Snowbeard Speaks

Guess Who's On The Public Dole? Guess Who Doesn't Care?

2012-02-12T12:15:00.000-08:00

Whatta you think about all the attacks on social programs of the government? You wouldn't happen to be one of the folks that have been complaining about all the lazy deadbeats who won't get a job so they jump on the government feeding trough they call a safety net are ya? Boy doesn't it beat all how so many poor folks just don't even try. They just suck up all the government money and spend that money on wasteful things like food and shelter. Well the truth has finally come out about them, and them is us. Now I know it may be hard to own up to the fact that most people receiving government largess in the form of social programs like earned income returns and food stamps are in the middle class. Yep. The hard working folks from middle America. Not the poor? Nope, not the poor. Oh the poor get help too, but most people on the public dole, are the people. People who are working full time. Some holding down two or more jobs and still needing help to survive. A lot of them are the folks who have been complaining the loudest and who are some of the folks getting government help themselves. Maybe that's so other "good" folks won't know they're getting help. Pride can be a heavy burden. But when your kids are hungry or cold or need a new pair of shoes to go to school, you shouldn't just take and then badmouth others for the same problem. That's exactly the right time to stand up and defend a service that you know helps you too, or that at least it's ready to help you if you need it. There's no shame in needing help. There's only shame in refusing to give help when and where it's needed. The thing is, we could cut out a lot of unnecessary things from our own budgets and our state's and federal budgets without hurting the folks who truly need help. If you vote to cut these safety nets, then shame on you. If you accept help and don't support the programs, what's wrong with you? If you're well off and don't need this help, then why do you despise those who do need the help? Shame on you.

Investing In Investments.

2012-02-11T08:18:00.000-08:00

America would like China's investors to look for opportunities to invest in American companies to help spur jobs. Hey, China has a bunch of money. We know because a large chunk of it came from us in the first place. We sent our jobs to China. China makes cheap knock-offs of American products and ships them back here. We buy the cheap products sending our money back to China. It seems to me that it's only fair that they at least invest our money in American businesses, so we can get more jobs, create more new technology which can be sent to China to make cheap knock-offs to send back here. See how it all works to everyone's satisfaction? But then Chinese investors aren't satisfied with just investing in cheap products. They'd like to buy our energy industry. They'd love to ship our fossil fuels back to China and they would love to invest in our high tech industries. Especially our secret military technologies. You can bet on that. Why would they need to buy our military high tech when they can easily steal it by hacking into our Internet sites? Diversification. See they know that they won't be able to find everything out by stealing, any more than they could find everything out by investing, but by using both strategies they can get pretty much everything. What they can't get those ways, they can get with subscriptions to Popular Mechanics and Popular Science and a few other magazines. I guess my real concern is that one of these days they're going to invest in the media and there goes the Jersey Shore technology. I'm a little worried about the reruns of all those old "Friends" and "Seinfeld" and "Three's Company" shows. Whatever will we do without them when they get shipped to China. Oh well, maybe they'll remake them as cheap Chinese knock-offs of "South China Sea Shore", "Comrades" and "Longeld" and "Six To A Room" shows and ship them back to America. Complete with subtitles.

Apples And Oranges. They Don't Get Them Either.

2012-02-10T07:35:00.000-08:00

You've heard the old adage that an apple a day keeps the doctor away, right? Well in Apple factories in China, it's not necessarily the apple that keeps the doctors away. In fact it's probably unlikely that workers get many apples at all. What's more likely to keep the doctor away is the management at the factories. At the very least they're keeping safe working conditions away. I think I've mentioned before that working conditions are abominable, and then there's the living conditions. See, workers live in dorms and since the companies go 24/7, they only need half as many beds as there are workers. We had those kinds of conditions in this country, but that was something like a century ago. In the coal fields in the east. Workers and their families lived in "factory towns". They lived in factory owned houses, bought everything at the factory store and paid even for the tools they used to mine the coal. Near the end of the pay period, there was nothing left until payday. So the women were put to work in silk mills and lace works in order not to get deeper in debt. Well, it looks like China is taking a page from our history for their most modern factories. And they're taking one more step beyond. Do you suppose they have the wrong calender? I mean do you think they think we're just rounding the corner into the twentieth century? You don't suppose they're emerging into the industrial revolution do you? Well of course they are emerging from a rural, farm based, poor worker class, into a modern industrial giant. I suppose this is a first step on the road to prosperity for all. Well, except that these apple workers aren't really any better off than they were down on the farm. There is one bright spot in all this though. At least Apple gets to have a really, really cheap labor force. And they can't get that in America. Or anywhere else. Now you know why their Ipads have low prices, right?

Let's Not Argue, Let's Compromise.

2012-02-09T09:28:00.000-08:00

There's been a great deal of rhetoric over the rules covering contraceptive coverage in the Affordable Healthcare law, more often called Obamacare, and the requirement that religious organizations must provide it, free of cost, to their employees. Now both sides of the issue have, for the most part, stated their willingness to compromise. Hmm, if that's so, then I have two questions. Why are so many screaming about it and secondly, why haven't they sat down and done it? Compromise, that is. Of course it's not supposed to take effect until 2013 so there's no real big rush. Hey congress never does anything until the midnight hour. They don't believe in rushing to get things done by the eleventh hour. Now I have a suggestion, but some will think it's harsh. Oh well, I'll tell you anyway. My suggestion is to give in completely to religious concerns and remove that requirement for them. But with one provision. That is that since this is a separation of church and state question, that we separate church and state and agree that the church (es) never threaten any legislator with any retaliation over how they may or may not vote for any legislation. That means no excommunications, no refusal of any services. It's all about separation of church and state. I was at church this morning and we talked about our congregation and it's expectations. I pointed out to the pastor that while he's looked upon sort of as our cliff notes, for most of the congregation, his notes are only needed once or twice a year. We'd all be a lot better off, if more folks came for his and other's cliff notes a lot more often. And then practiced what they heard. See, it's not that I don't like churches, I do, and I think there should be room for many areas of differences of thinking. I don't think anybodies got a lock on all the answers. We may go about things differently, but we're all headed in the same direction. I hope.

Step Right Up And Buy Your Congressman.

2012-02-07T13:12:00.000-08:00

I must be honest with you. Ya gotta be careful when a politician says something like that to you. But I'm not speaking as a politician right now. Maybe later, but not right now. See, here's the thing, as you know, I tried to form a SuperPAC, but nobody told me ya hafta register the things and make reports to the government covering donations. Well at least major donations. Now there are ways to conceal these donations through dummy corporations etc. And no I don't mean to imply that these dummy corporations are dumb. They're actually quite clever. Well anyway, my SuperPAC, PIMP (Put In My Pocket) hasn't been quite as successful as I had hoped and I don't have enough to pay to register it. Not to worry though. I've hit on an idea that should start the cash flowing from some of those big corporations. I've decided to change the name of my SuperPAC. No, not the acronym, in fact I'm only going to change one word of the name. Instead of "Put In My Pocket", it will now be known as "Politicians In My Pocket". I feel this will not only more accurately describe the function, but will also encourage more legislators to flock to my support. Now comes the pitch. So if you represent a major Corporation, especially if you are the Chief Financial Officer, I'd like to talk to you about the opportunities we have for you in our little family of investors, oops, I mean donors. If you are a legislator, especially on the national level, I'd like to talk to you about the largess we have for you. Slightly less on the state level, of course, but still very generous depending on the state and party. I feel these changes in our plan will better represent the needs of our members, donors, investors and recipients. Well, mostly me.

I Can Smell That Diesel From Here.

2012-02-06T07:16:00.000-08:00

You might find this interesting. A "landmark study" on diesel exhaust and whether or not it relates to lung cancer in deep mine miners that was started about twenty years ago, is still being held up by a judge who allowed the mining industry and a house Congressional committee to hold it up and keep the Health and Human Services Department from releasing the findings. See, they use diesel engines to operate much of the machinery and vehicles used in mines. Now think about that. If you're a miner and you work in these mines five or six days a week with these vehicles running 24/7 in most cases, what do you think the chances are that it's going to adversely affect your health? Uh huh. that's what the mining industry thinks and if that's what the report says, then suddenly they're going to start losing lawsuits left and right. So you can see why they want to look the report over before it goes public. And I do see the importance of diesel engines in all of our transportation industry as well, but don't we still have the right to read this report? The House committee, chaired by a Republican, has been lobbied by ??? guess who? So they want to take a peek at the report too. I see two questions here. First, what will they do, require that the scientists who did the work change the report and say that what they found to be true, is no longer true? Second, since when has it been up to congress or an industry to decide what health related scientific research report should or should not be made public? If that's true, then what other health reports are being kept secret from the public and for what reasons? I don't know about you, but we taxpayers are paying for this and any other reports not being released and if we're paying for them and they point out a serious problem to our health, why are we not allowed to know it? Is that really the job of congress? To keep secrets from us that if released could help save our lives? And even if they do have that right, shouldn't they be stripped of that right? And what about the mining industry? Who gave them the right to stop this report from being released? Some judge in New Orleans, that's who. Do you think this has a bad smell to it? So do I. I think it smells as bad as a diesel engine that's upwind and I can't for the life of me figure out why a federal judge would think the mining industry should be allowed to do this. Maybe the Circuit Court, which is hearing the appeal of it, will be able to figure out that the people's rights are being trampled on. This has been going on for twenty years. I think it's time to see the report.

There Are All Kinds Of Textbooks.

2012-02-05T09:35:00.000-08:00

Here's an idea worthy of consideration. In Afghanistan it has been decided that the best course of action in education is to develop a history book that does not mention the past forty years. At all. Yep, it doesn't mention the Russian war. It doesn't mention the mujaheddin or Taliban. Hey it doesn't even mention the U.S. military presence. So I guess the last four decades didn't even happen. Happy New Year, 1972. Is that a good idea? I mean the reason they give is to not widen any disagreements between ethnic and political groups. Ya think they're likely to not remember that American GIs are there? Or that they don't like the folks in the next village? Or that the Taliban didn't cause any problems? Or will they forget how to raise poppies? Now we all know that Afghanistan has been a little slow in approaching the new century, but which century are we talking about? On the other hand, hey, maybe they're right. Maybe forgetting the bad things that happen is the best plan. I know I'd like to forget the Republican nominating process this last year and a half. In fact, forgetting the lead up to almost all elections would be a real blessing. The question is how in the world would we be able to get everyone to agree on it. As if that wasn't bad enough, try forgetting the last forty years yourself. Well, some of us have already done that, just not by choice. But what if we had to vote on whether or not to forget the last four decades? How would you vote? If there's a marriage in there or a new baby or a graduation or an incarceration, well maybe you'd just as soon forget that, but how about your first new home or, oh well, you get the idea? I'm not sure I'd want to forget the whole four decades, but if I could selectively forget some of it, I'm in. Otherwise, I'm going to give some thought to that. I just want to be careful that they don't decide to forget me while I'm thinking about it.

Insider Trading And Legislators Go Together Like Wine And Cheese.

2012-02-04T07:48:00.000-08:00

Let's have three cheers for our congress, because they're writing bills that begin to ban insider trading by congress, senior staff and executive branch senior staff. From now on there will be no closing their eyes to what goes on behind those closed investment doors. That's right, no closed eyes. Although there will still be a lot of winking goin on. At least there will be unless the Senate and House tighten up these proposed laws. Of course, we have to ask the question: do they feel that such laws are in their best interests? Let's face it. If they pass strict laws that say they can no longer profit from insider information, will that adversely effect their portfolios? Would it mean that they would then have to break the law in order to profit from that special insider information? Understand, it's not so much that they would find breaking the law to be a practice they would necessarily shy away from, so much as it would be an added inconvenience trying to hide the practice. Far better if they can somehow word any legislation in such a way as to leave the impression that they have forever outlawed the practice, while still allowing for using the practice under certain circumstances. I believe they may have found that wording. It's still too soon to say definitively and it will take a battery of tax attorneys and constitutional scholars to determine if the wording is clouded and cloaked in legal boilerplate in sufficient bulk to cloud and cloak the actual illegality of the legislation. In other words, will anyone notice that the legislation is a sham? Well, if nothing else, they're convincing most people that they've heard the hue and outcry and have acted responsibly toward it. I for one am grateful that our congress still listens to ordinary folks like us. That is I was, until I realized that it wasn't ordinary folks like us they are listening to. No sirree bob. Ya see, the one percenters feel that with this insider information congress and it's bureaucracy is holding an edge that, on occasion, hurts them, the one percenters. They're the ones who raised the outcry that congress heard. Congress feels it's better to receive outright grants from their wealthy benefactors than from any insider trading. Well unless they can get away with both.

Oh No, They're At It Again.

2012-02-03T09:58:00.000-08:00

This is a tale of two old friends. In fact they may even be shirt tail relatives. Okay, maybe shirt tail thrice removed. Now as sometimes happens among old, old, old friends, they aren't so friendly anymore. In fact it wouldn't be too far fetched to say they are enemies. Yes, even in these days of world wide happiness, peace and even camaraderie, there are a few isolated cases of unfriendliness. Although to be sure, it's not often that you run into two who have become uncivil toward each other. Now these two extremely old, in fact, ancient friends, wait a minute, maybe they've never been friends after all. Well, no matter the past, let bygones be bygones, right? Not this pair. As soon as one gets a new toy, the other wants it, and the first will do everything it can to keep the second from getting this new toy. Right now, the toy in question is nuclear weapons. That's right, much to do about nothing. Well, maybe it's a little more than nothing because the second has wanted to destroy the first for some time now. Now if you were the first, what would you do about this schoolyard squabble? Yeah, well the Israelis are threatening Iran with a military strike. Most likely an air attack. In fact, unquestionably an air attack, because they've done it before. Iran has said it would shut down the Strait of Hormuz cutting off about a third of all oil in the world, including their own, if Israel or anyone else attacks them. Okay smarty-pants, what're you gonna do about it? I'll tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna start walking more so I can get back and forth to the store just in case there's any food there that I can afford. That's because when there's one third less oil in the world, I ain't gonna be able to afford to buy any gas. On the other hand, if Iran does get the bomb, there's no assurance they won't bomb Israel or even sell, or give, it to some terrorist who wants to import that bomb to America. This is what is described as being between a rock and a hard place. In fact if you look up "between a rock and a hard place" in the dictionary, Israel vs Iran is what the definition is. Of course politicians all have the answer. Just ask any one of them. Unfortunately, they each have a different answer. Have you ever wondered how so many people can have so many different answers and yet all claim they're right? That's called politics in an election year. And every year is an election year somewhere.

