One Small Step For The SCOTUS.

       Isn't it interesting that the U.S. Supreme court decided that Florida could prohibit judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign donations. The reason they gave was that "Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballet." And that their authority depends on the public's confidence in their integrity and impartiality, according to the New York Times.
       What chief Justice Roberts said, however, is that since they have no power or influence over the purse or the sword they should not be allowed to ask for donations personally. Isn't it odd that it is apparently okay for those who do have those powers to ask people and corporations to donate to their cause? I suppose Justice Roberts doesn't feel it's important for politicians to have integrity or impartiality since they can ask anyone for money.
       Now I applaud the Court's decision to allow Florida's prohibition to continue, but I have to ask, how come we don't demand the same of politicians, who do have the power and the influence over war and finances? Why do we hold them to such a low threshold when they hold sway over life and death of our military and the financial well being of all citizens? It seems to me we should require anyone who wants a position of such magnitude to be above reproach and when they have to go begging for funding, they leave themselves open to the need to make payback promises, real or imagined.
       The time and effort spent on fundraising by politicians has become overwhelming. As I've asked before, 'Why is it that money is equal to a voice?' Large chunks of money can and do drown out other less well healed voices even though those drowned voices may be the voices we most need.

Fighting Climate Change Is Bad For Business?

       It's impossible for business and industry to be competitive in high tax states like California. It's also impossible to be competitive while being forced to meet climate change rules. They kill business. I suspect you've heard these kinds of statements from Conservative leaders in this country. It's a battle cry used over and over.
       Have you ever heard of Apple? It's that company that's somewhat involved in electronics. Did you know that their worth, more than $760 billion, is larger than the economies of all but 17 countries in the world. Even bigger than Saudi Arabia according to an account in Daily Kos. It's arguably the most successful company in the 'modern era', according to the article, with the Dutch East India Company the largest overall with a worth of over $7 trillion. Apple had $13.6 billion in profits on $58 billion for just three months.
       All this and yet they're headquartered in California, one of the highest on corporate taxes. Not only that but they're a corporate leader on diversity in the workplace. Not only that, but they're a corporate leader in the global climate change battle to eliminate their own carbon footprint. They don't see it as a job killer, they see it as a job producer and a profit producer as well.
       Just think, the most profitable company in the world, right here in America, headquartered in California. Doesn't that make you wonder why Conservative Congressmen are putting up such a fight and suggesting that fighting climate change is bad for business? Whose business? The Koch brothers business? I'll bet there's a different reason than it being bad for business. I'll bet they get a whopping bunch of money from the Coal and Oil industries. That's what I think, how about you?
    

Sting Like a Bee.

       In Finland recently, according to an article in the New York times this morning, a man got a speeding ticket for going 64 mph in a 50 mph speed zone. His fine amounted to almost $58,000. You heard it right, the fine was 54,024 euros, which is about $58,000. Why such a high fine? Because he can afford it. If his salary was only 50,000 euros (about $54,000) his fine would have been 345 euros, about $370, but his 2013 income was over six and a half million.
       Finland has a progressive tax system and a progressive fine system as well. The idea being if it stings someone with a lower income it should sting a wealthier person as much. And to do that you have to go on percentages. But the guy that got that $58,000 fine claims he was thinking about buying a new Mercedes Benz and now he can't, or won't. He's thinking of moving out of Finland permanently.
       Actually this idea has been in force going back to the 1920s for things like petty theft and assault. Speeding fines go back to the 1970s. And it worked. It seriously reduced the prison populations. So, is it really such a bad idea? Think about it. If you're thinking of slapping somebody around, a hefty fine might make you stop and think about it twice. And shoplifting? Can you imagine such a high fine that you'd have to give up the idea of enjoying a weekend at the shore, or a new yacht?
       The thing is, the poor just can't afford to do dumb crimes and the rich would think too highly of their money to do dumb crimes. So let's take advantage of these facts. Just think of our prison system here in  America. With a plan like this we'd have far fewer people doing the crimes. We could use lower prison populations, right? Why, the savings to our criminal justice system would be a welcome budget savings and the added income would help to cut the deficit. We might even be able to cut back on the sizes of our police forces.
       I realize this wouldn't go down well with the Wall Street crowd, but hey, everything has been going their way for years. It's time to help the little guy for a change. And help the country as well. It's a win-win-win policy. That's why it'll never happen here.

