Country Clubs.

       Just what is it that's going on in the world these days? In America, Paris and Brussels, and elsewhere people are intentionally killing children along with adults, they're called terrorists. Police are killing people who aren't armed, what's up? I just read that an Israeli soldier killed a wounded Palestinian and citizens are calling him a hero, what's up with these people?
       We've got a front runner in one party calling for punishment for women who get an abortion, then changing his mind, but the rest of his party aren't far from the same opinion. In Maricopa County, Arizona, they went from 200 polling places in 2010 to just 60 this year and the population is growing, what's up with that? People had to wait up to five hours to vote. Those folks are a bit perturbed to say the least.
       Our laws aren't keeping up with society's changing mores. We could do better, but then, we have a Congress. Of course we've always had a Congress, but the difference is that our current Congressional members apparently never learned how to govern. Either that or they intentionally decided not to govern, perhaps as an experiment. I wonder if they've decided to see how close to total chaos they can bring the country to, before they are run out of town on a rail after being tarred and feathered. 
       Our country was founded with the idea that every citizen had a vote as to who would be their leaders as opposed to the leaders choosing who would succeed them, sortta like kings do. And religion didn't enter into it. But now we've got wannabe kings deciding who to keep from voting and who not to. If things keep going this way, America will become an exclusive country club with membership by invitation only. I can foresee signs at every point of entry that read "YOU CAN WORK FOR US HERE, BUT YOU CAN'T VOTE HERE OR LIVE HERE"  At that point you and I probably won't be welcome.

The Election Rule.

       I've given it some thought and I'm tending to agree with the Republicans in the Senate. No Supreme Court nominee should be considered in a presidential election year. But I'd go farther than that. I'd include mid-term elections as well. After all if the point is to allow American voters to make the choice, then the mid-term election is as valid for that purpose as the presidential election year, because as many Senators are elected in the mid-terms as in the Presidential elections.
       This means that no Supreme Court nominee should be considered every other year. Hmm, putting it that way makes it sound a bit more harsh. Well, fair is fair. But if appointing a replacement to the Supreme Court can so easily be delayed, then what's to stop either party from claiming that every year is a campaign year, especially in the fund raising sense of elections, and after all corporations are persons too. And why not withhold elections until all nominees are confirmed?
       This means that no nominee should be confirmed in any year unless the President and a super-majority party in the Senate are of the same party. Now I wonder how often that happens? My guess is that in the year 2066 the lone member of the Supreme Court will have entered a personal care home.
       All future cases before the Court will be heard in the Sun Room of the personal care home. I've noticed lately in cases before the court, the questions from the bench tend to be; "Huh? Speak up young man" or "what was that he said" or my favorite "when's lunch?" But then what can you expect from a 109 year old Justice. It's good to see citizens finally proposing that any vacancy of the Court must receive a nominee from the President within 30 days and be confirmed or denied within 45 days, with no more than three nominees and that the third nominee must be confirmed with or without the Senate. That'll speed things up.
      

Who's Afraid The Roof's Gonna Fall?

       Who thinks the way to defeat ISIL or ISIS, whichever, is with fear? What I mean is, will we be safer if we fear, fear, fear, everything? No! Fear is the tool ISIS uses to defeat us. In fact its the main tool in their arsenal. I keep hearing people say don't allow any Muslims into the country. At least until we know who are the terrorists. Do any of these people actually think we can develop a litmus test to determine who's a terrorist and who isn't?
       Here's a news flash: there is no way to know who will turn around and kill you. Killers and terrorists don't look any different than your neighbor and close friend of fifty years. They work hard at appearing to be good folks. Barring Muslims just infuriates honest Muslims and can convert some, adding to the numbers of people willing to kill us. Christians would and do act the same way, because its a human failing not a religious one.
       There are a few politicians who seem to think that if they get you scared enough, you'll vote for them to protect you. But while that tactic might get them votes, and maybe even an election, it certainly won't protect you. It'll just create more terrorists. And they don't know who are the terrorists. Why? Because nobody can stand there and point out every terrorist. So lets do the smart thing, lets befriend everyone we can, and cooperate with everyone to root out the bad apples.
       What our politicians should be urging us to do is to show a little courage. Our founding fathers did. Their kind were hunted by the British at the time, in their own homeland. But they were courageous enough to sign that document, and stand up and fight for what they believed in. It seems as though we've become a country where we expect some dumb guys to go out and do our fighting for us so we can whine about terrorists behind every tree. We're more likely to die in a car crash than from a terrorist, by far, but somehow we've been suckered into believing they're everywhere.