Here's A Biblical Principle For Ya.

2012-02-02T08:47:00.000-08:00

Hey, there's an Alabama state Senator back in the news again. I'll bet you're gonna claim you never heard of him.Well I'm pretty sure you'll remember him for his claim that there were truckloads of women crossing over the border into the United States in order to have their children in America. His name is Shadrack Mcgill. Anyway, he's back in the news. He gave a speech the other day at a prayer breakfast where he said that "teachers need to make the money that they need to make." "It's a biblical principle. If you double a teachers pay scale, you'll attract people who aren't called to teach." In other words he doesn't believe in raises for teachers. ON THE OTHER HAND. On the other hand, he defends the 62% raise for the state legislators he voted for and accepted. He what? Yes. He feels that, unlike teachers, who are called to teach, legislators are not called to their profession. See, the thing is, he believes that lawmakers, politicians, are corrupt. Well no real surprise there, and by raising their salaries, they may be less likely to take bribes. See by paying them ten or twenty thousand more, they would stop collecting millions from lobbyists. Don't you agree with that? Don't you think there's sound reasoning in that explanation? I can see his point. If I'm making $35,000 from the government and one million from lobbyists, and the government decides to pay me an extra twenty thousand, I'd say, Oh this makes all the difference. Now I'll stop being corrupt. Well, except for one last time. Okay, maybe two last times. I mean two a month. Come to think of it, I guess if you're corrupt, you're corrupt. And if somebody decides to pay you extra, that doesn't mean you're no longer corrupt. It just means you can buy a bigger boat. I guess if it came right down to it, if somebody wanted to pay me $20,000 more, I'd promise not to vote for any bill that person didn't like. Of course I'm not allowed to vote for any bill anyway because I'm not a legislator. I just get to vote for legislators. I'm not convinced I would vote for Shadrack if I lived in Alabama.

My Mommy Says It's Nice To Share. Mine Doesn't.

2012-02-01T08:07:00.000-08:00

Here's something you may find odd. In the MF Global problem, an investment company that went bust and lost hundreds of millions of dollars of investor funds. It was run by a former New Jersey governor. Anyway, investigators have been trying to figure out where all this money went. Especially who got their hands on it. Okay, so there are three different investigating teams, well actually there are three federal agencies and two bankruptcy trustees, but the two trustees aren't sharing information because they are at odds as to who gets the money, if they can get any of it back. One team, we'll it team A, is trying to get that money back in order to pay creditors. Team B is trying to get the money back in order to refund the money to the folks who invested the money. So team A's lawyers won't share any information with team B in case they would get more of the money, I guess. The problem, of course, is that there isn't enough money to pay everybody. I think by a long shot. The big question is, who's team are you rooting for? Some folks, mainly business oriented folks, are cheering team A on so that the companies who are owed money can get these past due bills payed, while moneyed folks are generally hoping team B wins and returns the money to the folks who invested that money with MF Global, trusting that the firm would protect that money. So which are you, a shopkeeper or somebody with some money invested? Maybe some folks are conflicted because they have businesses and investments. What to do. Of course, there's a third, dark horse team, team C. Team C is all of the government agencies who are hoping to collect some money off any fines it may levy. Then again, there's another group that we can call team D. Team D is not in business, has no investments and is not the government. This team is just sitting back and thinking that at least this time it's not their money that everybody is after. In the meantime, somebody is living the high life with all those hundreds of millions of dollars. Which brings me back to team C. See, team C not only wants to collect some fines, it would like to fill some vacancies in their jails too.

To Feed Or Not To Feed. That Is The Question.

2012-01-31T08:06:00.000-08:00

There are two schools of thought. Those who believe that you starve a recession and those who believe you feed a recession, in order to regain a strong economy. If you believe we must starve the recession, you want to cut everything. Cut spending and taxes for business and shrink government. In order to cut spending, the government must curtail or eliminate spending for social services, which is a very small part of the national budget, but maintain defense spending. The only other area available is Social Security and Medicare-Medicaid. It takes up a substantial portion of the budget as does defense. The reason for this is in order to reduce our debt and deficit. If, on the other hand, you believe in feeding the recession, you believe in increased spending in order to spur economic growth which would then pay down the debt and deficit through the increase in revenue from taxes. So what's happening in America. Well like it or not, we're doing a bit of both. Okay, we're doing a lot of both. We had bailouts and we had stimulus. We had cutbacks and we had spending cuts. So, how's that working? Well, the starvers claim we'd have been better off without the stimulus and the feeders claim that the cutbacks slow our economic growth. Okay, who's right? Well it depends on which you are, a starver or a feeder. What do I think? I hate to see our debt increased, but I can't figure out how laying more people off in order to shrink government and placing them in the unemployment lines which increases unemployment compensation costs, which means they have less money to spend, will help our economy to grow. The claim is that by shrinking government it will encourage investment and spending in the private sector. If I just got laid off, or my neighbor did, I don't think I'd be encouraged to spend more. And if I was in business, and fewer people were spending, I don't think I'd be encouraged to invest in more jobs and facilities. I think I'd do just the opposite. But then, I'm not big on starvation.

They Fired Their Doctors. That's The Governemnt For Ya.

2012-01-30T07:33:00.000-08:00

Why is it that government whistle-blowers are still treated as criminals or at the very least as tattle-tales? When a government agency is messing up or covering up and somebody reports them, why is it that that agency is allowed to use all sorts of methods to try to get rid of them by firing or giving them bad performance reports or accusing them of wrongdoing. Now, I'm a firm believer in government even though I like to find fault with it. And we all know there's always good reason to find fault with government. Here's the thing though; government is supposed to be there to help and protect the citizens, not the other way around. At least that's the way it's supposed to work in America. And when it isn't working that way, when it's doing harm or wasting money or stealing money, whistle-blowers are supposed to report it. And when they do, the last thing that's supposed to happen to them is to be picked on by the agency they just reported. How can that be fair? Oh, I understand that whistle-blowers still aren't supposed to release confidential information to the press or an enemy, but they certainly should be able to report any information to congress or the president. There's a case now where the FDA fired some doctors who reported the agency to congress and the president. The agency managers tried to bring charges against them, but the government lawyers said they had no case, so they trumped up some bad ratings and fired them. Now I can understand how some managers could be upset because an underling ratted on them, but hey, they were doing wrong and it could have harmed people. Maybe is harming people. Here's the thing, we need government agencies to protect us, but we need to be able to trust those agencies. If we can't, then I fail to see the value of those agencies. Maybe those managers need to think about that. Rather than whistle-blowers getting fired, maybe the managers should be fired. I wonder if any department heads have ever thought of that?

The Ralph Cramden Moon Colony.

2012-01-28T07:31:00.000-08:00

Hey, they're pickin on poor Newt Gingrich. They're laughing at Newt for his speech on the Space coast of Florida, about having a moon colony in eight years. Well, fair enough, eight years is a bit short. But the idea isn't so strange after all. Let's not forget that JFK took a little heat from a few folks when he said we would land a man on the moon in ten years, when we hadn't even gotten into space yet. The thing was that it was a time when America needed a challenge. We met that challenge because we are America. Well guess what? We're at a point where we need a new dramatic challenge. It's not the first time a permanent moon station has been mentioned. And that trip to the moon gave us mountains of new technology that we're all enjoying today. What's to suggest a new challenge wouldn't provide us with much more technology. So maybe eight years is a little short, but not as crazy as many pundits and politicians are claiming. Oh ye of little faith. Now I don't want you to get the wrong idea. Personally I think Newt Gingrich is more than a little eccentric. And that's as nice as I can say it. What I really think is that he's a conniving, egocentric, prevaricator. He would be a disaster as president. And I believe he has no chance of even getting the nomination let alone being elected in November. He's not presidential material, but his idea for a moon colony isn't all that silly. Now his mention of statehood for that moon colony, that is crazy. Can you imagine? Claiming the moon by giving it statehood? What's he planning? A big sign that reads WE LIKE NEWT? Or maybe BUY AMERICAN? Or how about DON'T TRUST ARABS OR CHINESE OR RUSSIANS OR HISPANICS OR ITALIANS OR IRISH OR ANYONE BUT ME? There's room enough ya know, because the moon's big enough. Hey, it's just a thought.

Out Of The Huddle On New Technology.

2012-01-27T07:56:00.000-08:00

Well, another green energy company has declared bankruptcy. A car battery company that also received a couple of hundred million in grant money. I can't wait to hear the, I TOLD YA SO, chorus. I guess people forget easily when it could be an argument for the other side. I don't have a list, but in any new technology research and development, you are guaranteed to have some failures. Maybe a lot of failures before you win the day. I do have a couple of examples to share. The Japanese have been working on a "fast breeder" nuclear power plant since the 1960s. They've spent literally many tens of billions of dollars on it. Now, after some sixty years they can't afford to continue the research that even the researchers admit may not provide a commercial reactor until the 2050s. The other is the development of the atomic bomb during WW11. They tried many time and failed many times to make it work. finally they went ahead without even testing one. Now, being able to say "I told ya so" doesn't make you a scientist or an engineer and certainly not in that field. What it does do is to point out that you are a very accomplished second guesser. You would make an excellent Monday Morning Quarterback. Then again, maybe not. Because a few failures doesn't render a science wrong or worthless. What it does mean is that they need to step back and take a look at where they are and whether or not it's worth proceeding. That call is best made with the researchers input. And that input should carry some heavy weight. The thing is, from outside, you just don't know how close they came to or are to, getting it right. The fact that this car battery company is filing for bankruptcy protection, doesn't mean they won't succeed in the next year or so. What if they do make a breakthrough? Where will these Monday Morning Quarterbacks be then? Why they'll claim they knew it all the time. Don't ya just love it?

Don't Balance It On My Account.

2012-01-26T09:47:00.000-08:00

Boy, one thing I like to hear is that a state is balancing it's budget and not raising taxes. And ya know what? Most states are doing a pretty good job at it. Oh, some states still have a ways to go, but the important thing is, they're trying and succeeding. There are just a few things that bother me about that though. I just read that a lot of states are balancing their budgets by means that aren't necessarily in the peoples best interests. Take state parks as an example. Millions of people visit state parks each year and especially in these difficult economic times, they're visiting even more. Well that is, if their favorite state parks are still open and still providing all their services. Now it's true, most wealthy folks don't bother with state parks too much. they're too busy jetting off to here or there for vacations in the Caribbean or the French Riviera, or Paris in the spring, or Vail in the winter, but then they're only about one percent of the people. So if the state governments close or curtail state parks, it doesn't hurt the rich. But it does hurt the rest of us. So why is it so important to close state parks? In order to save money, shrink government and not raise taxes on the wealthy. Well, that seems like the honorable thing to do. Do you suppose those folks would have gotten elected if they had campaigned on the promise to close state parks? Eh, maybe not, but it didn't hurt to promise not to raise taxes on the oil and gas industry, at least in Pennsylvania. And state parks aren't the only areas of savings that bother me a bit. I think the absolute worst place to cut, is in education. But then I didn't get elected to any state government. Come to think of it, I didn't run. Come to realize it, I should have run. Not that I would have won election, but at least then I wouldn't feel so guilty about not showing more interest in what happens in capitals all over the country. As it is, not raising taxes hasn't solved all our problems. It hasn't paid down the debt and deficit all over the country, it hasn't put folks back to work, it hasn't spurred wealthy folks to grow jobs in industries, or very much anywhere else. But one thing a lot of people can say. They can say they won't be going to their favorite state park this weekend.

Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Above Reproach.

2012-01-25T12:28:00.000-08:00

You may recall that on occasion I have been known to find fault with the judiciary. Which brings me to an article in the N.Y.Times about a Wisconsin Supreme Court judge who has refused to recuse himself from a case where one of the law firms in the case has represented him in the past and he still owes money to them. He has voted with the majority in the case in a 5-4 decision in favor of that law firm's client. Now I suppose it could be just coincidence, but you could ask almost anyone in the country and they'd tell you he is corrupt. Would it help you to learn that he won the election to the court by beating an incumbent by stating that his opponent had arranged for a rapist to be released? The fact is that the rapist served his full sentence. How does the Wisconsin Supreme Court allow this guy to sit on any case involving that law firm? How about the case of two judges in Northeastern Pennsylvania who had an arrangement with a detention center to be paid for every youth sent there and then regularly advised youths they wouldn't need a lawyer. In that case they did go to jail. Does anyone but me see a problem in these two cases? Does anyone think these are lone examples of an otherwise perfect system? Our federal Supreme Court justices are not required to follow any set of rules of ethics. So a justice can sit on cases where his spouse is involved directly, either with the law firm or one of the subjects in the case. Let's look at it this way, if you're in court to make an impartial statement about a company or person and it's later found that you were closely connected to that company or person, how would that affect you and your statement? My guess is that your statement would be thrown out and you would be standing in front of the judge to answer why, right? I don't mean these judges are deceitful or corrupt or anything like that. But maybe, just maybe they are. See, it's all in the perception. And when it comes to people charged with the responsibility of deciding who's right and who's wrong, perception is everything.

