What Class Warfare?

       It appears that in the "Big Apple", you know, that city with the same name as it's state, New York, has a loophole in one of it's housing laws that allows for separate entrances for people from different stratospheres. So what's happened is some builders of apartment towers have built regularly priced apartments and low income priced apartments in the same building. Then they laid out the building so that if you rented a low income apartment, you have to use one entrance, which happens to be off an alley. On the other hand, if you rented one of the regular priced units, you get to use the main front entrance on the street.
       Now you may ask why the different entrances. Well if you're paying the full price, in other words, if you can afford the full price, you don't want to have to use the same entrance as those poorer folks, you know, the commoners. But them why build the building to accommodate those lessor priced units? Because the builders get special financing and grants to include housing for the poorer folks. So in order to satisfy the dignity of those wealthier clientele, just put two different doors in different locations.
       And you thought there's no class distinctions in America. Ya see how you eliminate any distinctions by not forcing richer folks to have to mingle with poorer folks as they come and go from their domiciles? It's the American way. At least as far as some folks are concerned. Now I suppose If I were very rich, I wouldn't want to have to speak with you anymore, if we had to pass in the foyer. And I suppose that if you were very rich and very snobbish, why then you wouldn't want to speak with me. It would be a great loss for you, while I'd be better off in the end.
       But now, some activist, socialist, buttinski has gone and rocked the boat, or in this case, the high-rise. Now there's a push on to change that law and require both rich and poor to use the same door. We'll even have to touch the same elevator button. More's the pity.

Voter Turnout Is Low. My What a Surprise.

       There's an article in the Washington Post today "Almost no one is voting in the 2014 elections." It goes into a lot of statistics about what races got more voters out in the primaries and which got fewer voters out. It even pointed out that the big money spent on behalf of some contests didn't cause more folks to vote. The article is complete with color coded graphs and all. Why not ask voters what they like or dislike about political ads?
       The point it missed is why big money didn't encourage more voters to get to the polls. To tell you the truth, I think the big money isn't getting more voters to exercise their right to vote because that big money disgusted and misinformed far more people than it motivated. And with good reason. What happens is these political attack ads twist the words of the opposition to new meanings to fit the narrative the big donors want heard. In some cases they're complete lies. But that's okay in politics. You're allowed to lie to your hearts content. Nobody's going to get sued or arrested for lying.
       Once the election is over, the best liar gets to serve his or her sentence in Congress or the white House. Actually that's not quite fair. Sometimes the poorer liar actually gets elected. It mostly depends on how believable your opponent's lies are. But independent ads that put forth the bigger whoppers can sometimes destroy chances for the beneficiary's election. But no matter what, all this big money in elections is making a farce of our electoral process.
       Some ads are so clever it's hard to determine whether or not it's a lie or even who the ad favors. You just know that there's too much information out there to absorb. And you know most of it isn't worth your time to listen to or watch. What's needed is more debating of the issues without candidates spelling out how it's to be done, or what color the backdrop must be. Here's a thought, if you state an untruth, a horn goes off. And then put it on every channel. Either watch it or go to bed.

WOW! Look At That Super-Sized Bag Of Chips.

       There seems to be some sort of conflict between the people who make the packages, crackers and all sorts of other edible products come in and the people who fill those packages, boxes and bags. The folks who decide how much to put in a package, for some reason, refuse to talk with the people who make those packages or for that matter print the picture on the outside.
       Now I understand the reasoning for making a bag bigger than necessary for potato chips. It's so they won't get crushed. That job falls to the folks who jam the filled bags in the shipping boxes and the store clerks who force too many onto the shelf. But what about other foodstuff? Why is it that that large bag of cookies or cereal or what-have-you is only half full when you get home?
       But that's not the worst part. Suppose you'd like a cracker large enough to put some snack on it. You check out all the boxes and bags and select the container with the picture of the largest cracker on the front of that package. Invariably though, when you're home and open that container to put some out on the table hoping to impress you're boss's wife, only to find that the thimble sized crackers, which are all crushed anyway, are completely lost under that sliver of cheese you placed on it.
       Now I don't mean to be picky, but shouldn't those containers be either filled or cut to fit the product inside? And wouldn't it be nice if the picture on the outside were the same size as the product on the inside? The company could make twice as many containers if they did manufacture to fit. Of course if they showed the actual size of the cracker or cookie or what-have-you, they would probably sell fewer of them, and just maybe that's the reason for the misrepresentation. Same answer for the too large size container.