Thanks For The Political Lesson, Senator.

       I sent an email to Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania regarding a Supreme Court appointment, or non-appointment. He responded (or more likely a staffer) that it is "extremely rare to confirm a nominee in a Presidential election year." But it's somewhat rare to appoint a nominee to the court in any year and even more unlikely in an election year.
       He goes on to state that no nominee has been confirmed in a presidential election year since 1932. But Justice Murphy was confirmed in 1940 and Justice Kennedy was confirmed in 1988. Plus there were four Justices confirmed between 1912 and 1932 bringing the total to six. Senator, you need to get your facts straight.
       It was his last statement that bothers me the most. "The vacancy created by Justice Scalia's passing is especially sensitive because it will fundamentally effect the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation or more." That's likely true, but then President G.W. Bush's appointments effected the balance of the court. In fact every appointment to the court has the effect of changing the court.
       Now if it was okay to change the balance of the court because of Bush's appointments, why is it such a problem for Obama's appointment to change the court? I think its more a case of following the ideology of one party over another rather than the seriousness of the court. To deny even a hearing on Judge Merrick Garland's nomination is strictly a partisan political maneuver designed in the hope that a Republican will be elected President so they can continue the conservative flavor of the court. Too bad the Democrats didn't pull that kind of trick when the shoe was on the other foot.
       If the Republicans can stall for over a year, then what's to stop future situations from dragging on for two or three years or longer? You don't think that could happen? I wonder if the founding fathers ever thought a Senate would drag it out for over a year?

Finally A Sensable Spot For a Parttime Governor.

       I just read the strangest story in the Huffington Post today. "SARAH PALIN TO PRESIDE AS A JUDGE OVER REALITY TV COURTROOM," Sarah Palin? As a judge? On TV. Well okay, to be fair, I'm sure she loves the idea of all that attention. But to make decisions that effect people's lives? Oh, wait, it is reality TV, so I guess it might not effect folks that much.
       Still, this must be a dream come true. I wonder how much time she'll be allowed to address her ideology before she gets down to deciding any cases? No! I didn't say idiocy I said ideology. Although in Sarah's case the difference between the two is, well, not so much. Poor gal, so many people think she's a few coins short of a penny. On the other hand she does have a sizable following who think she's as smart as a whip, to quote an old saying. I assume that would mean a buggy whip.
       Actually I think she's more clever than smart. And the article points out that she is neither a lawyer or a judge, Nor has she ever attended law school. I guess the question begs, what will she be doing in a courtroom? I have to say though it might be very entertaining. And I'll bet she'll be deciding politically sensitive cases along with the more mundane bank heists and such. Anyway, the show would air in 2017. Time enough to bone up on all this law stuff, right?
       Did you notice Sarah has endorsed Donald Trump? Of course so has Ben Carson and Chris Christie, so she's in good company, she'll fit right in. I think if Trump were to run on a third party ticket it would be great. How about the "KNOW NOTHING" party? Too obvious, I suppose. But one source said of Palin that "her telegenic personality, wide appeal and common sense wisdom make her a natural for this kind of format."
       Telegenic, wide appeal? Well, maybe, but common sense wisdom? How can anyone tell? As far as I can tell, nobody can understand anything she says.

Come On Gang. Shape Up.