What Is Your Vote Worth?

2012-01-24T10:21:00.000-08:00

There was an article in the Washington Post this morning by Charles Lane titled "Deciding the president by popular vote is a flawed idea". He's against it. Yep, Mr Lane thinks that the electoral college is the best thing since sliced bread. And he particularly likes the two party system. He thinks it's just right for us. Any more parties would just cause trouble and maybe even get us a president that didn't even win a majority of the votes. That's why he doesn't like the popular (one person, one vote) vote idea. It might mean that small states wouldn't get much say while big states would. In other words, it's more important that states with small populations should never-the-less get to have a prominent say in just who gets elected. What I don't understand is why, in a country that pays so much homage to majorities, why small minorities get to have more say than they have population? I mean, I understand that while the majority rules, it must protect the rights of the minority. So it's not like the big states with the large majorities will decide to place inhumane restrictions on the small states. Although I've been in most thinly populated states and they could do with some restrictions. Just not inhumane. The thing is, I don't think that our two party system is working very well. I think our two party system would work much better if it had two less parties. And the electoral college doesn't work well either. Mr Lane points out that while Al Gore got about 500,000 more votes than George W Bush in the 2000 campaign and yet lost, he was "pretty much unmoved". The thing is, whether you liked Gore or Bush, doesn't change the fact that a man with fewer votes still won. And I'm fairly certain that this wasn't the first time it happened. And I'll bet it won't be the last. Now if you liked Bush, you may be happy. But what about the time that's coming when someone you don't like will win that way? What will your opinion be then? Actually, Mr Lane isn't completely against the idea. He does point out that in California every 677,000 people get one electoral vote, but Wyoming's 563,000 citizens get three. His point is that no system is completely fair. He also points out that small states could stop a constitutional convention from changing the system. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.

A cruel End For A Great Coach.

2012-01-22T09:08:00.000-08:00

I have resisted any mention, in this blog, of the tragedy at Penn State. Sandusky is surely the lowest in Penn State's storied history. And I can find no humor in it. I care not what happens to him, but I, like most people sat by as coach Paterno was dragged down for doing exactly what he was supposed to do. Because he didn't do more. Well fair enough. A man through his mid seventies to mid eighties may not be perfect in his actions. But it went much further than that. Pundits and late night comedians tore him up. Even the Big Ten has not shown itself to be very "BIG" in it's rush to get in on the degradation of this once iconic coach. But we can be proud of the Board Of Trustees of Pennsylvania State University for treating him with at least some measure of respect and for showing the courage of firing him in a phone call. The reason given for that was because they were concerned for their own safety. A brave move destined to characterize them as heroes. Not even a thank you for half a century of support, both vocally and financially, not to mention the drive to build men of high moral character in his teams. What other coach of a major university's athletics department has worked for so little and given back so much over so long a period of time. And still won't find fault with the way he was treated. It isn't the fault of the university that this tragedy has happened. Nor is it JoPa's fault That fault lies with one monster. But the heroism shown by this universities Board Of Directors suggests they need to all be replaced as quickly as possible. And they certainly don't deserve thanks for their service.

It's No Spoof. SuperPACs Fill A Necessary Void.

2012-01-21T06:56:00.000-08:00

How dare Stephen Colbert mock SuperPACs! Why the man even has his own. Or it was his until he decided to form an exploratory committee to run for president. At which time in a sham move to end run the law, he turned it over to his friend and TV next door neighbor, Jon Stewart. Legally he's not allowed to influence his SuperPAC, but has made a mockery of that as well. Folks, this is serious business. We can't have people going around flaunting and snubbing the decisions of our Supreme Court. That 5-4 vote in the Citizens United case is all that stands between we the people and having corporations being disenfranchised. Can you imagine what this country would look like if corporations were not allowed to spend money, anonymously, in huge amounts, on political campaigns? Why, the mere thought of it sends chills up the spines of campaign managers all over America. No Mr. Colbert. No matter what you may think is funny or necessary, our politicians need this infusion of untold wealth in order to properly confuse the voting public. Either that or convince the electorate not to vote at all. Consider my own Super PAC, P.I.M.P. (Put In My Pocket) which I turned over to a completely neutral owner, my only sister, so that I can continue to carry out my formula for success in the campaign. I hope you'll join me and all the other serious candidates in praising and thanking our Supreme Court for it's brave decision to open these well deserved flood gates of corporate largess. Remember, since corporations are people too, the next time you meet one, shake it's hands and offer to help carry that secret money to the local SuperPAC of it's choice. Especially if it just happens to be my Super PAC. Oh, and while you're in the mood to help, please get me the names from your local cemetery for election day. We need those votes.

Argh Matie, We're No Pirates.

2012-01-20T08:16:00.000-08:00

Tell me, what's your opinion of SOPA and PIPA? Acronyms are so misleading aren't they? I mean SOPA could sound a little like a bad rendition of an Italian soap commercial while PIPA could be misconstrued to be about a peeping tom. Actually PIPA is the Senate's version of SOPA, the House bill covering Internet piracy. Okay, now I'll bet you're in favor of them, aren't you? Well unless you've been watching the news or got cut off from your favorite wickapedia searches or googles. Yet it seems Hollywood and the Recording Industry are fer it and the Internet Providers are agin it. It's like the Hatfields and the McCoys all over again. Well, all except for the shooten and killen. But there's one court case where a couple of guys are being sued for $80,000 and $22,500 for pirating some songs. Now I don't think it's right to copy something that somebody else made without paying for it. The folks that make songs and movies have a right to be paid for their work and their talent. I'm just not convinced any song is worth $80,000 per listener, but the artist should be paid. But that's not the question about the congressional bills. The question is, will they, if they become law, will they cut too deeply into our freedoms and our privacy in order to enforce the laws? You, and I, use a computer. You may even know how to download songs and or movies. I wish I did. If I skip a few days, I've got to get somebody to show me how to turn the dumb thing on. Sometimes I have a problem finding this blog in order to write another entry. But that's another issue. The thing is, Uncle Sam is already a partner in nearly everything I do or say. Who knows when they might be listening to me rant or complain to some poor customer service representative. I know the company does. How many lists am I on? Am I on a watch list because I have a beard? Or might it be because I only "rarely" complain about Congress. At least one news agency suggests that if anyone copies any part of any news article printed in any paper, that person can be subject to litigation. Do you realize that in this post, there are words that were in at least one of their news articles? I'm doomed for opening my mouth. Or in this case, I'm doomed for punching a few keys. Is there a way to slow piracy without becoming overreaching?

So You Want To Amend The Constitution. That'll Be The Day.

2012-01-19T10:36:00.000-08:00

Well, how do ya like the way the Republican primary campaign is going so far? Do ya like the way the ads are coming out from SuperPACs against nearly every candidate? They're not all that friendly. In fact I think you could say they are quite unfriendly. All the candidates say the ads against them are unfair and untrue but those favoring them are accurate and fair, as they attack the other candidates. I think it was hard enough before the Supreme Court decided the Citizen United case, to figure out which candidate would be the best to lead us. At least it was for those who honestly wanted to know that information. You know, those who weren't going to vote the party man whoever it was. So unless you were strictly a herd voter who votes the party, if you actually think about the process, it was hard to wade through the silliness and get down to the truth, no matter which you might choose. But now, with all those extra billions of dollars, or even trillions of dollars, it's even harder. But what can you do? That's the way things go, right? Aah, actually, NO. There's some action starting up by activist groups who are looking to make a constitutional change. An Amendment to the Constitution. That's a really big step. They're even considering including a statement in the Amendment that corporations are not people, for the purpose of elections. Wouldn't that be something. But amendments are very hard and time consuming efforts. So what it really boils down to is, do you think a corporation should be able to purchase the presidency or not? Is freedom all about having enough money to change the outcome of an election, or is it about one vote for each person? Which should count more, your vote or a billionaire's deep pockets? If you think your vote is more important, you're kidding yourself. That is unless you favor a change to the constitution, But before we could even get to a Constitutional Convention, a 2/3 super majority of both houses of congress has to vote for it or 38 states have to approve of it with 2/3 majority of their legislatures. In order for that to happen, we need to make sure that a lot of extra stuff doesn't get slipped into it to cause it to be defeated. We need a clean bill and a clean amendment. Whatta ya think of its chances? Maybe yes and maybe no. But we can hope. Just remember, hope works best when we work for it.

The Good The Bad And The Fattening.

2012-01-17T08:17:00.000-08:00

I just read two letters to the Washington Post Editor. First there was the one, "Saving The Twinkie" followed by "Making Soda Drinkers Pay". The first bemoans the bankruptcy of the maker of Twinkies while the other feels it appropriate to place a tax on soft drinks. both made good solid points. Why should Goldman Sacks and the other Wall Street Banks get bailed out while the very nutritious Twinkie be allowed to go under? On the other hand if people want to drink that unhealthy brew, let em pay a tax that would help to cover the health care costs for drinking that stuff. Two food groups discussed, one swooned over, the other reviled. The first letter makes the unsubstantiated claim that Twinkies can still be fresh even after 100 years on the shelf, the other claims it's target causes obesity and other health issues. If we continue to have such diversity of opinion, we'll never come together as a nation. So here's a suggestion to get us moving down the road to healthy discourse. It's a way to bring us closer together and help to find solutions to our discord. One good, one bad, but together, they're just fairly good or fairly bad. If we ask the EPA and Food and Drug to combine the two into one big splurge of over-indulgement, we might find a Utopian universe where healthy is taxable and unhealthy is applaudable. I can see ads claiming that a coke and a twinkie go together like a heart attack and diabetes. Get your fix on route 66. A sweet shop next to every hospital. Yes folks, there's an answer to every problem under the sun.

Can't Wait To Move Into The White House.

2012-01-16T21:42:00.000-08:00

Well we're well into the primary campaign season and I haven't even begun to campaign yet. Some of my most ardent supporters have been asking when I plan to start. Only this evening she asked if I was actually running. Such a sweet heart she is. Yes my dear, your grandfather is running for president of the United States of America. But my plan isn't to waste time in all these pesky state intramurals. I'm waiting for both conventions to do my thing. That's right, I plan to cross file and run in both parties in the general election. Of course I must first win the nomination in both conventions. My plan to accomplish this is simple and straight forward. I plan to sweep in and steal the vote. No, I mean I intend to steal the votes and change the names on the ballots to mine. One problem that has come up concerns my Super PAC P.I.M.P. (Put In My Pocket). It seems that the law is explicit in that I can have no contact with it or anyone connected with it. It turns out that I have to divest myself of anything to do with it. so I offered it, that is the ownership of it, to my wife. She declined with the proviso that she be allowed to have a P.I.M.P. credit card with no limit. I needed to find someone else with whom I have no contact, who will do exactly what I want done, without being in contact with me at any time in any way. My sister has graciously accepted the position. Now back to the plan of attack. You see, by waiting until the conventions and then liberating those votes from all those unworthy candidates from both parties and replacing them with votes for myself, I stand an excellent chance of winning the general election. Now, please, bare in mind, this is highly confidential, for as you might guess, if word leaked out, it could spell defeat for us. Not to mention incarceration. But please do keep all that card and letter coming in. I've read and reread it and am now ready to hear from someone else. Oh and by the way, I'll be happy to send my mother's recipe for chili sauce along as soon as I can find it.

The Etiquette Of Party Discourse.

2012-01-15T09:22:00.000-08:00

Have you ever been dragged to a get-together by your spouse when you knew in advance you weren't going to enjoy yourself? No I'm not talking about a family reunion. I'm talking about an occasion where you probably don't know any or many of the folks that will be in attendance. It's not at all like a family reunion were you do know the players, but just don't like them. Well when you get to this "get-together" and you look around, exactly what is it that you're looking for? I'll tell you. You're looking for another, like souled, poor dumb sucker in the same boat as you. How can you tell if somebody is just like you? First they will have a stunned look on their face that says, why am I here? What did I do to deserve this? So you spot the target. But this is only the first step.The next thing you have to do is determine if he or she is of the same social stratum as you. Now that may not be the same stratum as your spouse or his/her spouse. You ease on over to where you can see what the target is drinking and or eating. If it's the same type as yours, you're most likely, in. But what if it's not? What if you like a tall cold one and the target wants an extra dry one. Maybe you like the shrimp while the target prefers something you can't even pronounced. Or what if the opposite is the case? Now comes the time to say something. You've exhausted all other possibilities for other conversation and it's time to take the plunge or sit in a corner and brood all evening. "What about those Colts", you say? "Oh yes. I think mine will make a fine trotter" comes the response. This may not be what you were hoping for. "The Colts don't play in Harlem", you retort. "They don't trot in Harlem either" he shoots back. Well at least your talking. That's an improvement. Next you need to try to find something you might have in common. Good luck with that. You desperately want another tall cold one and in all likelihood your new mate desperately wants a new conversation, preferably with someone who understands the basics of equestrian topics. You, on the other hand still want that tall cold one. That and that quiet corner to brood in. When you find it, guess who got there first?

Congress Is Like The Romper Room.

