Mathew And The Muslims.

       Ya know, I keep reading online commentary about those terrible Muslims.  Every time you turn around someone else suggests all Muslims are bad. I assume you folks know better. But I really do have to wonder why these folks who write such hateful letters and opinions, can then turn around and profess their [strong] Christian belief.
       I had the opportunity, this last Sunday, to hear all of the Chapters in the Book of Mathew on the Sermon on the Mount all together again. Now Jesus never mentions the Muslims specifically, but he did have a lot to say about how we should behave. It mentions that the peacemakers are God's children and how we should let go of anger, because it's a sin and think about where you store your wealth, you know, things like that.
       I guess the point is that you can act like these folks act or you can act like a Christian, but you can't act like both. you're one or the other. I know, I know, it's hard work to be a good Christian, at least it is for me, but there is a clear difference here. Ya just can't suggest they all be killed and then  show up in your favorite pew and pretend you're a true follower. From what I've read and been taught, it doesn't work that way.
       I'm all for protecting ourselves from those who would do us ill, but I don't think, in fact I know that doesn't include every Muslim in and out of America. The next thing you know, we'd be picking on other Christian denominations. Eventually it would come down to me and thee and I have my doubts about thee.

"ITOS"

       The year was 2009, the day after President Obama was inaugurated, when the Minority leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, stood up on the floor of the Senate and stated that his goal was to see that President Obama would be a one term president. To accomplish that goal he led an historic minority charge to block any legislation that had the slightest chance of helping so many Americans suffering in the depths of  the Great Recession.
       At the same time there seemed to be a push by that same minority to protect the wealthy from suffering any inflictions from that same recession. And during the recovery, the first to enjoy all the fruits of a recovery, were those same wealthy. That left very little in the way of recovery for the huddling masses. The crumbs from the table, so to speak.
       Now that same minority in the Senate, coupled with the majority in the House of Representatives, are claiming Obama has been ineffective in helping the economy. The truth is that the reason for the sluggish recovery can be explained in a simple phrase. "ITOS! "It's The Obstruction Stupid." With the obstruction by the likes of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, and whether or not you like Obama, the American economy has nearly stagnated. Only with near herculean effort has there been any improvement or help for Americans.
       Wouldn't you like to see some real improvement in our economy? In our American way of life? There is one simple act on your part that can bring that about for the good of our country. Eliminate the obstructionists in Congress. Send them home for a much deserved retirement.

Ahh! The Odor Of Gunsmoke.

       I've been thinking about how I felt about Bush, the younger, taking us to war against Saddam and Iraq. And I've been thinking about how the same Bush agreed to leave Iraq if Karzai demanded our troops would not be protected from their laws, and what I thought about Obama calling it a dumb war, and how we followed the [agreed upon] departure.
       Now I'm thinking about the outcry from the likes of Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Dick Cheney, and I have to wonder why I agreed with Obama's decision to extend our involvement in Iraq and include Syria. Now I realize it seems to be fashionable to want war in this case. But then I remember back to my point in the buildup to the first Bush II invasion. Why do we think we can do something in the middle east to bring about lasting peace and democracy? Nobody's been able to do that in at last 5000 years.
       We don't seem able to learn anything from our mistakes. The more we fight there, the more people, there, hate us. Even the Middle Eastern nations won't admit they're going to help us, which tells me they won't. Countries like Saudi Arabia fund ISIL and provide fighters, countries like Iran are interested only in expanding their sphere of influence. None are willing to put aside their grievances with each other and honestly fight this, their enemy. ISIS/ISIL look forward to forcing America into a war we cannot win, and which they will be strengthened, at least that's what they think, and could be right about.
       Whenever we've taken any kind of action in the Middle East, be it buying their oil to destroying their governments to arresting and torturing their terrorists, they hate us all the more. So if the people of all those countries and the governments of those countries aren't all in, why in the world are we in? Don't get me wrong, I know that going to war is thee national pastime for America, but couldn't we, just this once, give up the opportunity to flex our might?

Ahh. The Odor Of Politics.