       Wow! Did I just read the scariest op-Ed by the editorial board of the New York Times. The Senate has been holding up as many as 143 senior positions not including judicial appointments. People like the Ambassador to Mexico. This person is responsible for much of the border security, Central American immigrants and counter-narcotics efforts. The nominee has been waiting since July, but it's been held up by the Senate because she was nominated by Obama. All these nominees have faced a vendetta of a stalling-like non-process.
       Think I'm kidding? In their last two years, our last two presidents have had 528 and 545 appointments confirmed, but Obama, since the beginning of 2015, has had only 193 confirmed. The question is, are these unnecessary holdups the result of a fundamental disagreement between Mitch McConnell, Senate majority leader and the President, or is it something else? The last two Presidents worked with Democratic led Senates while Obama has been unable to work with a Republican led Senate. But for whatever reason, the Senate shouldn't be holding up qualified appointments.
       Obama's policies on Guantanamo or Cuba shouldn't have anything to do with appointments for unrelated positions. For instance Eric Fanning, Army Sec'y nominee, is being held up by Sen. Pat Roberts because of the Guantanamo policy. And Ms. Jacobson 's appointment is being held up by Sen. Marco Rubio because of Obama's Cuba policies. What does Cuba have to do with Mexico?
       Whatever the problem, highly important positions are being held unfilled. Like the U.S. Army currently has no Secretary. With over a million soldiers,. not having a Secretary is a problem. Most, if not all, these unfilled positions are in retaliation for policy decisions of Pres. Obama's administration that the Senate Republicans don't like. But senior official appointments being held up doesn't make for a smoothly operating government at war with a terror organization looking for weaknesses in government.
       Now look. I'm not suggesting that Democrats aren't just as capable of vendettas as the Republicans, I'm just saying that now is not the best time to be playing childish games. Actually,. there is no time that our elected officials should be playing childish gotcha games, at least as they pertain to official business.

How Safe Do You Feel?

        The FBI can't seem to get that terrorist's iPhone hacked. They've been trying to get Apple to crack it and Apple has been refusing to do it. Now they think they've found an outside company or individual to do it for them instead. But here's my question; Why can't the FBI or Homeland Security do it themselves? These are the folks we've entrusted to keep us safe. They can't crack this iPhone, but they think people at Apple and some other company know how to do it?
       Shouldn't they have people who can do it? I mean why don't they just go to the nearest middle school and offer some 8th grader a job cracking iPhones and other communications equipment. The next new devise as a gift would probably be incentive enough to make any kid willing.
       Okay, maybe they'd have to offer some college dropout a job to do it, but shouldn't they already have figured out they need someone with these skills? It looks like most terrorists use modern media to communicate, so wouldn't you think the FBI and all our other security agencies have figured out it might be helpful to have experts in those communications devises, under the age of seventy?
       Look, I don't want them hacking everybody's phone, but if the guy is dead, in the case of that California couple, or someone already proven to be a terrorist in court, shouldn't the FBI be able to check out the content in his phone? And if so, shouldn't they have folks who can do it on the payroll?
       Of course the next thing is to blame Obama for not having the hackers on the FBI payroll, or some Senate subcommittee chairman will be pointed at. But no such leader can be expected to handle all the little details. But somewhere in the middle management of the FBI and Homeland Security someone should have been aware of the need for such experts and where to look for such candidates. What it doesn't do is inspire confidence on the part of average citizens. That is if they think about such things.

Come On Mitch, Be Honest.

       Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, is suggesting he's following the 'Biden Rule' which he clearly doesn't understand. Ya see, then Senator Joe Biden was Chairman of the Judiciary committee and stated they shouldn't waste time on the Robert Bork hearings. Yes, he did say that, and if that was all there was to it, McConnell might be right.
       The thing is, though, it didn't stop there. Because Senator Biden's committee did hold those hearings as did the full Senate. Judge Bork was not confirmed, but he was heard. I think we should go back to the old adage of  'don't do as I say, do as I do.' So the Biden Rule and the Bork Rule both agree, President Obama's appointment of Judge Merrick Garland, must receive a fair hearing.
       Now you didn't hear this from me, but there may be more to McConnell's ideological stonewalling than meets the eye. Ya see, the loss of Justice Scalia, a firm, even hard conservative on the supreme Court potentially changes the ideology of the court. Even with a strong centrist, it must feel like a loss to Conservatives. That, and the hated Obama confirming a third Justice to the court is a heart wrenching nightmare to the likes of McConnell.
       How dare, may I say, a human like that hated Obama be allowed to make that third appointment? After all, he's the one Mr. McConnell flatly stated would make sure that that Obama would only serve one term. He then had the nerve to get elected by a plurality of the voters to a second term, he's just too uppity. Never mind that no nominee of any sitting president has ever failed to at least get a hearing before the Senate. But he's been nominated by Obama. Surely that's reason enough not to hold a hearing on Garland. But actions do speak louder than words. Biden did hold hearings on Bork, and rightly so. No matter what Biden may ever have said, his actions speak for themselves.