2012-01-13T06:49:00.000-08:00

I just read that the IRS believes that about $400 billion is lost to America because of tax evasion each year. So if you cheat on your taxes, you're contributing to this countries debt and deficit. The thing is, congress is trying to cut the IRS budget. Now if they have less to work with, they will be less able to collect that money and if they're forced to do less investigating, it's very likely that even more money will be lost to government coffers. There's two ways to look at this news. You could say that you should pay your full share of taxes for a change or, you might decide this would be a good time to cheat. Now in the first example, you know you shouldn't have been cheating in the first place and in the second example, you shouldn't be considering cheating at a time like this when our country needs all the help it can get. My question is why would the congress want to defund the IRS in the first place? Isn't it the only source of income we have? Or at least the main source, by a long shot. I understand many in congress are unhappy with the income tax laws as they currently exist, but that's not the IRS' fault. Actually it's the congress' fault. So I guess if you're mad about the program you're watching on TV, you should shoot the TV? Congress needs to grow up. I understand being an adult is not as much fun as being a misbehaving child, and if that's what you want to be, it's okay, but then you should get out of congress. Because congress needs some adult supervision for a change. What we need in congress is a group of serious adults who have the best interest of the country in mind and even more importantly, the best interests of the people uppermost in their minds. And by that I don't mean their individual party. It would be best if they don't consider their party affiliation at all. That can only happen if these folks are actually adults. In the true spirit of the term.

Why Should Business Or Governmemnt Win?

2012-01-12T07:58:00.000-08:00

The political belief in small government, or at least small federal government by shunting most decision making to the states is a federalist belief. In business it's Creative Destruction that's the favored approach. Now don't get me wrong, there are good and valid points in both. Smaller government can help in many ways and on many issues. We all agree however, that the federal government needs to do the military thing and in foreign relations we need to appear and be strong and many if not most inter-state activity needs to be handled by a strong Fed. Otherwise the states would begin to act like separate little countries. There's little agreement on social safety nets, therefore the problem with states is that no two states provide equally for the well being of it's citizens. In some instances there needs to be guidelines for the states to follow. That would need to come from the Fed. There are many other issues as well. Now, in business, the thinking is Creative Destruction. Simply put, that means it may be necessary to destroy a company in order to remake it more profitable. In some cases it means to modernize, or switch to robotics or in some cases it means to ship jobs overseas. The important obligation is always to increase profits when it comes to creative destruction. Profits is all that matters in the long run. And from a strictly business outlook, that's correct. The problem is that life, the world, involves more than strict business decisions. In the real world there are people to consider. The coal industry is a handy example although every industry has had to sort these things out. In the coal industry, safety has always been an issue. Left to their own devises, the coal barons would never have submitted to safe working conditions. That's been proven even by recent events in the industry. The same is true for environmental issues. There must be a balance between business's creative destruction and the peoples needs, and that means government oversight. If business was more focused on human interests they might make less in profits, but they would have a better relationship with labor and still make a profit, just not as large a profit. Since that won't happen on it's own, a strong federal government is necessary to insure it will happen. So while small government is good for industry and the creative destruction theory, neither is good for people. The trick is to find that middle ground or sweet spot. What we need is a few Rebublicrats and Democans. Maybe more than a few. That can't happen in our current two party system. Too much rancor.

Inequality In America? Hrumph! Certainly Not.

2012-01-10T08:55:00.000-08:00

Well I just read an article in the National Review by Michael Tanner "The income inequality myth" . It suggests that there really isn't a broadening of inequality of income for several reasons. One is that because of some minor changes in tax rules, income that didn't used to get reported in now getting reported and on the other end, the reports supporting the idea of income inequality increases didn't include such things as food stamps, health care and other social remedies. Now of course the National Review is a very conservative report. But even considering that fact, how do they get information that wealthy people didn't used to report some income? That would be against the law. I Think it's called tax evasion, isn't it? Do you think that when the questionnaire went out, people responded that, yes, they had previously under reported on income? Did these folks sign their names to the questionnaire? And if they were willing to cheat on their taxes in the past, should we believe that now that the tax rate is slightly lower, they don't cheat any more? Exactly at what point did they make this decision? If the tax had been one dollar more, would they have cheated again? How about two dollars? Because that would be good information for the IRS. The second item of proof for not believing in income inequality is the Food Stamp statement. Apparently there were no food stamps a decade ago. No employee health care then either. Ya wanna know what I think? I think that income is being reported now that wasn't previously reported because it's income not being earned before. That and if there are more food stamps now, it's because most people's effective income is lower now. That, and companies used to pay most or all of health care costs, but don't anymore. You can poke more holes in Mr. Tanner's opinion than there are in a screen door. I don't mean to be a wisenheimer, but Mr. Tanner needs to find some new excuses for inequality or switch sides. On Second thought, we're fine with him right where he is.

We Ain't Yemen. Not Yet.

2012-01-09T06:37:00.000-08:00

I was interested in a news item in the Washington Post this morning. It was about the youth in Yemen. It was titled "In Yemen's political crises, children pay highest price". With all the problems in the world and here at home, I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to Yemen. Have you? Well maybe we should. The article goes on to point out how the children in this torn country are suffering and will do so for many years to come. That's true of most countries that have experienced war or what amounts to war. What caught my attention is that, although we aren't experiencing war here in America, we are experiencing what in many ways mimics war. Because of the severe recession in this country, but even more, because of the political war that's continuing, I worry about our youth. Look, in order to get our financial houses under control, our national government, our states and even our local towns and school systems are cutting spending. All the while they do it, they tell us that this is needed to provide for and protect our children's futures. That's hogwash. If it were true, then they wouldn't be attacking the education our children will need in order to function in their futures. They wouldn't be defunding the programs to feed them, see to their health, heat their homes and a slew of other programs aimed at improving children's lives. But that's what is happening to the exclusion of nearly all other sources of savings or, more importantly, other sources of income. Now I agree, nobody likes taxes and, certainly, nobody wants to pay more taxes. But here's the thing.There's only two ways to balance the ledger. You cut costs or raise revenue. And of course, kids can't vote, so guess who pays the price? It may be clever politics to take from children and claim you're helping them, but it's anything but good fiscal policy. Why? Because when you get old and unable to work, guess who's gonna have to support you and the country?

If Education Is So Important, Why Isn't Congress doing Anything About It?

2012-01-08T10:49:00.000-08:00

By golly, the National Memo had a good idea this morning. Something about how China defunded liberal arts degrees for college students which means that if a Chinese student wants to get such a degree, he'll have to pay for it himself. Boy, what if we could do something like that in America. Thing is though, right now, scholarships aren't based on the need for students in critical fields for the most part. In America, scholarships are reserved for the brightest and the poorest no matter what they want to study. But wouldn't it make sense to add the provision that all scholarships be reserved for those people provided they take the courses most needed by our society? I mean, if we really don't need more social workers, phys-ed teachers, or whatever, why train more? They'll only end up unemployed and living at home or flipping burgers and living at home. How about offering scholarships to anyone who needs one who has the aptitude in the fields where we need to compete internationally for jobs. Hey, if we needed buggy whip designers, then give scholarships for it. The rest can and should get scholarships to trade schools in the same needed fields, or pay for their own education. I look at a scholarship as a reward for doing or being something special. Well if you're led to a field we need folks to be in, isn't that special? Then why not give that reward for it. Ya know what? In the long run, it just might not cost more to do it this way. It would mean more funding up front, but it would surely mean much more in income tax down the road. And for a lot more years than two or four or five years for the degree. Such a plan would accomplish everything we need to regain our edge in education and science and math, as well as innovation and entrepreneurship. Being educated, having a college degree, doesn't automatically mean you will be successful in your life. The right area of study can be as close to that automatic success as you're gonna find.

It Was A Two Headed Caucus.

2012-01-06T07:19:00.000-08:00

Ya know the Iowa Caucuses we watched last Tuesday? The ones that had the whole country excited to hear who would be the winner? The one who's winner won by eight votes? Yep that one. Well I just read some interesting things about it in the National Memo. Here are a few noteworthy items you may not have known. Like that fact that 5.5% of eligible voters in Iowa took part in it. 5.5%! There were almost that many candidates. Here's another one. The winner of the caucuses doesn't get any voter delegates. That's right. The twenty five state delegates will be picked in a separate caucus. It was all for show. The whole country was on pins and needles waiting to hear who would be the winner of? Nothing. Bragging rights I guess. Now that I think about it, I wondered why no mention was made of who got how many delegates. Nobody got any, that's why. I feel like asking for my money back. Even though I didn't buy a ticket. But I did pay my cable bill. And I think I got cheated. It's like going to a carnival and buying a ticket to see the two headed woman and then finding out one was just a paper-mache head taped onto her shoulder. I'll tell ya I was disappointed. But not as disappointed as I was to hear about this hoax perpetrated on us by Iowa and the media. Actually Iowa only duped the candidates. It was the media that duped the rest of us. Why would they do that to us? Why would they get us all excited to see who was going to be the first winner in the nominating campaign when there wasn't any winner yet? Not even a vote yet? You don't suppose it was done in order to make a profit off it, do ya? But the candidates are the ones who should be most upset. None of them got anything out of it but empty pockets. Well Santorum got to spend time in all 99 counties of Iowa. I'll bet that's something he'll cherish for years to come. I know I would. Just think, years from now all those candidates, all seven hundred of them, or was it only only seven, well anyway years from now, they can look back and say to themselves how much time and money they spent in Iowa for no good, or even bad, reason. No wonder only 5.5% showed up. And for this, Iowa gets tons of attention and publicity. That's what I call smart advertising.

I Remember Recess. It Was In Grade School.

2012-01-05T14:09:00.000-08:00

When is Congress in recess? I think we all know the answer to that question. Far too often, that's when. And during a congressional recess the president has the right to special, one year appointments to positions that the Senate hasn't acted on. Now there's two problems here. First the Senate shouldn't hold up appointments of needed personnel just because they don't like the President or his choice or the department the appointee will head. But sometimes they do. The second point is that this is a rather poor law that does allow a president to ignore the Senate, even if he ought to do just that. Nearly all, if not all, presidents have done it. George W. Bush did it twice as often as Obama, but in between times, the Senate decided to try to stop the practice by trying to change some Senate rules. Now some Senators claim that they are always in session, even when there's nobody in the Senate but the cleaning lady. When all the Senators are home for the holidays or to do some greatly needed campaigning, they claim the Senate is still in session. How can they do that? Well, every few days one Senator shows up, opens the Senate, under the condition that no business may be conducted, and ten seconds later closes again so he can go home. I imagine they take turns. I like to call this the Phony Senate or maybe it could be the Ghosts Of Senates Present. So what do you think about this ghostly trickery the Senate is trying to pull off. Well, President Obama has challenged them to a ghostly duel. He made four recess appointments. One, Mr Richard Cordray, to head the new Consumer Protection Agency and three to the Labor Relations Board to fill vacancies. The minority Republican Senators are really upset about it. They don't like this law that set up the Consumer Protection Agency and have never liked the Labor Relation Board, even when they had mostly Republicans on it. Well what you or I think of these appointments doesn't matter. That's because I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court will decide the answer. But whether it matters or not, I think that the Senate should try to be a little more honest. If they're going to be in session, then they need to be there. And not just a few. If not, then they're in recess. Well, except maybe for Halloween.

Can You Give Me One Good Reason To Turn On The TV?

2012-01-04T09:13:00.000-08:00

Well the folks in Iowa will finally be able to watch TV without being deluged by political attack ads. As for the rest of the country, yours is coming. It's not the final rest though. After all, this was just the warm up for the general election. Just one of many preliminary events. Then of course, there's the next campaign after 2012. Do you know anybody who wouldn't happily trade this current atmosphere of bitter rivalry for almost anything offered? It's not that politicians have become despicable liars and dispensers of untruths so much as that politicians no longer have a clue what's important to the health, safety and welfare of all people. They only know that it's going to take a sharp tongue and a fat bank account to keep getting elected and reelected. Now I assure you that your favorite elected official is interested in the desires of people other than himself. There's no question about it. He is adamant about seeing to it that his wealthy benefactors receive all the necessary opportunities they need to continue to support his cause. That includes invitations to his fundraisers as well as special tax incentives and sweetheart contracts that will allow them to raise a little fund for themselves as well. There's nothing new about this way of doing business. It's been going on since the dawn of time. It even has an old and venerable name attached to it. Corruption. Now corruption is not a bad thing when it's between friends. I mean, if you want to give your friend a helping hand in finding a job or feeding his family, that's a form of corruption that's widely practiced and socially acceptable, even lauded. But when it's handled in a way that perpetuates underhanded and unfair business practices and harms society, then it's called "politics as usual". The problem is that politics as usual, is usually the problem with politics. And there's always, 24/7, a TV talking head ready to talk about it, incessantly.

I'd Like To Have A nickel For Every Lie.

2012-01-03T14:29:00.000-08:00

I can't believe it. Sixteen million dollars was spent on the Republican campaign for the Iowa
Caucuses. Sixteen million! Dollars! That's enough to repair 300 structurally deficient bridges in Iowa. Of course if you live in Iowa, I'm pretty sure you won't be surprised. In fact if you live there, you may think all the money in the world was spent on that campaign. Now remember that Iowa is a somewhat small state and this is only the primary season. We haven't gotten to the actual general election campaign. I can't even begin to guess what they're going to spend on that. What gets me is probably 75% of that money was spent on negative advertising. So it wasn't and won't be about what it is that a candidate will or won't do, it was and will be about how to make the other guy look like he's the wrong guy for the job. And much of it, if not all will be untrue. See how kind I was? That's right, there will be so many lies told that nobody, not even the candidates being attacked, will know for sure if it was them being attacked or if they actually did such dastardly things. Now these ads won't actually lie, they'll just bend the truth until the truth squeals. Then they'll take words from this speech and insert them in that speech and change the meaning of what was actually said so that it sounds like they actually did say those dastardly thing. Is that a good use of all that money? Way, way over a Billion dollars before this election is done. Should we be spending that much money on electing somebody who isn't willing to say what needs to be said or do what needs to be done? And if you throw in congress, it's even more money and more lies. Where do you suppose all this money comes from? I can tell you this much it isn't all coming from poor people or even the middle class. I can tell you that much. So if it isn't coming from poor or middle class people, then it must be coming from Job Creator. My question is this. If they have all this money to spend on elections, how come they didn't spend it on creating jobs? I think the answer is, it's cheaper to buy a president or congressman than it is to create a job. And not as risky.