       I just read about the most amazing scientific report. This outline explains how and why most couples are of the same mind about politics. Well, I could have told them that. Nearly every couple and even those who are not coupled feel the same way about politics. Everybody thinks politics stinks. And that seems to be the whole point to this study.
       Actually, the study claims that one party stinks more than the other, according to the volunteers in this study. Here's how the study worked and I'm not kidding. They took a bunch of people, half of which were conservative and half were progressive. they taped a gauze pad over the armpit of everyone and didn't allow them to bathe, use deodorants or go near anything that had strong odors. I presume that included each other too.
       Then comes the Peace DE Résistance. They got 125 lucky contestants to sniff the gauze pads. Honest, that's what they did. I'm not making this up. Nobody could make this kind of study up, well except for the folks who actually dreamed this study up in the first place. You know people have nothing else to do when they think up stuff like this to do.
       Anyway, the upshot is that, of those who survived, people liked the odor of those who were of the same persuasion as themselves. In other words, Conservatives like conservative stink and progressives like progressive stink. There was no report on how those who passed out felt about the smell of either group.
       I want to thank the Huffington Post for bringing this critical report to my attention. And I hope you won't mind if I ask to sniff your armpit one of these days, or at least the gauze pads I'm passing out. I do want to state this is , or was, a serious study for those interested in finding a life mate who agrees with you on electoral matters. Or, for those who enjoy the art of arguing and fighting.

Stop Voting For That Rich Person.

       The National Memo had an article in, this morning, about the S.E.C. and a proposed ruling that would require publicly traded corporations to reveal their political donations to their shareholders. Of course corporations and their recipients are against it. Especially trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. They think it's unfair for the owners of a company to know who the company is funding for what governmental position.
       So, for instance, if you're a staunch supporter of Mitch McConnell, and the company you're part owner of, is spending large sums to defeat him for reelection, they don't think you should know about it. The thing is though, if you're part owner, why shouldn't you have the right to know about their political expenditures. After all, you might not be comfortable being an owner of such a company. Or if the company was supporting Mitch, then you might be interested in buying more stock.
       But ya know, I'd go even further. I'd say that the general public should know. They might not want to buy the product of a company that supports someone you think is a nincompoop. The question comes down to whether or not a company can be considered a person and then turn around and give huge sums of money to someone in secret. The Supreme Court says they can give any amount. I don't agree with that opinion, but it's the law. I don't agree because it gives those large donors more 1st Amendment rights than poor people. That's because they can buy far more ads for or against a candidate than a middle class person can afford.
       To my way of thinking, that gives them more 1st Amendment rights than you or I have. Money should not be equated to rights. That is, unless votes are for sale. Why should a rich man have more say than a poor man? We have a preponderance of people in office, put there by rich people. But we have some of the worst people in office of any country in the world. And their performance proves that statement. Isn't it time to put some poor people in office for a change. They couldn't do worse.

We Could Use Some Founding Fathers Again.

       Well, okay. The President has stated he will escalate the bombing of ISIS (ISIL-IS) into Syria. I think that's probably necessary and as long as he's able to pull together support from European and Middle Eastern countries to go along with him, so be it. I even think most of the country is with him. Even Congress is talking as though they agree. But this will be a long endeavor and there's no good reason to believe it won't escalate at some point.
       But there's one point nobody's been willing to talk about or perhaps hasn't even thought about. How do we pay for this escalation and future escalations? We fought the Afghan and Iraq wars without paying for them and we've suffered for those mistakes. So, will Congress now allow for the funding of this new undertaking by putting the costs on our charge card or will they actually propose a payment plan?
       Every war America has embarked upon until the Afghan and Iraq wars were paid for through increased taxes or some other means other than charging it to future generations in the form of foreign debt. And after every other war, we came out the other end of that war stronger. Oh we had debt beyond the end of those wars, but we continued payment plans until the debts were paid.
       My question now is; do we continue on the new path set by President Bush of not paying for nor providing a plan to pay for a war, or do we revert back to a proven formula of paying as we go? If I had a vote, I'd want to know that this new effort wouldn't place us in the kind of financial disadvantage we found ourselves in since the A & I wars. Come to think of it, those two wars never really ended did they?
       There will be those who will blame this new confrontation on our leaving Iraq. But unless there was a decision to remain there until the end of time, there was always the probability that the conflict would continue after we were gone. It still comes down to the fact that America has no idea how to build a stable nation. Our founding fathers figured out how to do that, but they've all passed away. No one has ever taken their place.