Where's Our Next Leader?

       Imagine someone a bit more moderate than Bernie Sanders. Imagine someone a lot more moderate than Donald Trump. That person would undoubtedly become our president by acclamation.
He or she would be so much more a person of the people, concerned about the loss of good jobs to other countries. Inequality would be the target of such a president. Admiration of the wealthy would lead this person to make it possible for the average individual to aspire to that goal.
       Have I been daydreaming too much? What are the chances of such a scenario? Not all that likely. The problem is that nearly all politicians are themselves comfortable in their financial safety and unlikely to want to disrupt it. Of course there are a few who fight for the people, like the junior Senator from Massachusetts, Elisabeth Warren, but she's a lightening rod for those in office who would hate to give up any wealth and who depend on the largesse of the donor class for it.
       Bernie shows he has the desire to do the right thing, but he's a bit over the top by being somewhat too socialistic in his thinking. Donald doesn't really care about fairness, he only cares about himself, but doesn't mind using people for his personal gain. My point is that we shouldn't expect change for the betterment of the people in this election, because, of all the candidates in both parties, there isn't an electable candidate who would actually work for the people's best interests.
       But here's the thing, the unexpected and almost overwhelming support that Bernie and Donald have received is an indication of the level of support for drastic change in America that exists. For thirty years or more the flow of wealth has continued away from the average American and toward the very and extremely wealthy. Income stagnation has existed for those same thirty years for workers, but for the owner class, income has increased by hundreds of percent.
       That support isn't going away, it's waiting for a champion. The only question is how long will we have to wait. A good start would be to make a change in congress. Kick them all out.

Are We Americans Great Again Yet?

       Congratulations to President Donald Trump. His winning campaign was made possible, not by big money nor by self financing, not even as a result of his platform of blaming all our problems on Islam or that he is so rich and so brilliant, no, his election is a direct result of his supporters being better fighters than anyone else.
       Yes, his supporters are far better at handing out sucker punches and out-shouting any anti-Trump agitators who might have the temerity to show up anywhere and suggest Mr. Trump is not necessarily the best candidate for the job at this time, or any time, for that matter. If and when it comes to a knock down, drag out, slugfest, The Donald and his supporters, at his bequest, will stand toe to toe or to the enemies back and duke it out.
       And it doesn't matter whether the opponent is a crippled war vet or a preschooler, black, brown, Arab, Asian, European, or anyone else. Donald Trump and his supporters are ready to hate anyone who, in his unchallenged opinion, is worthy of his disdain.
       Gone are the days when Americans can come together for the good of all. Gone too are the days of polite disagreement, where Americans can have a civil discourse over their disagreements. Such disagreements are no longer tolerated. President Trump will not tolerate any deviation from his stated policies. That is unless he changes his mind. And of course, everyone well be expected to anticipate such changes and be prepared to agree.
       Non agreement is subject to a sound beating and re-education classes until you understand the necessity of total agreement with the one true leader, President Trump and his Vice-President, the "shouter in charge", V.P. Chris Christie. Yes friends, America is already Great Again.

What's A leader To Do?