Why Don't Political Parties Like Voters?

2012-01-03T07:56:00.000-08:00

For some reason, this year we're seeing some rather mean-spirited political maneuvering taking place. It's not just one party or the other, it's both. Just not in the same places. Of course gerrymandering is rampant, but then that happens every ten years when the party in control of a state legislature, and especially if the governor is of the same party, gets to redesign the state. But this year seems to be even more underhanded. Take for instance Virginia with the most difficult set of rules covering everything from getting on the ballet to voters being required to sign a pledge, in the primaries, to vote for their party's nominee in the general election. You heard that right. In Virginia, if you vote in the primaries, you will be required to pledge to support your party's nominee. I can't imagine that that is even legal. In other states they're trying to figure out how to keep certain groups and demographics from voting at all. How? By requiring unusual residency rules, voter photo IDs, which are for some folks, expensive and difficult to obtain. The claim here is to eliminate voter fraud. But they can't offer any proof there is any voter fraud. Then there are states like Pennsylvania, Texas and most other states where voting districts are mapped out by the ruling party. Did you know that in California, there's a congressional district along the coast where the district is cut into two sections that do not border one another? It's like being asked by an outsider how to get to another town and telling them you can't get there from here. You have to start somewhere else. I guess what both political parties want is for all citizens to just turn over the election process to them and stay out of it. Instead, I think citizens need to tell political parties to stay out of it. We've been doing it, voting, for enough years that we could do it without the help or hindrance of the political parties. What we should say is if you're a Democrat, you are not allowed to vote. If you're a Republican, you're not allowed to vote. But if you're a member of any other party, you're not allowed to vote either. Except New Years Eve party members. They can vote. But only if they disavow any other party affiliations.

I Wouldn't Mind If They Would Tell Time.

2012-01-02T21:01:00.000-08:00

Half the country is running around worried sick about the national debt and deficit while the other half is worried about finding or keeping a job. So which is more important? Some say that if we don't address the debt and deficit our children's future will be destroyed, while others say that by cutting funding for education and research, there won't be a future to destroy. It's a little like the chicken or egg question. Which comes first? So lets take a look at the problem. If debt and deficit are more important, how will we pay them down if we keep laying off more and more people thereby eliminating the tax income we were getting from them? Isn't it more important to get more people working instead of more unemployed? And if we keep cutting spending, and our infrastructure keeps deteriorating, how will we be able to continue to compete with the rest of the world? And if our already weakening education system continues to slide for lack of funding, how will we be able to compete with the rest of the world in innovation which is the engine of success in the world's economy? Shouldn't we be trying to figure out how to solve these problems instead of bickering? Can you picture the new year as anything but a gotcha politics orgy? Right through to November? What if the Republicans came up with a great idea that would solve the all problems at once? Does anyone think they'd spell it out or try to enact it? Or that the Democrats wouldn't shout it down? What if the Democrats came up with that great idea? How likely would the Republicans be to endorse it? 2012 is destined to be a lost year. Well except for TV advertising and sign makers. Oh and don't forget the media and pundits. They'll make a killing. The thing is, we keep hiring politicians to solve problems and they keep creating more problems. Now they're trying to convince us to hire or rehire a whole mess of folks. What's to say the new crop will be any different than the old crop? They're like a cheap watch. They just won't work after you buy them.

The Washington Post, Congress And Elvis.

2012-01-02T07:36:00.000-08:00

I'm picking a fight with the Washington Post this morning. They've got an editorial in about how they think this country should stop subsidizing electric cars. They also mention we stopped subsidizing corn-based-ethanol. Can't say I disagree with that one. Corn-ethanol subsidies were screwing up the food production chain. But subsidizing electric cars makes sense. Look, all new technology needs help getting started. If it weren't for government help and research, half of the technology we have today, maybe more, still wouldn't exist including the computer. You have only to look at Germany and China to see how their assistance is helping their solar and wind energy industries clean our clocks. And take our jobs. But to hear congress tell it, such investment in research is wasteful in the extreme. Congress is convinced the only research we need to do is to research how quickly we can run a pipeline from Canada to Texas in order to refine dirty Tar Sands oil into clean exportable fuel so our giant oil industry can make even greater profits. I'm not sure how that helps us and I'm not sure how refusing to support research into new and emerging technology helps us either. I'll bet if you found a way to convert desert sand into clean burning, efficient energy, but it would take a twenty dollar bill to perfect it, I doubt congress would help you. And I'm beginning to wonder if the Washington Post would recommend it. For some reason, they just don't want America to move on. It's the old story of "it was good enough for my parents and me, it's good enough for the future". I wonder why they didn't feel the same way about the Iron Horse? And Hooped Skirts". Maybe they did. Maybe Elvis isn't dead after all. Maybe he's in congress. All shook up over progress. The Washington Post should look into that and leave technological research funding to them what knows better. What say you?

Ever Make A Mistake?

2012-01-01T10:55:00.000-08:00

Good morning and welcome to the first day of 2012. This being Sunday, I paid a visit to my local church. I had gotten word that last week, Christmas day, after thee Christmas Eve services with the last one getting over around 1:AM., The minister made a fatal mistake. It's claimed he read his sermon. Now I don't know if he actually did read it or some folks just wanted something to complain about. In any event I offered some sage advise to the pastor this morning. "If you must read your sermon, do it with your mouth closed" was my advise. Needless to say my advise wasn't all that well received. See, that's the problem with advise. There's always more than one way to interpret it. I could have meant that he should have acted like a ventriloquist and invited one of the dummies to stand next to him while he read the sermon, mouth closed, throwing his voice or I could have meant that reading a sermon is not up to the theatrical performance this congregation is accustomed to, so read it only in you study in preparation of giving it without notes. See? Either way I'm bound to anger someone. It just depends on who I want to upset. There must be a way that I could have given the advise without angering somebody or there should be a way for me to upset both parties. Giving advise is hard work, just ask your minister or priest. Nobody wants advise. Everybody wants to be assured they're doing everything just right. But if you're going to tell someone who has made a mistake they're wrong, it's best if you do it without reading your accusation. You really do need to look and sound like you are the only one that noticed it and it will forever remain our little secret. If you show that you've written it down, you're not going to be convincing. Of course there's always the option of keeping my mouth shut. But then that would be out of character.

Is That Money American Or Not?

2011-12-31T06:50:00.000-08:00

Folks, we're about to begin to see the results of the Supreme Court's decision to allow unknown amounts of money from unknown donors given to Super PACs for the express and exclusive purpose of attacking any other candidate considered to be a viable opponent of the favored candidate. Now the law is very explicit about Super PACs not having any formal relationship to the favored candidate. And all candidates are meticulously careful not to have any visual or audible relationships with these Super PACs. So what they do is to have a senior member or members of their election campaigns resign and then take over as heads of the Super PACs. That way they get to have their way without having their way. So when you see a candidate say nice things and talk only about important topics, the Super PACs say only nasty things, often out of context about the opponent (s). That's what a SP is all about. Attack. Attack. Attack. It's all about shock and aw. Help the voters to see this opponent or that one in the worst possible light. Now remember, the Supreme Court decided that this type of political campaign was and is important to the political process. Voters need to hear this from anonymous sources, funded by anonymous donors, so that they are unable to determine if it's a true depiction of the candidate under fire. Does that make you wonder why the Supreme Court would want to allow such lying and cheating to influence our elections? And make no mistake, it is doing just that. If you doubt my words, take a look at what has happened to Newt Gingrich in the past few weeks. Don't get me wrong, I think Newt is unfit to be president. But I'm not convinced he should be attacked anonymously. Look at Ron Paul. Another candidate in the campaign. At least he has the honesty to stand up and point out Newt's shortcomings. What bothers me is that we don't know where this money is coming from. As I've said more than once. Could be China or Russia or who knows where or from whom. I just can't for the life of me understand why the Supreme Court would allow this to happen. It will cause real problems for our democracy one day. And we have the Supreme Court to thank for it. Mark my words. Enjoy the New Year.

The Stock Tax Two Step.

2011-12-30T11:23:00.000-08:00

Have I got a deal for you. First you have to start a company. I don't care what the company does. Even if it does nothing but make cutesy lawn decorations. Of course you have to incorporate,but you can get all the info off the Internet. Then you go public and appoint yourself as CEO. That's the hard part. Then you give yourself or rather your company gives yourself stock options. Now to start with your stock is worth oh, I don't know, let's say one penny. Then you offer the stock to the public. When the value hits, say, ten dollars, you, the CEO, can sell a million shares and haul in ten million dollars. The company, you, claims only the value of one penny each and presumably claims a loss, but you the CEO claims only a penny each. No, I don't get it either, but high priced tax lawyers do get it and corporations and CEOs are making a killing over this. What it means is they're paying a whole lot less in corporate taxes and in many cases, no taxes. When they pay less taxes, you and I have to pay more taxes. That much I do understand. The government wants more each year, the corporations pay less each year. Where do you think all that extra money is gonna come from? I'll tell you this much. Santa doesn't have room in his sleigh for it. Well here's what I think. I think the government has three choices. It can charge us more in taxes (the preferred way) or it can borrow the money from China or it can reduce spending. Now if it reduces spending, a lot of people are going to be mad because either they get less from the government or their job is eliminated. If they borrow it from China, it means more interest payments. That leaves you and me. That's the way they wanted it in the first place. Funny how things always works out that way, isn't it?

Tear Down That High Price For Oil.

2011-12-29T07:09:00.000-08:00

Hey, ya know what? I think I've figured out how to get the price of oil back down to where it was ten years ago. Or maybe even fifty years ago. That's right fifty years ago, and it's not really all that big of a secret. I think you would have figured it out yourself if you had been reading an article in the paper like me that pretty much spelled it out. Here's what the article said. Oil prices have dropped on news of increased fears over European debt crisis. Simple enough. If people are worried about other debt, they aren't worrying about oil. Well actually that's not quite it. See, if European debt causes countries to fail, then those countries and peoples won't be using as much oil and so there would be a surplus of oil which would mean the price of oil would go down. The trick to lower prices on oil is to cut back on the numbers of people who want to buy oil. Here, look. If suddenly China decided not to use any more oil, there would be a whole lot more oil available to us and for a lot less money. In fact if you could convince enough people not to use oil any more, you could get the price of gasoline down to under a buck a gallon. The real trick is to figure out how to convince all those suckers they would be happier without oil. There are several methods that come to mind. Threats comes to mind. Slight of hand trickery is another. But probably the surest way would be to go to war. In fact go to ten or twelve wars, all at once. I'm convinced we've been practicing this method for the last decade or more. You know, sort of rehearsing for the real thing. Now don't get lost in the explanation here. I know that the actual prosecution of war increases the demand for oil. But only in the short term. An added side benefit is that producing nations would ramp up their capabilities, so that when the wars are over, there would be even more oil available at even lower prices. Now you might suggest that these producing countries would simply cut back on production at the end of hostilities. Not so. Not if we threaten them.

What's All This With Iran?

2011-12-28T08:01:00.000-08:00

Can anyone explain to me just how we can implement the rules congress put on us to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb? I mean, I understand they want us to make it almost impossible for
Iran to sell it's oil by making it nearly impossible for any other country or company to do business with Iran and America too. I get that. What I don't get is how we do that and make sure Iran doesn't retaliate by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz? This Strait of Hormuz is the bottleneck in the Persian Gulf where most of the worlds oil comes from. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE, and Iran, you name it, if they've got oil, there's a good chance they ship it through this Strait of Hormuz. And anyone who thinks Iran can't sink a tanker or two and effectively block the strait isn't thinking clearly. Now, don't get me wrong, I think we could stop Iran in it's tracks. Well except that we really can't afford to get into another war with another fanatical dictatorship. Especially one as big as Iran. Why do you think we chose to invade Iraq instead of Iran? Iran would have been a much tougher foe. That and the fact that they do have the ability to block that strait and cut off all that oil. Think we've got a fragile economy now? Try it without Saudi oil and double or triple the price of gasoline and heating oil. So then it comes down to letting them shut off oil supplies to half the world or letting them build a bomb.
So you might say they would never shut the strait because it would stop their ability to ship oil too, right? Two things here. We said we were going to stop their ability to sell their oil anyway and nobody has suggested that Iran is run by level headed leaders who would not do anything to provoke America. Remember our Embassy in Iran? The one they overran and held our diplomats hostage for about a year? I don't think provoking America is something they worry about a lot. I'm not sure what would worry them. But whatever it is, it still might not stop them from hurting us. And like I said, we really don't need another war right now.

Legislating As A Profession.