Fair Is Fair, Not Far.

       If you're an American company who shipped your jobs offshore, or shipped your headquarters offshore then we need to find a way to penalize you. If you're a company who kept your headquarters and jobs here, we need to find a way to reward you. But if you moved your jobs offshore, moved your headquarters offshore, we need to find a way to make it profitable for you to return both to America. We need to restructure corporate taxes to reward those who help America without rewarding American companies who hinder America.
       The real question is not whether or not this makes sense, it does. The real question is whether or not either political party has the will to do what is best for Americans. The time to be fair to others is not when you're down, the time to be fair to others is when you're on top. We are not presently on top. Nor have we been for some several years. The time is past for the need to help ourselves first. Unfortunately for far too many politicians, this means help themselves personally, first.
       This is not a Democrat or Republican idea. It's not a conservative or progressive idea. It's an American idea. It's a fair issue. Now, we should be fair to others less fortunate than us all the time, but we're not talking about helping those who need our help, we're talking about those who unfairly, if legally, took advantage of us. We should not treat them as well or even better that those who have helped us.
       So it's time to make the piper pay. The pipers have led our jobs away, both in manufacturing jobs and in the tax bases they took away from us. This is not the time for Americans to reward these companies. It's time to ask them to pay a greater duty on products and a loss of tax deferential and preferential treatment. It's only fair. Would that our leaders might see it that way.

Times Are Exciring.

       The hi-tech world is replacing the manufacturing world. That's how the story is told. And as workers are replaced by mechanization and cheaper labor elsewhere, those out of work laborers should be retrained to be hi-tech successes. And all that is good news for those who are actually able to get that training in fields where they're capable of handling the languages and complexities of those hi-tech positions. But how do they pay for the training?
       But what about the folks who can't handle the training or the complexities? And what about the graduates of that training who still can't find jobs? For people who have spent their lives working with their hands to suddenly be told they must learn to work with their heads on complicated, computerized robotics, it can easily be beyond their abilities.
       So what's next for these folks. Their children may have no problem working with computers and robots, but what of this older generation? Is this a discardable generation with exceptions here and there? Is there no place in this America for these relics of a bygone era? Or must they fight back with below minimum wage jobs just to put food on the table.
       What is the responsibility of government toward these folks? What is the responsibility of the corporations toward these folks, if any? It's good that society is able to move on into a bright new future for our youth and our brightest members, but do we, can we, just leave the relics to waste away? There will never be sufficient need for broom pushers to fill the gap with low-skilled jobs gone. America should never turn it's back on the people who helped to make it great.
       Deregulation has allowed the corporate world to turn it's back on labor, but now the curtain has been swept aside. We can begin to see the results of all that deregulation, in terms of human suffering. For too many there is no bright future.

The Center Of The Economy.

       The whole issue of inequality boils down to one single, simple (actually not all that simple) discussion. Which is the center of our economy? That's the question. For about the last 35 years the answer has been corporations. But that's a flawed decision.  It's flawed, not because corporations don't generate billions and even trillions, but because it's the workers that actually manufacture the products and services that make all that money for the corporations.
       But even if it were true that only corporations create the money of the economy, corporations have proven time and again, they don't give two hoots about American economy. They can and do move offshore just to save some tax money, forgetting that it's the taxes that make our infrastructure work for them. Without the taxes; no roads, bridges, ports, airports, power grid and what else. They send jobs overseas for cheaper labor and still expect the very Americans they left behind to buy their products and pay those taxes to keep the economy moving and the infrastructure working.
       Well if it's not the corporations that create the economy then what is the center of our economy? Labor fills that role. The reason is that labor supplies the work necessary to actually produce, but it also purchases the finished product or service. Without that buyer there is no economy. So if labor is so important to the economy, then why do we ,as a country, and our government, turn our backs on labor. The right to unionize is becoming a quaint activity of the past, back when corporations took unfair advantage of workers, but that doesn't happen anymore. Oh really?
       I suppose keeping wages flat for decades isn't mistreatment, or moving out of country for that cheap labor isn't mistreating you workers either. Laws protecting labor have systematically been repealed and replaced with laws to protect corporations from individuals and groups. Laws have given corporations power to greatly influence elections and thereby politicians. What a shame.