beat. There were some other things I think, like not paying enough attention to his home district, but still. He outspent his rival by something like 50 to one. But his opponent latched onto two issues and beat Cantor over the head with them. Immigration which the base didn't want and that old beltway lament.
       But here's my question. Here's what I wonder about. It seems like the Tea Party Right is moving far, far to the right causing the Democrats to move somewhat to the left and meanwhile what's left of the Republicans along with some independents somewhere near the center right. This sounds like a fair matchup except that those far right folks are concentrated in the deep south and the very rural midwest. They hold sway in a lot of states with few citizens and that gives them the potential for a lot of congressional seats. Probably more seats than their numbers warrant.
       What that leaves is an America that is so split that nobody will have a clear majority. Even if the Republicans hold both houses, they will be too fractured to govern. And the chances are that the Democrats are still likely to hold onto the White House. And Republicans will hate the next president as much as they do the current one. What exists in our country today was never considered by our founding fathers. In fact I think I hear them all turning over in their graves and groaning. It's not that there aren't ways to fix this mess, it's just that nobody's willing to give an inch let alone the mile that's necessary.

The next Guy That Cries War, Kick Him In The Butt.

       Wow! Who could have foreseen this situation in Iraq? America sent it's finest men and women into that country to throw out a despicable tyrant and to create a democracy that would be a beacon for the entire Mideast to replicate, and to eliminate all those weapons of mass destruction. and, by the way, to make a tidy fortune in the process. It was a war, but it was a war that would be measured in days. The citizens would welcome us with open arms. It could be done without  substantial loss of life or financial costs to America. Go back and check the rhetoric for yourself.
       So how did that turn out? Well, we did throw out Sadam Hussein, we did make a tidy fortune for a very few corporations, but that's about all that was predicted that worked as planned. As it turns out, the people didn't welcome us quite as expected, there were no weapons of mass destruction and that highly touted democracy? Well, after we got the man we wanted in Al-Maliki, he wanted us out as soon as possible. At least after a decade. Pres. Bush rightly told him that if he would not assure us he wouldn't allow our troops to be arrested we were going to pull out by 2012. Maliki thumbed his nose at us and so Obama pulled our troops out as required in 2013.
       Now suddenly, or not so suddenly, his little kingdom democracy is being overrun by extremists and now he wants us to come back and save his bacon. But now, even if Halliburton wants more super profits, we're not going back in, nor should we. Why not? Because we don't know how to build democracies. We don't even know how to build decent dictatorships. Many Iraqi citizens would rather have these ISIS terrorist extremists to the current government.
       No wonder Bush sits so quietly while Obama gets all the flak for the unraveling of a country that would otherwise have continued to keep things in the Mideast from boiling over. A dictator Sadam was, but at least he kept a lid on things. Just think. We could have saved thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars and we'd all have been the wiser for it.

Tsk Tsk, Poor Bankers.

       As best as I can figure out, some of our largest banks have been lending money to Chinese companies based on collateral like aluminum and copper. That's in the China where it's companies have been sending us manufactured goods that are tainted, inferior or other wise dangerous. But our banks think it makes good sense to loan money to these folks. Okay, so what's the problem now? Well it appears those companies may have been using the same stockpiles of copper and aluminum as collateral for more than one loan. You don't suppose they're being sneaky do ya?
       It would be like you or I getting a mortgage on our vacation hide-a-way in Aspen, Colorado from one bank and then getting another mortgage from another bank and then doing it several more times. It's somewhat illegal, but hey, if you don't mind going to jail, it's a way to get your hands on some extra money. At least for a little while.
       But then if you're a company in China, you're not really concerned about laws in America. Now, our banks might get their money back if they can get to prove there was some shenanigans going on. On the other hand if they can't actually get to see if that Aluminum and copper are really there or not, then you might have a problem getting your money back.
       The thing is, though, it's not like China is a good citizen or fair player. As I said before they continually send us bad product, they spy on our industry and steal trade secrets, and they fix their currency to keep competitive. So why would our banks not want to do business there? China is a big customer with the potential to make them big profits, if they don't get cheated. The fact that funding for business loans back here are tight, and student loans are far too high, doesn't enter into the decision making process. Hey America will just have to get along on it's own with it's own banks. Oh! Wait! These are American banks.
       So what happens if our banks don't get their money back? I'll bet we'll have to bail them out. Does this sound at all familiar?