2011-12-27T09:06:00.000-08:00

Have ya ever given thought to running for congress? Well let me tell you right here and now, it ain't all wine and roses. There's a lot of hard work that goes with that job. Maybe not so much actually serving, because they are often out of session, which means lots of days and weeks off from the "not all that hard" work of legislating. After all, how hard can it be to disagree with the other side and not get anything done. At least not get anything done until the very last minute before you go back home for some well deserved time off. The thing is, they get all the work done, all the heavy lifting done in a couple of days. They could actually only show up two days before the close of the term and still get all the work done. Now you may wonder why we pay them so much if they only really need to work a couple of days a year. The thing is though, they need the extra time to attend fund raisers for the campaigns. They need a lot of time. In fact they need the whole year and barely have time to do any legislating. But speaking of pay, I just read that way back in 1984, the median average net wealth of a member of the House of Representatives was $280,000 adjusted for inflation, while the same average for all Americans was $20,600, again adjusted. But in 2010, the average house member had a worth of $725,000 and we Americans had an average of, are you ready for this? $20,500. That's right, $100 less. And none of these figures include our homes. So if your congressman is worth three quarters of a million, plus his home, and you're worth twenty grand, how well does your congressman understand your needs and concerns? If he has to spend most of his, or her, waking hours scraping together donations to run his campaign in order to stay in office, how would he have time to find out what you need? He's too busy trying to fill his own needs. You think he can find out when he campaigns and shakes a few hands and kisses a few babies, if they still do that? No, his speech writers write his speeches, and his election committee plans his agenda. He has no idea what you really need. Oh he reads the paper. Most likely the Wall Street Journal or a national progressive paper, and he may even get the local papers delivered to his office so his staff can read them. I guess that, short of running for the office yourself, the only way for people to be able to honestly represent their constituents is to be one. And the only way they can do that is to have term limits. So they don't have to campaign any more. A side benefit of that would be they wouldn't be beholden to wealthy contributors and big corporations. I don't mean the corporations couldn't or shouldn't be allowed to be heard, it's just that they shouldn't be allowed to be heard instead of the people. Have a Happy New Year.

We Do What With Our Foreign Aid?

2011-12-21T17:52:00.000-08:00

I just found out something that I still can't quite understand. Everybody knows that China really isn't our friend. It never has been and it isn't likely to be our friend for a very long long time, if ever. They send us poison tainted products, steal our trade and military secrets, hack into our industrial technology and vote against our attempts to make the world safer, in the United Nations, just to name a few. They also hold nearly a trillion dollars of our debt. None of this is, however, all that new. But here's something else that's not very new. And I'll bet most of you didn't know this. Each year for over a decade, in fact it's going on almost two decades, we're sending foreign aid to China. That's right. We borrow money from China, and pay interest on it, and then turn around and send China foreign aid, for free. And I'm not talking about peanuts. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Some years it's been over a billion. Heck, we even give Russia nearly a billion. In fact we send foreign aid to at least four of the ten wealthiest countries in the world. Now I happen to think that it's important for America to help other countries who are trying to dig themselves out from being among the poorest countries and help them get on their feet. But I don't think China happens to fit in that category. Not even Russia. And while I don't think that these countries we help must support America in everything, even if it hurts their country, I also don't think that proven enemies are deserving of our gifts of help. Especially when they obviously don't need it. And even more obviously when they send us their toxic waste and steal from us. But congresses have continued to approve it, as well as presidents and state departments and a whole bunch of other departments. Helloooo? Does anyone read what they sign down there in Washington ? Helloooo? I don't think they can hear me. I think that's part of the problem with Washington. In fact I think that's the whole problem with Washington.

To Judge Or Not To Judge? That Is The Question.

2011-12-21T06:40:00.000-08:00

It may sound odd coming from me but as much as I disagree with many court decisions, especially from the Supreme Court, I have to say that Mr Gingrich's idea that he would eliminate some courts and arrest judges he disapproves of, is not just over the top, it's over the universe. Let's suppose he got his way. He could then remove any judge who, in his considered opinion, was not conservative enough. That's okay for him, but since he could only serve for eight years, and at some point it would be extremely likely that a progressive president would be elected. That liberal leaning president could then remove any, in his opinion, unfit conservative judges. All this would work out well for criminals because eventually there would be no judges at all. The thing is, federal judges are appointed for life for a reason. The reason is politics. Politicians, being politicians, will always look for a way to get their hooks into our legal system. Some are doing it because of dark agendas, but most just want to bend the courts to their own desires. The thing is, judges are supposed to be independent of and above these attempts. But if they have to be constantly looking over their shoulders to see which party will be in control next term, there won't be time to rule on cases. Now I agree that in some cases that would be a good thing. The real question is, in who's opinion we should trust? If judges would actually be independent of, or above politics all would be perfect. Well, except that most people, on both sides, would be certain that these judges were favoring one side or the other. As for me, I favor judges who favor my opinions. What about you?

When Does A Lie Become A Truth?

2011-12-19T11:55:00.000-08:00

Did you know that there are several ways to count up how many people get employed for a proposed project? Pretty much any project where it's likely to get quoted by politicians? Well there are. Maybe more than a couple, but here are two. the first way is when a politician, especially during an election campaign. Or even a nominating campaign. You guessed it. A politician will take information about a company who wants to build or wants a tax break or whatever, the politician will take a suggested number of new jobs of, oh lets say 100, just for the sake of conversation. The politician will them claim that there will be 1800 new jobs created. There are two reasons for this practice. First is to make that politician look good, the second is to make the opponent look bad. What did you expect? How can you make the opponent look bad? Just claim the opponent is against it. He might be the one that actually talked the company into moving here, but if you shout it loud enough and often enough, it becomes the truth. Understand that both parties take part in this process, although one party is a little better at it than the other. There is another way for jobs numbers to get inflated. In this approach, an independent company looks at the new 100 job industry and says, if one worker works two years, that's two worker years. So if they believe the company will stay here for eighteen years and keeps it's workforce at 100, that would be 1800 worker years. Back to example one. The politician only hears 1800, not 1800 worker years. Even if it's clearly explained to the politician. What about a temporary jobs project? Let's take the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas. In this one you can see both examples used. Claims from 20,000 to over 100,000 jobs are being claimed by politicians, but the fact is only between 5000 and 6000 temporary jobs will be created and about 50 permanent jobs expected. The company that made the projections on jobs used the worker year plan and came up with 13000 jobs. The State Department's office expects about 5000 or 6000 temp jobs, but as I said, politicians are making all sorts of claims. Why now? The politicians want others to look bad. Why? Because we're approaching an election year. Just remember, just because they'll shout it loudly and often, doesn't make it so.

There's Always A Solution, If You Look Hard Enough.

2011-12-18T11:48:00.000-08:00

Have you ever heard of the Naval Support Facility Thurmont? Here's a clue; it's located in Catoctin Mountain Park, Maryland. Now do you recognize it? What if I were to call it Camp David? Would that help? Yes? Good. What's that? Some of you still don't know? Not to worry. It's been the Presidential Summer Residence since Franklin Roosevelt put his claim on it. But of the last five presidents, none use it very much. Oh, they might invite a visiting head of state to join them at the Camp for some private time, but not so much. The thing is, it's supposed to be very, very nice. But if it isn't getting used all that much, it's costing us a bundle to keep it up when we're not really using it. How about this? We keep having crisis after crisis unfold in congress. They just can't seem to come to a consensus on very much at all. Often it happens just before a congressional recess. There are two reasons for this. First there are a lot of congressional recesses, and second, neither political party wants to do anything that might be construed to be a win for the other side. It doesn't seem to matter if it might be a win for the American people, so long as it doesn't help the other side. So here's my suggestion for these kinds of problems. Whenever one of these impasses comes up, all the leadership from both parties from both houses must be loaded onto old school buses and transported to Camp David, where they must remain until an agreement is reached. If an agreement still can't be reached, the Air Force would bring a flying boxcar to the closest airstrip where the leaders would board the plane for the trip to Guantanamo Bay where they can also be held incommunicado until a agreement is reached. Then, if congress still can't get the bill to pass, all those voting against the bill could follow the same ritual as the leadership. Now, you might say that this would slow down the process of running the government. Not so. The president can run things during congressional recesses, he (or she) can run it during times of congressional segregation and interrogation, including water boarding.

These Feet Ain't Made For Dancing!

2011-12-17T06:50:00.000-08:00

Well, now they've done it! Now the fat is in the fryer! Now the time has come to act resolutely! Now they've gone and upset nature! Now it's time to hold their feet to the fire! China has really gone and done it. They have slapped a cruel tariff on chicken feet. A 100% tariff to be specific. The claim, and it's totally unfair and untrue, is that the U.S. is unfairly supporting this vital industry by providing lower feed costs to chicken farmers so they can dump the feet at below cost on China, thereby unfairly competing with Chinese chicken farmers. But the thing is our chicken farmers are paying higher costs, not lower costs for feed. That coupled with the fact that in America, chicken feet are a waste problem that must be disposed of, while in China, chicken feet are a delicacy, consumed with beer. So not only is China messing with our chicken growers, they're messing with the Chinese people, who love their chicken feet. Especially the plumper, cleaner, tastier American chicken feet, to those of the Chinese poultry industry. China just doesn't have a chicken leg to stand on. Or thigh or breast, for that matter. My fellow Americans, if push comes to cluck, we need to stand upwind of the chicken ranch and loudly proclaim our solidarity with the plight and the flight of the lowly chicken. Now you may think this is just chicken feed when it comes to the poultry business, but the chicken feet export industry has risen to over $1 billion per year. It's time to put our feet down and peck a fight with China over this obvious infraction of the WTO rules. We've submitted a complaint to that organization and are awaiting a decision. In the meantime, all is not lost. A strong black market has sprung up in China for American feet. Chicken feet that is. But the point is, we deserve to export chicken feet without this unfair treatment. If we can win on this issue, it will be a feather in our caps. And a few less feet in the landfills. WE'RE FOR FATTER, JUICIER FEET!

Dashing Through The Mall, With A One Person Open Cart.

2011-12-16T13:36:00.000-08:00

Tis the season for shopping and for the past several days, I've done just that. Now I tell you of my exploits in the field so you will know of my expertize in the giving of advise to both shoppers and stores. First let me suggest that if you must shop, if you are so foolish as to believe that you know better than those you would wish to give gifts to, what it is that they actually want, including the right sizes, colors, models and brands, if you actually think that, let me say here and now, you are wrong. But if you insist on doing it anyway, let me caution you that the experience will likely cause some substantial discomfort. Before you go, take some extra strength, long lasting pain relievers and don't forget something for acid indigestion. For the stores, whether in a mall, shopping center or a stand alone, consider that the parking lot is, in all likelihood, ill designed. Also, you might consider that, while handicapped parking is both advisable and required, you should not devote more handicapped spaces than unrestricted spaces. I consider those spaces reserved for expectant mothers, for the purpose of this narrative, as handicapped. Spaces should be just wide enough so as to allow only some minor damage to the car next to the one that just pulled in and opened the door. Once inside the store, I would suggest uniformed traffic patrolmen. They should be generous with tickets for shoppers who park their cart in the middle of a narrow isle, then proceed to stand along side it while reading all of the exciting literature on the outside of a shrink wrapped sale item. Tickets for speeding out of blind intersections are also recommended. And store managers, be sure to place additional display shelving in the middle of isles so they are not quite wide enough to allow a cart to pass through or turn around. These tickets could be in the form of a reduction in the discounts being offered. Another innovation I would suggest is turn signals on shopping carts. That way when that lady who isn't watching what she's doing, can put the left turn signal on, so that she can turn right. An even better idea would be to begin your seasonal shopping six months earlier.

Boy, Doesn't It Feel Great To Be Safer Now?

2011-12-16T09:34:00.000-08:00

Well, it looks like it's official. We could well see the day when speaking out against the government could land you in prison, without trial, for life. Folks like me might have to go into hiding and hope they can't be found and will probably have to stop saying anything about the government at all, just to be safe. You think I'm kidding? The new rule applies to terrorists and it states that terror suspects must be turned over to the military (which doesn't want them) for incarceration and interrogation. What's wrong with that? Here's the thing, terror suspect is open to interpretation. And since you wouldn't have the right to a lawyer and since you would be held incommunicado, forever, who's to say whether or not you're a terrorist or just fed up with the government. That's because terrorists are usually unhappy with the government for one reason or another. So if you speak out against the government, you could be considered a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer or are fomenting terrorism. Anyway you slice it, one night you could find yourself hauled off to a special hoosegow where you'll get the chance to feel like your drowning or get hooked up to the car battery. Just imagine how much you'll enjoy sleeping on a cold concrete bed. Anyway, you get to enjoy all these luxuries, compliments of our Congress and the President. Congress slipped it into the defense budget and the President, after hemming and hawing for a little bit, has agreed to accept it. Is this a great country or what? The whole idea is to make us all safer from terrorism. If you're in a "detention Center" you will be safe from terrorism, I'm sure. That is unless you consider torture to be a form of terrorism. So I guess the thinking is that if only we would be willing to give up enough, or all, of our civil rights and all other rights, the government can make us safe. Or at least those the government considers worthy of being safe, will be safe. That probably doesn't include me. How about you?

Oh, China's At It Again.

2011-12-15T12:58:00.000-08:00

Here's the problem with China. When we export a Jeep Grand Cherokee of similar SUV or car to China, they have built in tariffs that increase the price of the vehicle. That Jeep that might sell for $28,000 in America will cost you $85,000 in China. Pretty steep. Now they're increasing the fees by about 22%. That'll put the price for a Jeep over the $100,000 mark. Now I should say that while Jeeps are nice, they ain't in the $100 K+ category. Of course the WTO will have some say as to whether or not that fee will be allowed. See, China is mad because we complained about their subsidizing solar panels they sell in America making them cheaper than it costs the Chinese companies to manufacture them. So what's wrong with that? Well if America would like to create jobs in the solar panel industry, and it would, it will make it impossible to sell them unless the American company is willing and able to sell them for less than the cost of making them. It would be a neat trick if they could do it, but I'm pretty sure it would put the company out of business in short order. That's because companies are really in business to make money, not give it away. Now if the employees would be willing to pay to work for that company instead of being paid by the company, it might work. Thing is though, I don't know anybody who would be willing or able to work under those conditions. So China is not playing fair and got mad that they got caught. That's too bad for them, but it's not too bad for us. If we didn't catch them when they cheat, they'd quick enough put all of our industries out of business. I'm not sure how they think we'd then be able to afford their products, but I can tell you that we most assuredly would not. The thing is,world trade depends on everybody playing by the same set of rules. Many countries, in fact most countries do play fair. But a few prefer to have an edge. They like to get that edge by cheating. Those are the guys you have to watch out for. It just so happens that China is one of those guys. It's not the Chinese people that are the problem. It's the leadership. Ain't it funny how leaders are usually the problem? No matter what the problem is?