Intelligent Design?

       I saw a cartoon today in Daily Kos. It showed life from the first single cell organisms right up to a guy laying on the couch complaining to himself that the remote was so far away on the coffee table. One of the commenters suggested this proved there is no such thing as intelligent design.
       I have to agree. When you look at the caliber of political candidates we have for each election. When you listen to the commentators and programming on TV. When you look at our government, the politicians that actually got elected, when you look at the numbers of citizens who actually vote, you have to begin to wonder if there really is such a thing as intelligent design.
       There doesn't seem to be any design to it. It truly does seem to be just random happenstance. If there was any design, even if it wasn't intelligent design, just any design, you'd think that some of the zaniest elected officials would be working the carnival circuit rather than the halls of Congress. Now I don't mean to suggest these folks should be out of a job. I think there's a place for them in the circus.
       And when you look at law enforcement, you have to wonder some times if maybe some crazies have been let out of the zoo. As you may have guessed by now, if you've known me for a while, that I get a kick out of watching and reading about politicians. Because I really enjoy comedy.
       But the comedy I enjoy the most is comedy that doesn't do harm to people. Unfortunately and far too often, political leaders are convinced they do best when they do harm. At least harm to anyone who is unable to contribute significantly to their campaigns.
       You can tell these politicians who like to do harm by the rhetoric they spout. You know the type, 'my friends, I want to help the poor by cutting off their supply of food. then they'll get out there and get a job. they can always find a good job.' Look at all the job listings for scientists and engineers and Doctors. Don't sit around and complain about minimum wage, get a fourth job.

Secrets Are Always Bad For Somebody.

       I guess it's no secret that I like President Obama. In spite of the ruthless hate by Republicans in Congress and the often untruths told by Faux News, He's done many good works for the American people. Obamacare being one and trying to get us out of the Middle-East, another. But there is one thing that bothers me about him.
       Obama ran on transparency and openness. He promised there would be no secretism except that which would be necessary to run a government. But he's not done too well on this score. And no, I don't mean the nuclear talks with Iran. They need to be held in confidence. It's this TPP or Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement I don't like. Or at least the secrecy of the agreement. From all the talk about how much we're giving away, like giving up the right to sue, or disagreements must be decided by international tribunals made up of corporate leaders.
       It's not likely that much of this stuff we keep hearing is true, but then, we don't know. Because President Obama has made it classified secret, or confidential. Which means we can't find out until long after it would take effect. Now this potential agreement isn't about going to war or arming our partners with the bomb. It's about giving our partners special tax free status and a few other niceties. But if our citizenry can't have intelligent input, that's bad for us.
       What's a secret held by our government is almost always bad for us. But as the New York Times points out in an op-ed this morning, it's often a giveaway to the wealthy and well placed to the detriment of the rest of us, the 99%.
       Of course many folks couldn't be bothered to be concerned, and that's exactly how the wealthy like it. Big multinational corporations and their owners prefer keeping things quiet when it comes to gaining ever more riches while screwing ever more regular people. "Swell the ranks of the poor", that's the watchword for these people of entitlement.
       What's funny is that the wealthy are folks of entitlement, but they're against the government handing out "entitlements" to the poor. I guess they never learned about "share and share alike."
They like the "I've got mine, get your own" way of life.

Breaking The Law? Run For President.