Terrorists Can Even Be Clean Shaven.

       Ya gotta love this one. According to an ultra-right wing extremist website (I won't mention the name) , the FBI has stated that fists kill more people than rifles and shotguns. Fists - 678, rifles and shotguns -  625. Isn't that neat how they stated that? Of course you notice they didn't mention handguns. Now why do you suppose that is? I don't know what the stats are for handguns, maybe more than even fists and maybe more than fists, shotguns and rifles together. But it helped them not to mention those cute, innocent, concealable weapons. It would have ruined their article.
       Add to that the killing in Las Vegas of those two cops and an armed civilian by a husband and wife team, fresh back from the standoff over government grazing lands. This was a militia loving, hate mongering, anti-government radical couple who decided it was time for the "revolution" to start. Does anyone not think these folks were home grown terrorists? And there are and have been a bunch of them. More than Arab nationals since 9-11.
       So when congress worries more about five terrorists being swapped for an American POW and doesn't seem to care much at all about all these freaky home grown radical terrorists with guns, you have to wonder where our Senator's and Representative's heads are. I'm beginning to think that un-electing isn't enough. I think maybe we need to offer them lobotomies as a perk instead of going to work for lobbyists.
       So, if you're a card carrying militia member and you hate government and think it's time for the revolution to begin. Run for congress instead of killing people. That way we can give you a much needed head emptying. On the other hand, if you actually believe all that guff, maybe your head is already empty. Ya know, now that I think about it, I wonder how many of our Congressmen have already had that procedure. There seems to be an inordinate number of them acting strangely.

Bergdahl, Conservatives And Obama.

       Well, now some leaders including House Speaker John Boehner are claiming that the Bergdahl trade has made Americans less safe. Really? Well it is possible the trade has made us less safe, but then lots of things we've done and continue to do, by choice, make us less safe. For example, the Iraq war, that has made us less safe. Then there's 'Stand Your Ground' laws. They make us less safe, but some states are doing it anyway. And then gun legislation, or actually the lack of sensible restrictions make us less safe, but you won't hear Boehner rush to promote those items to help make us safer.
       What is it about this Bergdahl thing that has so many conservatives up in arms. And to be fair, it's not that all conservatives agree, by far, but it seems most elected conservatives are up in arms about the trade for Sgt. Bergdahl. They keep coming up with different arguments hoping one will stick. Why are they fixated on this? Mainly because it's 2014. It's an election year.
       They've concluded that anything that makes the president look bad, gives them more votes in November. that and the fact that they have never been able to accept that Obama got elected. Twice! They don't like him. He hasn't helped that situation, but they don't like him. The few times he's tried to be inclusive toward them, they've snubbed him. Like ignoring invitations to come to the White House, Boehner and others simply didn't go. But to be fair, Obama hasn't been the kind of guy who will sit down and negotiate with them. At least not comfortably.
       There is one more reason for these attacks on Bowe Bergdahl. There's a presidential election coming just around the corner. It's only two and a half years from now. The campaign is in full swing. Half a dozen Republicans are already vying for the job. Hillary is acting like a candidate, but claiming not to be. Not just yet, that is. What better reason to find fault with the current president and something he did. And besides, they don't like Obama. Never have.

Whose Right To Bear Arms?