A Pipeline To Where?

2011-12-13T10:27:00.000-08:00

Well, it's my old friend the XL Pipeline that's back in the news again. So here we go again. The claims are that it will create tens of thousands of jobs and help to decrease our dependence on middle eastern oil. Okay, let's see about that. The owners of the pipeline, TransCanada, a Canadian company says about 6500 temporary jobs in construction. The State Department, which was about to approve it, agrees. Not ten thousand? Cornell University's Global Labor Institute says it will create about fifty permanent jobs. Where's the ten thousand? Maybe in cleanup for spills. The pipeline would lead to Texas Gulf coast refineries who have contracts that will require them to ship most of the oil overseas. So here's what the pipeline would mean for America. It would cross sensitive lands and aquifers where the residents, of both parties, don't want it, in order to tie up U.S. refineries in order for the refined oil to be shipped to foreign countries. Now tell me again how this thing is in our best interest? I don't mean to be a stickler for good decisions, but this just isn't the issue we need to hang our hats on. Let's face it, it's the dirtiest type of oil, which must be cleaned up before it can be shipped out. That means there will be more waste to get rid of. The waste won't be good for anything but pollution. It could work out pretty well for that use. So if you want to buy a barrel of pollution, they would be able to provide it. In fact, if you would like this waste stored in your backyard, maybe around the pool, have they got a deal for you. The other claim is that if we don't take it, they will just run a pipeline to Canada's west coast, which is much closer anyway, and refine it and ship it from there. If they can do that, why do they want to pipe it across America? Ya know what I think? I think they don't want it in Canada any more than we do here in America. And another thing is that they're going to have to destroy a whole lot of forestland just to get at it in the first place. Nope, if I were a smart politician, I wouldn't want my hat on it.

Is That A Mark On Your Ear?

2011-12-11T08:55:00.000-08:00

Here's the skinny on the fat. Earmarks will no longer appear on any piece of legislation. Word has it that the new term will be "Funding Requests". See, if a friend, relative or influential supporter ( rich guy) requests funding, then that's something our legislators can add to a bill being proposed. It won't be an earmark because it was requested. As opposed to the legislator just putting something in the bill that wasn't requested by somebody. It's all very clear and above board. Well, no wait. Actually it's not all that clear. It's more translucent or even opaque and therefore not all that "above board". What I wonder is how long it will take before Funding Requests will become a bad word so they can go back to earmarks? Or will they have to come up with a new name for an old habit? These earmarks/funding requests were supposed to have ended, but in the defense bill they're getting ready to push through, there are 115 of the things in it. $834,000,000 that they've been able to find and another 31 they're not sure of. Here's the best part. Ya know all those freshmen legislators in their first term? The ones who campaigned against earmarks? Well 20 of them have earmarks in this one piece of legislation alone. Now the reason they can't determine the total number of earmarks is because they've been removed from websites and the like. The thinking was probably that if you can't see them, they don't exist. Except that they do exist and they still cost taxpayers millions. Now, let me assure you that these earmarks, oops I keep forgetting to call them funding requests, these things are bi-partisan. Members of both parties are building them into this over padded bill. So, once again, if your cousin the congressman or your uncle the Senator hasn't asked for your request for funding, just get it in. There's not much time left on this bill.

It's All Down The Royal Hill From Here.

2011-12-10T07:18:00.000-08:00

Well now I know things are getting tough. The Queen of England has been laid off. Okay, that's not completely true. She hasn't been laid off. Just her income has been laid off. Presumably she's still expected to work. For free. Now it's not that she can't afford to do that. The simple fact is, it's not even true that she's needed at all. That includes the whole family. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to be cruel, and I realize just how much the English people revere her, but exactly what is it that she does that couldn't be done by a president for substantially less money. Or even a prime minister. Or even a less than prime, minister. Now the idea of this entry today is not to find fault with the Queen or her family, but rather to point out that folks who act like royalty don't always contribute anywhere near what they cost. Take corporate executives, especially Wall Street execs and hedge fund managers. Hey, they make even more than the Queen does, I mean did, and they don't even officiate at state functions. They don't even officially open parliament, or congress. Lord knows they should, since they own it, but they don't even show up for the opening. I would hope that if I owned congress, I'd at least show up for the opening. You know. To sort of cheer them on and remind them that there must be no new taxes on the 1%. Now getting back to the Queen, you don't suppose she did something to get Parliament mad at her, do you? You know, like a public snub. Or even a private snub. Well, now I suspect the Brits will take a second look at these leaders who have short-changed her majesty. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that heads have rolled after the next election. There could even be a no confidence vote. Why can't we call a no confidence vote? They could demand a reinstatement of her Majesty's paycheck Can't have the grand old lady going around in hand-me-down gowns and crowns, now can we? Next thing ya know they'll have her back in the old horse and buggy. A what? .

Wanna Trade? I'll Give Ya Safety For Freedom, Your Choice.

2011-12-08T08:02:00.000-08:00

Well Congress is trying to do it now. In the next defense budget, they want all terrorists and terrorism handled by the military. Sounds strong and smart, right? Wrong. Aside from the questions of Guantanamo Bay and torture, it basically pushes out the agencies best suited to do the work of investigating and interrogating of suspects, the FBI and CIA, and it gives the military the right to detain, even American citizens, indefinitely without trial. Now you could say that it sounds great because we wouldn't have to worry our pretty little heads with handling these bad people. As though we Americans aren't really up to the job of finding, trying and punishing these bad people. We're just not strong enough or smart enough so we need our military to do that for us too. I can imagine that's exactly how every brutal dictatorship in the history of mankind got it's start. Say, fellow citizens, we don't want to bother you with these insignificant details, so just give me the authority to take care of this messy business for ya. We'll be sure to keep you warm and safe from any unpleasant interruptions of the services you want most. No need for you to have to witness this scary business. Problem with this kind of thinking is that once you give them that kind of authority, then they can decide for themselves just who is unworthy of protection under our Constitution. Such as where our Constitution states that every citizen is entitled to a speedy trial by his or her peers. So I guess if you were to speak out against these policies, you could be determined to be a terrorist sympathiser and you would suddenly disappear, never to be seen again. Your family wouldn't know what happened to you. Ya know what? It could even be a case of mistaken identity. Since our current law enforcement system has done a pretty good job of protecting us, does it make sense to give it to the military who hasn't done this kind of work and has never been allowed to be deployed within our borders? Changing from trained to untrained sounds like a blunder to me. Oh, and the military doesn't even want this job. It sounds like the beginning of the end of freedom.

There Are Always Suggestions. There Are Rarely Solutions.

2011-12-07T08:49:00.000-08:00

So what's the deal with the so called mortgage crisis? How come so many houses are empty in so many cities and towns across America? I think I've counted about a dozen different reasons for this problem. How many have you heard? Which is your favorite? Is it really such a problem? I mean, why not just rent these houses out. Because there used to be people living there. There must be loads of people looking for someplace to live. Let's face it, not everybody can move back in with mom and dad. What if mom and dad downsized or are in a nursing home? Problem solved. Now on to the next crisis. Not so fast there cowboy. If you were to check these houses out more closely you'd find that behind the high grass in the lawn and the graffiti on the door you'd find that many have had the copper pipes removed from the plumbing and the electrical wiring as well. Then there's the fixtures, electrical, sinks, stoves, kitchen cabinets and pretty much anything else removable that's saleable. Well, maybe the new owners would have wanted to change the decor anyway. A couple of things should be mentioned at this point. First, what new owners? Second, in order to remove wiring and plumbing, you pretty much have to tear up and tear out the inside of the house. Walls, floors, ceilings, the whole shebang. If the reason for foreclosure was that it was worth less than was owed on it, it's worth even less now. In fact it may not be worth fixing back up since there aren't enough buyers that can afford that many homes. Okay then, tear them down, bulldozer them and plant grass on the empty lots. Grass? Who's gonna mow the grass? Elementary kids who don't know the values of getting to work on time and staying for the day, as one candidate suggested? Well then plant trees. Who's gonna pay for this tearing down, bulldozing and tree planting? The Banks that hold property ownership now? Ya think they're interested in spending even more money on any of these ideas with no prospects of getting repaid? Maybe the neighbors would do it. You mean the neighbors that are terrified they'll be the next to lose their homes and are working two or three jobs to make sure they don't? When do you suggest they do it? In their spare time? With the spare money they have? Okay then let the cities and towns buy the properties, tear them down and plant the trees. You mean the cities and towns that are beginning to look at bankruptcy? There are loads of suggestions for the problems, but there are no solutions to the problems at this point. But at least there continues to be foreclosures at an alarming rate. Why would banks continue to do this? They don't. The mortgage servicers do. Who are these mortgage servicers? The companies who handle the mortgages, collect monthly installments and prosecute delinquencies. Why? Money, fees. They don't make as much if the owner stays in the house.

Campaigns Are Tough On Everybody.

2011-12-05T10:41:00.000-08:00

I've found what I can only describe as a fatal flaw in the communications industry. It's the hugely inconvenient disconnect. Let me give you the most egregious example of this disconnect problem. I've been trying to register my PAC, PIMP, as a Super PAC. You remember? I'm running for President. Now that should be a simple process of calling the Federal Elections Commission to ask for an application to form a Super PAC, right? Well it isn't just that easy. In fact, because of 'disconnect' I haven't been able to complete the process. Look, it's bad enough that you have to wait for hours just to get through, must be a lot of folks with the same idea as me, and once I get through, there's the forty five minutes on hold listening to music that I wouldn't subject my most serious opponent to, just to get to speak to a recording that tells me to push one for English. Then after an additional fifteen minutes of pushing various buttons, I'm informed my conversation may be recorded for quality purposes. I'll bet. Then it's another ten minutes with music from, oh you know where. Then just when I finally get to speak with a real person, at least I think she's real, I'm so surprised that it takes several minutes for me to remember why I called. I then explain that I want to register my PAC, PIMP, as a Super PAC. Fortunately, I'm able to catch her before she hangs up and explain that PIMP is an acronym for 'Put In My Pocket'. It's invariably here where I'm disconnected by the phone company. I know it's the phone company and not the person at the FEC, because I've already explained to her that it isn't a crank call. The thing is, the more time I have to spend trying to register my Super PAC, PIMP with the FEC, the less time I have to look for voters in the cemetery.

Debate Is Good If You Win. Not So Good Otherwise.

2011-12-05T09:10:00.000-08:00

I love to debate my cousin by email. We've been doing it off and on for about a dozen years. He's a moderate conservative and I'm a moderate progressive. But for the sake of debate, we're both rabidly opposites. We've argued everything from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe with side trips to Bush and Obama. He's called me uneducated and uninformed while I call him an elitist aristocrat. He hates regulation while I point out the similarities of the now and the past. If I point to a flaw in a conservative position, he spends substantial efforts in finding the discrepancy in my findings and if he points a finger at a progressive ideal, I quickly prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he's wrong. I tell you this so you'll understand the righteous rightness of my position and his inept attempts to discredit the good of progressives everywhere. On some things we agree. We both think that Washington needs to be housecleaned. The Senate too. We both like the idea of term limits and we both agree that it's never going to happen. We both believe this because, while most people agree with us, most people feel that congress should all be thrown out except for their own special favorite son. Because they're all no good except for this one special favorite son, or daughter. So if you threw everyone out of congress except for the favorite sons and daughters, you really wouldn't be throwing anyone out, now would you? Another thing my cousin and I wouldn't miss is political parties. We do like New Years Eve parties though. About the only way that could happen is with a constitutional amendment to require open primaries where the top two vote getter run in the general election. Can you imagine the full court press the two parties would unleash on that idea?

Why Bother Voting? Gerry Tells Us Why.

2011-12-04T09:59:00.000-08:00

I think I mentioned once before about gerrymandering in creating congressional districts within every state that gained or lost population over the last ten years. 2010 was the census year and so this year many states got to carve up the states according to the desires of the majority parties in each state's congress. Well, that's true for all but a very few. But states like Pennsylvania and Texas to name just two, carved it up in favor of the majority in state congress. In Pennsylvania, they have a pretend fair process. Members of both parties get to be on the board that carves up the state, but since one party has a majority, they get more people on the board. Care to guess how good ole Penn's Woods goes? In Texas, they're more open about it. They just have the majority party in the state congress carve it up. Now there are states where the Republicans are in control and others where the Democrats are in control. In that respect, the country is bi-partisan. Back to Texas. They were supposed to get four new seats or districts, which means four more in the U.S. Congress, almost entirely because of the influx Hispanics in the state. So how was the state divided up. Well the new map would have decreased the number of Hispanic leaning districts by one. A neat trick, right? Well the federal courts said it wasn't neat enough and redrew it so that there is an increase of four Hispanic leaning districts. The Texas governor, vise governor and state Atty General are all up in arms, not to mention the majority party in the state house. They're appealing it to the U.S. Supreme Court. So the question to the Supreme Court is; Do citizens get to have their vote count or not? The question to the rest of the country is; What about us? Do we get a voice or not. California has a non-partisan board make the decision. It's final. Why isn't that the law of the land? How come I don't get to have my vote count? How about yours?

Matters Of The Heart And Mind.