If Your Timing Is Right, You'll Do Well.

       Remember back a couple of years? What was the single most important topic of discussion on the minds of Conservatives? No, not foreign policy, although they were dissatisfied with Obama's policies. No, not even Obamacare, although it was very, very high on their talking point list. No, the single most important issue was the DEFICIT, followed closely by the DEBT.
       But nowadays you hear practically nothing on the subject. Why is that? Well, it's probably because that deficit that was killing any chance for America to survive, is now down to very low numbers for a deficit. And a low deficit could hurt the narrative of too big of a government and too much government spending. Now, to be sure, the debt is still growing, but the costs of that debt as an annual payment isn't so high that it's crippling us. For now. And if the economy continues to grow and jobs continue to increase, that debt will shrink.
       So how come the liberals aren't shouting for joy and pointing to that low deficit? That's what Al Kaman's article in the Washington Post talks about today. Everybody's so quiet about it, you'd think they're all disappointed in the results. But what are they all talking about now?
       If you thought that Benghazi was the hottest topic, you'd be wrong. Sue the President. That's the best subject of the hour and day and week. But why are they suing the President? Because he didn't enforce all the parts of the Obamacare law. Well for starters there is no Obamacare law. They really mean the Affordable Care Act.
       Boehner's beef with the President is that he didn't force parts of the law to become effective on time, because to do so would have caused the law to fail. That's the real problem conservatives have with the President and Obamacare. They wanted it to fail and when it didn't, they got mad as hell. So the obvious person to blame is Obama, and they're right. He was the one who saved it The question is whether or not that's something to sue over. Do you sue somebody because they were successful? Or should you? Was he within his rights? Maybe it's true that timing is everything.

Just Who's Responsible For Them?

       Fortunately it's not required to be a Christian to be an American. But in nearly all religions it's not acceptable to hate children. And as a Christian, you won't find any passage in the bible that tells you to "suffer the children to get out and go home." You will, however, find a passage that says "suffer the little children to come unto me" and then there's the one that says "If a man who was rich enough in this world's goods saw that one of his brothers was in need, but closed his heart to him, how could the love of God be living in him?" And on and on.
       It seems that it's important for politicians to appear to be pious, or at least religious, until it's time to appear to be uncaring and hateful. I'm not quite sure how they're able to tell just when it's time to switch, but it's obvious right now that a good number of politicians have decided it's time to hate little children. But not all little children. Only those from a few Latin American countries. I'm not even sure how you tell those children from many little children who already live in America.
       But maybe that's the whole thing. Maybe the anger is with any young person who isn't lily white. Now I don't mean to suggest all these politicians harbor any racial hatreds. I'm just suggesting that right now, a lot of folks are unhappy that these kids, who in order to escape grave dangers, have come to our towns in our country.
 It could mean that some schools will have an influx of students that will tax their budgets. It may mean that local hospitals and clinics will suddenly have more than they can handle easily. And who's gonna pay for the extra teachers and nurses and doctors, huh? Let's just blockade our highways so these kids can't be brought here. Let's just suffer them to go elsewhere.
       And while we're at it, let's not fix our immigration policies and let's not fund the extra care and courts needed to handle these kids. And even though it's against our laws to just automatically kick them out, let's just kick them out. After all, it's lawlessness in those other countries that's causing the problem, not here in America.

I Think It's Time To Think.

       Is it time yet? Is it finally time for Sarah Palin to answer Katie Couric's question? Is it time for Ms. Palin to inform us as to what publications she reads? She's proven her ability to speak on a wide range of subjects of which she knows nothing, but aside from a teleprompter or script, what does she read? Such a simple question. Why can't Sarah answer it?
       Is it time yet? Is it time for Dick Cheney to have his guns removed so he can stop shooting people in the ear? His best firearm is situated between his lips. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to remember how to aim it or know when he's missed the mark. When you make a mistake and shoot the wrong target, it would help if you could at least remember which target you got wrong.
       Is it time yet? Is it time for Todd Akin to do a little real research and learn about the fiction of "legitimate rape" or the idea that a woman's body shuts down her reproductive capability. Todd apologized for those statements, but now rescinds his apology. He was right about those statements after all, according to Todd Akins' research abilities. These newfound research abilities go hand in glove with legitimate rape.
       Is it time yet? Is it time for the Republican Party to excommunicate people like these strangers? Problem is, there's a whole bunch of like minded people out there. From gun rights people that for some reason can't read a 27 word amendment and actually understand there is a first part to it, to folks that openly carry a firearm which makes them somehow more...... what? More masculine, even if they're women, to Supreme Court justices who claim to be following the Constitution faithfully while they change the meaning of the Constitution in their decisions and go forth into the public claiming to be unbiased while speaking to a overly biased organization. Isn't it time to start thinking for ourselves in the best interest of all the people?