       For some reason I wound up on the e-mailing list for the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS newsletter. I'm surprised because while I do believe we should be able to own firearms, I don't agree with these Second Amendmenters. At least when it comes to open carry and stand your ground laws. And I especially don't get all worked up by their conspiracy theories.
       The latest conspiracy has to do with (guess who), Obama and this time the FDIC. That's the federal insurance for banks. It guarantees your deposits should the bank fail. Well, I wanted to see how that could possibly work. See the conspiracy states that the FDIC will take away our guns, and I wondered how that could be pulled off.
       Turns out, as best as I can determine, that the FDIC would take away the credit for gun dealers. That way all the gun dealers would go out of business. But even if that were possible, we Americans still have enough guns in the hands of private citizens to arm half the countries in the world and still have enough left over to challenge any army so foolish as to invade us.
       No matter, these folks are convinced President Obama is intent upon taking everybody's guns and do.... what? I assure you there isn't enough room in the White House to store them. Not even in the Lincoln bedroom. Now, I will admit the President and all reasonable, thinking citizens would like to limit the sales of guns, especially to the mentally unstable and to criminals. Which is something the NRA is flatly against. Actually the NRA is flatly against such legislation because the gun manufacturers have instructed them to be against it. See, that would cut down on sales, and that would be a bad thing. For them.
       The problem I see for the NRA and the manufacturers is that one of these days we'll have another mass killing that will be the tipping point that will cause even conservatives to be shamed into voting for far more strict legislation. Such legislation would be more fearsome than even the NRA. It would be a terrible cost and there's no reason for it. Except for groups like the NRA.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Guilty - Innocent.

       Ya know, there's been a whole lot of people shouting about Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's release and the prisoner exchange. Just imagine, five very bad actors released from Gitmo. Taliban leaders that we fear will only get back into the business of trying to kill Americans. And I'll bet that's exactly what they're gonna try to do. Although, I hope our government is keeping a very close eye on them and will strike if they try to do it.
       But what seems to capture the most newsprint and airtime is that Sgt. Bergdahl willingly wandered off his duty station and was captured and that it cost the lives of at least six men trying to free him from captivity. He's just not the kind of person you give up those five Taliban leaders and endanger American lives. There seems to be no question Bowe and even his dad are bad actors. So why would President Obama give up such dangerous men for this guy who is guilty of what may well be crimes.
       The idea that we never leave one of our own on the battlefield is good, but if he did all these things, then how can we claim he's one of our own? Did we give up too much for someone that's just not worth the risk?
       Well, the answer to all these claims and questions is that he's innocent. I absolutely guarantee he is innocent. The reason I know he's innocent in spite of the fact that I think he's most likely guilty, is that in America, everyone is innocent. At least we're all innocent until or unless we're proven guilty in a court of law. So if you believe in our laws, our country, our constitution, then you're gonna have to accept that as an innocent man we could not rightly leave him in enemy hands. Yep, even if he goes on trial and is found guilty of desertion and even if he's found guilty that he aided and abetted terrorists and the enemy. Even then, he's not guilty now.
       Nobody said life would be simple. Even for simple people, life is not simple. So, unless we decide to ignore our laws and treat him like a guilty traitor, he's innocent. And if we do ignore our laws, then perhaps we'd be proving he was right. And then we'd be guilty.

Having The Wrong Address.

       A dear friend of ours asked if my wife got her card. Come to find out, she had an old address which is why we didn't get her card. But it got me to thinking how this sort of thing could easily play into the hands of some of our fondest politicians. A politician could ask his supporters if they had received his special letter of thanks. When his supporter said no, he could easily just mention some fictitious address as the culprit. He then could profoundly apologize and ask for the correct one.
       Why would  a politician want someone's address? Surely you jest. But it's not just politicians who could profit from this ploy. Used car salesmen, tax collectors and a whole host of people could  be using this avenue of address fishing. Of course it wouldn't be long before the idea would become over-used and thus lose it's value as a tactic of deceit.
       I must say, honesty is indeed the best policy. Especially when the alternative is so openly disingenuous. So just what should one say when in a group of friends and acquaintances who are all asking if one member has received their cards? An oft used excuse is "I didn't realize you were ill." Of course this is only acceptable if you live far, far out of town or have been out of town. Another way to handle this embarrassment is to quietly and unobtrusively slip away from that group.
       Of course a politician has a perfectly acceptable excuse by merely claiming he'd been so busy saving the world from (enter important issue here) that he hadn't gotten the word. The one person you never, ever want to hear say they didn't know you were ill, is your employer. I mean, can you imagine, you were out sick for two weeks and your boss didn't even miss you? He may begin to think about how necessary you are to the company. Perhaps the only person who might be more hurtful to hear say that, would be your spouse.