       Well, have you decided who to vote for yet? No, I don't mean this years local elections, I mean have you decided who to vote for, for President yet? Is it someone who has already declared or someone who has declared they're "looking into a run" or is it someone who is presumed to be a candidate but just hasn't said so?
       Did you know that the folks who haven't declared they're a candidate or are officially looking into it, are breaking the law? Yep, if you haven't declared to be looking or actually are one, and you're running around the country giving speeches and collecting donations larger than $2700, you're breaking the law. The $100,000 limit doesn't open up until you declare.
       Isn't it interesting that some big name, and small name, 'maybe' candidates who haven't declared anything are raking in the big bucks and doing it pretty much openly? Ya see, they aren't scared of the FEC or the IRS because they know neither agency is going to do anything about this law. And the reason is that neither political party wants any of their candidates bothered by some governmental entity to make them look like bad guys.
       Remember this above all things; All Democrats and all Republicans running or potentially running for President are completely above reproach. You know this to be true. You know they're all above reproach because their parties have told you so. Maybe not in so many words, but you know that's what the parties want you to believe because, after all, it's true, isn't it?
       What I don't get is why the IRS doesn't care. I know why the SEC doesn't. It's because there are three Republican commissioners and three Democrat commissioners. Why would anyone expect that intentionally designed gridlocked agency to be able to agree on anything but lunchtime? But the IRS? We all know they're willing to jump down your throat for any small mistake. The smaller the worse it is. You don't suppose it's because politicians are among the 'too important to be bothered', do ya? Well anyway, don't forget to vote. This year and next.

Aha, The NRA, Back in The News.

       Sometimes things are downright funny no matter how you look at them. Take, for instance, the upcoming NRA Convention. It's scheduled to take place in a most gun loving state, Tennessee. I say gun loving because you can carry a gun almost anywhere and the state legislature is seriously considering a new law that says you can carry a gun in any park in the state and local municipalities can't pass any laws prohibiting them.
       At any rate, the NRA's annual Convention will include hundreds of booths showing the latest in firearms for the interested public. Just one thing though. The firing pins must be removed before bringing any firearm into the convention center. You can't be too safe when it comes to gun safety is the apparent byword for the NRA.
       You heard that right, the NRA, the organization that seems to want everyone to legally pack heat anywhere, anytime, except to it's own convention. After all, the NRA's Annual Convention isn't just anyplace and it doesn't happen just any old time. You can see the difference, can't you? I just hope this absence of firing pins won't render the NRA afoul of any Tennessee laws.
       Now just in case you were planning on attending this year's gala, with the intent of purchasing your favorite choice, be assured you will still be allowed to buy one. Of course you can't actually take possession of it until you get back home. It'll be shipped to the nearest federally licensed dealer. Again safety is the watchword here.
       Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of good sound thinking and clear eyed planning in order to avoid any unfortunate mishap. I just wish the NRA was as clear headed in all of the rest of it's actions and words. A little sound planning can save a lot of anguish later on. You don't suppose the NRA has turned over a new clip, do you? Heck, I'd settle for a new leaf.

Safe Food, The Spice Of Life.

       Here's a way for us to thank our government, in fact it's a way for our government to show us just how highly they think of us. It seems the Food & Drug Administration was charged with the responsibility of coming up with new regulations on food safety for foods, both foreign and domestic. By the by, the FDA is also charged with enforcement of these regulations.
       So Congress, while they don't seem to mind these new regulations, seems to have decided not to fully fund enforcement of the regulations. Now the last time the subject came up in Congress, it was decided to underfund oversight. They were and are given the choice of Congress funding it or have the industry fund it. But after lobbying, Congress decided they wouldn't fund it or ask the industry to fund it either.
       I presume the choice is to have the food industry self enforce. I think we know how that works, right? So as long as you and I don't mind a little (or a lot) of contamination in the food we eat, the Congress has made the right decision. I can't wait until the congressional cafeteria gets it's hands on a supply of bad fruit or veggies or steak. You can bet all food for the cafeteria will be inspected after that. As for yours or mine, well, there's only so much inspection funding to go around.
       I guess it'll take some Congressional families getting sick before the funding check will grow, but even then it'll take some FDA personnel heads to roll first. You don't suppose we should find a little fault with Congressional heads, do you? I mean, after all, isn't it the job of Congress to keep us as safe as possible first? Even before funding Congressional junkets to far away island paradises?
       Why in the world would Congress not want to protect our food supply? Don't they eat what we eat? Is there menu that much different from ours? Maybe it is. Maybe they've hired food tasters to check out their food before they eat it. Wouldn't it be more effective to hire food inspectors instead? I guess these folks know best, but I'm just saying.