No Good Can Come From This.

       Wanna hear a funny story? The U.S. Supreme Court. Well actually that's not so much the joke, the joke is what the high court is doing. A few weeks ago our Supreme Court chose to allow for-profit corporations to claim the same rights as churches. That is, they can claim that paying for contraceptives violates their religious beliefs. But as columnist Leonard Pitts suggests, there's no word on Viagra or vasectomies. The court said a company can fill out a simple form and they can be exempted from paying for those nasty contraceptives.
       Then three days later, they decided that companies cannot be required to fill out those simple forms in order to be exempt. The reasoning being, and here's the punch line, is that by filling out those objectionable forms it would "Trigger the employee's ability to get the disputed contraception."
       In other words, if the company doesn't want a female employee to use contraceptives, they can still get the exemptions without automatically suggesting those females use any of those nasty things. Do ya get it? So if you're a woman who works for one of these companies, you'd better make sure your mate has had his vasectomy or uses condoms and whatever you do, don't get raped.
       But the really odd part of this is that first the court decided you must fill out this short form, then three days later it stated that such forms are not permitted. That seems a very clear message that the old men on the high court know exactly what they're doing and it has to do with the Constitution. If you read your history, you'll see that our founding fathers foresaw this day in which such things as contraceptives could become available. They determined that contraceptives are bad, but Viagra is good. Now there's an old man's dream come true. But it should scare the daylights out of women.

America Refuses To Increase It's GDP.

       We Americans have a lot to learn about economics. We're way behind the Europeans in this area. They are in the process of increasing their various GDPs, that is, Gross Domestic Product which then will improve their ratio of productivity to debt. Why is this important? Because if your ratio of productivity (income) to debt is low, meaning you have too much debt for the income you have, it will severely limit your ability to borrow.
       So how is Europe increasing their income? Have they suddenly figured out how to sell more product to other countries? Actually, the European Union has determined that it's member countries should measure all aspects of their economies. Why weren't they doing that in the first place ? Actually European countries nor America were measuring ALL of it's income producing activities.
       So from now on, each European country will estimate the incomes and profits of their individual black markets and Sex trades. So from now on, Spain will try to figure out how much a prostitute charges, her overhead and profit and multiply that number by the number of registered prostitutes in the country and add that number to it's GDP. The increase could be staggering in some countries.
       When it comes to prostitutes and brothels, those overhead numbers could include everything from electric bills and property taxes to bedding and birth control. Even advertising might be considered. Although word of mouth might cut down on the ad bills. Still, the profit (GDP) will be staggering. So now while some of these countries have poor GDP to debt ratios, they will soon be in far better condition to get lower interest rates on future loans.
       America is far behind on this issue and will suffer as a result of our draconian system of making this oldest of professions an illegal enterprise and not registering them and taxing them and considering them in our own GDP projections, to improve our financial picture.

What's Up In Politics?