       If you're running for the office of President of the United States, you need to take the time to sit down and figure out what the people of America really want and what they really need and what the difference between them is, not what's best for you, what you really want and need. If you can do that honestly, then the former will take care of the latter.
       So exactly what is it that's best for Americans? What do we really want and just what is it that we really need? Hey, I'm not running for the presidency or any other office. But if I were I'd think about good jobs and how to get and keep them here in America. I'd stop worrying about how best to get more money in the hands of the rich. The rich are already rich. That's why they call them the rich.
       The trick is to get the money into the hands of the middle class and the poor, because they aren't rich yet. The middle class and the poor need the kind of jobs that pay well. Well enough to support a family. They need a good education and the kind of training that will make them employable. They need to be able to stop worrying about health insurance and transportation and housing and all the little things that drag on ones mind. Most, if not all of those little worries can be handled by a good paying job with security.
       Most of all, I think, is the need for a stable government that can actually govern. This business of fighting over the scraps from the table of government largesse is a drag on the economy. When Americans see the revolving doors between government and lobbying and Wall Street, they just get disgusted and lose any respect for those leaders and the influence these leaders are peddling. And campaign cycles don't help. Not when candidates clamber for more for the rich and join in name calling. That's not leadership. You're embarrassing us.
       How about some real discourse over the needs of America instead of the desires of our potential leaders. I hope that if I were a candidate, that's what I'd do. I wish the actual candidates would take a time out from all the politicking and huddle up with their advisors and figure out what those two needs for Americans truly are, and then go back to campaigning the right way.

No Support For Him.

       Here's an article from the New York Times. "He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself what he wants to accomplish," It does sound a lot like Trump, doesn't it. It goes on to say the he is "against Jews, Communists, Bolshevism, Marxism, Socialism, Separatists, the high cost of living, existing conditions, the weak Berlin government and the Versailles Treaty.
       Now a few of the mentioned isms point, not to Trump, but to the actual person discussed in that article from 1922, Hitler. But you can substitute those isms for some new, but similar, complaints. In other words, Trump is using almost the exact same arguments as the Fuhrer did. Remember Trump, at one time or another has been, during this campaign, against Mexicans, Muslims, protesters, disabled reporters, other Republicans, Chinese workers, women, and as the Times reports, countless others.
       So what's my point? Well it isn't to suggest Trump's gonna start sending people to concentration camps if elected, I don't think that's on his agenda, but what he is doing is whipping up the fringes of society to hate anyone who is unlike them. There was an old joke that went a bit like this. We hate the Germans, Italians, Africans, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, French, and in fact I don't even like you.
       There are a fair number of Americans who hate the idea of losing their majority in America. White Supremacists and those who agree with the thinking but not the title will do anything to stop change. Racists and those who agree with the sentiments but not that title, long for segregation. Those who claim America is a Christian nation and won't accept the Constitution's decision on the subject are similar. All the above do harm to the Country they claim to love. And Trump feeds on all of it.
       Is that who you want to lead?

The NRA And The Gun.

       I just realized why the NRA fights so vigorously against any tightening of even sensible gun laws. Why does the NRA feel it's so important to allow even children to use guns?  Why can't we even have background checks to make sure the buyer of a gun isn't a criminal or straw buyer? It took me a while to put this all together. Actually they are all so interrelated.
       The reason is that guns are unlike food or even cars. Ya see, food gets used up fairly quickly or thrown out. Cars last a few years before they're traded in on a newer model. What am I driving at? Well, because most products need to be replaced often, there's a built in market for new sales. But guns are different, guns seem to last almost forever. What does all this have to do with the NRA's push to block any new gun laws? Because if guns last indefinitely, then the markets for new guns begins to dry up.
       Still don't get it? The NRA is the sales and marketing division of the gun manufacturing industry. Now the NRA doesn't send sales reps around to get you to buy guns even if you already have guns. Instead, they try to broaden the market for new guns. If it's okay for criminals to buy guns because of no background checks or if children are allowed to have guns, then that's a whole new segment of society available as customers.
       The NRA is a "facilitator" for the spread of firearms. It seems to be their goal that every person on earth have a gun or two. Now for the gun manufacturers bottom line, that's a good thing, but for humanity, not so much. Look, I like guns. I own three myself, but then I'm not a child, sometimes childish, but not a child. And I'm not a criminal and there's no protection from abuse order against me, nor would I buy a gun for someone who can't buy it himself because he does fit into those categories.
       What I'm saying is that when the NRA stands up and fights a new gun law, it doesn't mean that law is a bad idea. In fact it might mean it's a good idea, it only means it's bad for the gun business.