       I'm a little confused on a couple of things. Of course my being confused isn't all that unusual. Thought I'd say that before somebody else did. But here's the thing, Congress and the Speaker of the House want to sue the President for overstepping his authority by doing things the Congress seems unable and unwilling to do. But I think every President in history has done things on his own. I wonder if the President shouldn't countersue Congress for not doing what Congress should do?
       It all seems to be a childish game that one side has agreed to play while the other side seems uninterested. You could say the President is acting like the adult in the room, but actually I'm not sure he is. In politics, if a claim is made by one side, no matter how silly it may be, if it remains unanswered and is continually stated, the uninformed public, which includes a majority of both parties, will come to believe it.
       The normal response to such silly statements is either to point out how silly it is while denying it, or countering with your own silly accusations of the offending party. Either way it usually ends up as a verbal brawl in which even the normally uninformed don't believe either side.
       Now for the Conservatives, they've been busy throwing mud all over the walls hoping something will stick, but for some reason the Progressives (liberals) haven't seemed to have gotten their act together as yet. Of course it may be that the Conservatives have hired all the clever ad writers and left nobody for the Liberals, or more likely, the Liberals haven't decided just what to throw yet. That or they don't have the millions the Conservatives have to invest.
       What is obvious is that a silent President Obama is far less effective than a vociferous Speaker of the House and several dozen other Conservatives, all preaching the same litany of silliness. The President doesn't look superior and above the nonsense, he looks inept and uncaring. His approach is hurting his party, his legacy and the country. We need a strong two party system. Actually, when you think about it, both parties are proving to be less than positive.
      

It's War-time Again? It's time for tax cuts again?

       Well, we've got seven or eight hundred troops back in Iraq. Will we be going back to war, bombing ISIS until.... What? Until we have to send in the troops to fight alongside the Iraqi troops.... Again? War? Again? WAR? Hip, Hip, Hurrah. It's tax cut time again. Remember, we'll be fighting for our national interests.... again, (see oil), so lets hear it for WAR.
       The thing is, though, we tried holding a war party with tax cuts for our last two wars, remember? You remember, the two wars we fought simultaneously. That's how we got started again on the road to national debt. Those wartime tax cuts cost us $4 trillion and counting. They also cost us thousands of American lives, and more than a hundred thousand wounded Americans most of whom will suffer for the rest of their lives and we'll keep paying for those mistakes.
       What is it about those war-hawk leaders of ours? Except for one bitter old POW Senator, nearly all, if not all, of those war-hawks never had a uniform on unless it was in the reserves somewhere or maybe the Boy Scouts. They love to tell us about our national interests, over there. But we export more oil than we buy from Iraq. What other strategic national interests do we have there? Our pride? We gave that up when we invaded Iraq on the pretext of WMDs, which didn't exist except for some old unstable poison gas bombs that might well have exploded before they could have been fired.
       Two Presidents, one from each party, decided enough was enough. What makes anyone think, if we only try again, we can solve all the problems of the Middle East? How many Presidents have tried to solve those problems with no success. Not one success story from any President. No Secretary of State or of Defense or Homeland Security, or even Agriculture or Education. Especially not Education. These war-hawks are un-educateable. One Vice President bragged about the signing of an agreement to pull all our troops out of Iraq and now complains we pulled our troops out of Iraq. What???

To Unionize Or Not. That Is The Question.

       I don't know how you feel about unions or the rules that required even non-union members to pay into the unions that represented their fellow employees in the company they work for. But the Supreme Court has decided that neither you nor they any longer have to make those payments, or at least some of you don't, and it feels like the eventual intent is to free everyone up from making those payments.
       But let's look at how this thing works. Unions came about as a result of unfair treatment of employees by the companies they worked for. That's the history of unions. It's also true that unions, or many of them, got to be run by ruthless and corrupt leaders. Having said that, it's also true that when union officials negotiate with company officials, any resulting contracts are for and to the advantage of all the employees. So even non-members harvest the benefits of those negotiations of the unions, and union members must pay for those union services for which the non-union, non-paying employees benefit.
       Now the way it's long been handled is that non-union employees had to pay a service fee to help cover the costs of the negotiations. Of course non-union employees could have refused those new additional benefits, in which case they would have had every expectation of being relieved of the requirement to pay for the negotiating service. I don't believe there is any record of any employee of any company ever refusing any additional pay or benefit brought about by a union/corporate negotiation.
       Never the less, our Supreme Court seems bent on eliminating unions from the American landscape. The only reason I can think of is that there is a belief, on the part of the conservative wing of the court, that unions have outlived their usefulness because modern corporations no longer treat their employees unfairly, presumably because corporate leaders, today, are all good hearted caring employers. That and the fact that there are laws in place to protect employees, except that such laws seem to be disappearing with each session of Congress, right along with the good heartedness of CEOs. Perhaps in a perfect world, but in our world, without the threat of a union intervention, we could wind up in a Bangladeshi tomorrow.