2011-12-03T08:24:00.000-08:00

Here's a question for ya. How important is it to you that the person we elect next year has the ability to be informed about matters of historical locations? Or foreign affairs? Or voting age, or for that matter what the constitution actually says (not just cherry picked sentences)? How important is it to have someone who is consistently in favor of or against any subject? How about their private lives? How important are dalliances to the presidency? How about a persons ability or willingness to follow through on a campaign promise? How important is a business background or an educational background? How about personal appearance? How important is that? Is it a necessity that our next president be clever in a debate? My guess is that the number one attribute for any successful candidate is appearance. It's like mom always said, "first impressions are lasting impressions". Of course that presumes you don't get too flustered in a debate or interview. It also presumes that someone else isn't able to appear to be far superior in the knowledge of all things, or at least all things being discussed. Second is that a person identify with the core desires of the base, regardless of how that affects the country. Now this time around, on the Democrat side, Barrack Obama has nobody up against him. But on the Republican side, there is a host of debutant's awaiting the first dance, or in political terms, the first vote. Who will the handsome prince (voters) choose for the first dance of the gala (Iowa caucuses). The engagement party in Florida (Republican convention) is nearly a year off. Once the betrothal is announced (including the selection of V.P.) comes the coming out parties including bridal showers and bachelor parties. The catch, of course is that there is room for but one marriage ceremony at the church. Only one opportunity to take the vows. So who will be the Republican team to face the Democrat team? As you know, I am among the front runners for the nomination. I hope I can count on all of your votes, from each of you.

Traveling The Highways And Byways And Back Roads.

2011-12-02T07:08:00.000-08:00

When is the last time you traveled by automobile to a region you were unfamiliar with? If you were on an interstate highway, or even back country roads, you probably tried to follow the directional signs, right? Have any problems? Uh huh. Here's the thing. Highway signs are designed by two separate groups of people. One group is represented by people who live in the area and are completely familiar with how to get where you want to go and really don't need the signs, but will explain with arrows how to do it. The other group which also designs signs, is represented by the folks who designed the roads in the first place. They too know how to get where they want to go. After all, they designed the highway. So they don't really need the signs either, but they too will explain how to do it with arrows. Where the problem comes in for you, is that all these good and well meaning folks already know how to get "there" and which way to turn. For instance, just because you want to go south, doesn't necessarily mean you will need to turn south. Some times you'll need to turn south, but then sometimes you'll need to turn north, or east or west or stay straight. In other words, it's best if you don't use that compass you bought especially for the trip. Now comes the best part. You are advised to follow the signs directions. So if the sign tells you to get into the left lane as soon as safely possible you need to do so, because, this sign would normally either instruct you to do so as you pass the turn or just far enough ahead for you to get into the left lane just as the next sign instructs you to turn right immediately. That's why the front seat passenger is required to search farther down the road for contradicting signage I don't mean to find fault with the folks who make and place these signs. I don't mean to, but I will. It's not their fault that they already knew how to get "there". It is their fault, though, that they unconsciously assume that you do too. See, if you don't know how to get "there", you will need better instructions as to how to get "there" than you will if you already know how. This is what the sign designer/maker/placer doesn't know. On the other hand, it does afford you the opportunity to see places and parts of Americana you never expected to see. Like the city dump or Charlies Auto Junkyard or the dead end at the local swamp.

Hey! It's My Legacy, Don't Mess With It.

2011-12-01T21:48:00.000-08:00

Have you ever contemplated how you will be remembered,what your legacy will be? In order to do that, you have to recognize your own mortality. This isn't an easy exercise. I know that when I pass away, I plan to be cremated and that really burns me up. I worry that after I've gone on to my eternal reward, whatever that may be, that I will not be remembered as a serious political observer. I am, however, an astute critic of our current political system. On the other hand I consider myself to be bipartisan in my disapproval of both the Democrats and the Republicans. As for Independents, I bequeath my strong belief that when asked which side you will support, you ought to say, "yes". An independent, when asked if he favors a particular viewpoint, might offer this response,"some say yes and some say no. I agree". How does one claim to be an independent? Is it because they don't have any opinion on anything? Are they unable to make up their minds on any subject? Do they fear reprisal or disapproval of acquaintances? Do they not have an original thought? If they agree with one side, does that make them a full fledged member in good standing of that side? Do they covet the attention of being courted by both sides? I propose the answer is none of the above, but rather, that they forgot the question. Back to my legacy. I want to be remembered as a wise-acher, someone who is more than willing to poke fun at the most respected of our leaders when the screw up. And they will. I also want to be remembered for being willing to poke fun at those who consider themselves to be great leaders, even though they are not. Most of all, I want to be remembered for being willing to poke fun at those who are truly buffoons and don't know it. I'd like to be remembered as one of the greatest baritones of our times. I'd like to, but it isn't likely that I will be so honored. Well, okay, if I can't be a great baritone, then how about a magnificent tenor instead? These are the contemplations I contemplate late at night. And lastly, I want to be remembered by my real name, Fred Farkle.

I Heart My Congressman and Senators.

2011-11-30T07:39:00.000-08:00

Do ya know what earmarks are? Well I can tell ya they ain't from scratching your ear with earrings, that's for sure. No, actually they call them earmarks when Congressmen or Senators try to add a special favor to a bill being readied to become law. The "special favors" are lots of "pork", which is another word for money, to friends and relatives in their home districts or states. See, the way they do it is to get the government to give a contract or grant to a company formed by this friend or relative, often formed for the purpose of receiving these "earmarks". Okay, so last fall and last winter, the House and Senate voted to stop doing it because of our tight financial situation. Because of the economic downturn and our burgeoning deficit and debt, it was decided that they needed to stop adding these earmarks to other bills, at least until the country got back on it's feet. At which time, presumably, our legislators could then return to the pork-fest. Well if you think about it, while it sounded like a magnanimous gesture, because of the fact that they're hooked on the process just like being hooked on heroin, they couldn't stop. There have been hundreds of earmarks that have been slid into bills since the "ban" took place. Or maybe the ban was only for that day, or week. Anyway, you'll be pleased to note that the friends and relatives of our hard serving servants of congress are now back on the gravy train. Now if you're a friend or relative of one of these selfless servants and are not receiving any earmarks as yet, you may want to be in tough with that legislator to whom you have a relationship, in order to ascertain an estimate of the approximate date and amount you will receive for your earmark, in the form of pork of course. Don't ya just love these folks. It's perhaps the only bi-partisan effort you'll find in the halls of congress. I have a special place in my heart for them. I sit on that place every day.

Frankly It's Frank.

2011-11-29T06:04:00.000-08:00

Well, Barney Frank is retiring from Congress at the end of next year. For those who haven't heard of him, he has two doctoral degrees from Harvard and nearly has a third. He's a very outspoken Representative from Massachusetts by way of Bayonne, New Jersey and sounds like he never left there. They say he has a real sense of humor. A quote I just read tells how whenever someone complains to him about the lazy good for nothing politicians, his reply is that "the public is no bargain either". Amen brother, Amen. Rep. Frank is on the committee that overseas the banking industry, but could easily head almost any committee in Congress and would almost instantly be the best informed member of that committee. He's not typical of congressional members these days. He actually knows what he's talking about because he's studied the subject before he speaks. As opposed to speaking about a subject in spite of the fact that they haven't studied it. That's part of the problem in Washington. On the one hand you have the folks that will vote any way they think they have to, for their own personal gain and then there's the folks who speak without knowing whereof they speak. Unfortunately it's usually the same people in both categories. Mr Frank doesn't seem to fit either category. Nor is he likely to miss the chance to tell it like it is. Ya know, it's true that politicians are no bargain, but then he's right, the public is no bargain either. Elsewise, they wouldn't have voted the bums into office in the first place. Residents of the fourth legislative district of Massachusetts excepted.

How Big Is The Party Of No?

2011-11-28T07:43:00.000-08:00

I don't generally speak out about either political party, but rather I prefer to point out silliness. But I'd really like to point out some over the top silliness in the current Republican party. It seems that this proud old political party has been taken over by some of the strangest people in the country. It seems to me that long time members are stunned into silence. Could you describe the vacuum emanating from the right, or more properly, the far right? Let's look at a few; Evolution. Now science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is in fact the correct method by which we have arrived on this planet. Is it possible that there is another way? Of course, although there is no real way to prove it, evolution is by far the most likely. It's the "reasonable" part that rules. There is a very real difference between science and belief. But even the Roman Catholic church agrees there is no conflict here. Secondly, Global Warming. About 97% of all climatologists and any other scientists agree the earth is experiencing global warming and that humans are, in large part, responsible for it. Even a scientist who disagreed and ran his own study, funded by a staunch nonbeliever of Global Warming, found it to be happening and, yes, it was caused by humans. The there's the economy. All agree we have far too much debt. All independent economists and even many conservative economists agree that to solve the problem we need to cut spending substantially and increase taxes, or at least eliminate loopholes, but not tax cuts. Only the far right seems to think it can be done by entitlement cuts alone and add in some tax cuts. Immigration is a serious matter. We need to overhaul the laws and the system to allow more people, especially those with the skills to develop new industry, as well as to address those already here illegally. The Far right wants to deport the 11 to 12 million people who are here. Twelve million. How in the world could we do that? It would break the bank. It makes no sense what-so-ever, but that seems to be the stock in trade for the far right. Now let me say right here that the far left is not without it's share of silliness, but for right now, the ultra-conservatives hold the record. The problem comes in that right now, with the elections coming around, we need a credible presidential candidate in the Republican party who isn't spouting ultra-right theology. That is the theology of No Evolution, No Global Warming, No Taxes, No Immigration and No Sense.

The Teaching Wars.

2011-11-27T11:32:00.000-08:00

There's a new war going on in this country and the battlefront is in your home town. Yessiree boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen and children of all ages, and this war is being fought for the hearts and minds of those children out there. Cyber or virtual schools is the new boy on the block and it's trying to replace your Alma mater. Opponents claim there is no way to gage the effectiveness of such schools and there is no way to properly fund them. Proponents point out the needs of many students such as high and low achievers. Even targets of bullying. What these waring sides don't realize is that there is a simple solution to nearly all of the arguments, both pro and con. Holograms! You betcha. See, Holograms would provide that "classroom" experience opponents of virtual schools say that students need. Each student would have a hologram assigned to them. Teachers would have one as well and would also have the ability to switch off any student hologram that was misbehaving. They could even have the "instant replay" feature, as well as "challenge" option if a student's coach (parent) felt there was an error in the penalty. Now I realize that we're not quite ready with the technology to put these holograms to work yet. There are bugs to work out. Like what arrangements to make relating to contracts with holograms, vacation pay and length, their union contracts and various classifications. Everybody wants the extra smart one but nobody wants to be the class troublemaker hologram. The big question is who gets the bigger pay rate, the smart one or the troublemaker? The smart one because of all the extra data storage necessary, or the troublemaker because of the built in safety mechanisms necessary to protect it from damage? But these are all questions that can be worked out. All that's left is for someone to figure out who gets the prettiest one. That and hologram dating. On to Hologram U.

It's A Travisty And A Tragedy.

2011-11-26T06:52:00.000-08:00

A truly important issue has boiled up to the surface. As if Congress didn't have enough on it's plate, this happens along. I hope and pray for all of our souls, that we can come to bi-partisan support for a solution to this most pressing difficulty that threatens to disrupt our whole way of life. Nothing of this magnitude has come along since congress was forced to enact a law that required a limit of no more than three riders per horse, back toward the end of the nineteenth century. Okay, Okay, that never happened, but it should have, because then there would have been a more monumental crisis than this new one. Here's the thing. Most airlines are charging for checked baggage. That's right, can you imagine? Charging for checked baggage on top of the price of a ticket. Why the mere thought of such an outrage sends tremors up my spine. No wonder Congress has weighted in on this egregious issue. Many, if not all passengers have taken to claiming their baggage as carry-on. A simple solution, or at least it should be, except for two things. It's difficult to consider crates and luggage chests as carry-on. It takes several people to carry them on and how in the world do you get them up and into the overhead storage compartments? Secondly there are certain restrictions as to size that all airlines ascribe to. The problem is, just like all laws, these are not followed to the letter of the rule. Not even the spirit of the rule. Therefore the United States Congress has entered the fray with the full force and integrity of our national governing bodies. There is nothing so important or pressing as this potentially catastrophic inconvenience. Neither war nor Recession nor backbreaking debt nor global warming nor floods nor earthquakes nor pestilence of any kind can keep our Representatives and Senators from resolving this over-arching and looming disaster. Check-in baggage fees must be curtailed.

Happy Thanksgiving!

2011-11-24T06:26:00.000-08:00

Ahhh. Today is Thanksgiving. It's been a tough year for many. I read an article today that points out that nearly one third of the people in America are in poverty or in that difficult area just above poverty called "near poor" So at this time, on this Thanksgiving day, we need to give thanks for what we have and pray for those who must struggle. This Recession we face still, has been so hard on so many. As we try to dig out from under the weight of this Great Recession, I'm reminded of something else I read today. It's a reminder of part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's second Inaugural Address "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little". Little wonder that he kept getting reelected. For a very wealthy man, he understood the needs and the suffering of those who must worry each day over how to provide for the next day. So, as we partake of this rich bounty before us, let us pray for and seek ways we can help to meet those needs that President Roosevelt say so many years ago. To do this, is to do Gods work.

Is Your Sixth Grader Ready for The Third Shift?

2011-11-23T10:04:00.000-08:00

There's an article in the most recent National Review, a conservative news publication and web site, Kevin D. Williamson has an article "Newt's Right: Put Kids To Work". At first I thought it was a spoof, but then I realized it wasn't that at all. It was a call to eliminate the Child Labor Laws. His contention is that Newt Gingrich was right about allowing companies to hire children. Now I'm not going to take a look back at the bad old days of child exploitation before the Child Labor Laws. Instead I'm wondering how putting these children back to work will do any of the things we need for the 21st century. Take for instance the fact that the jobs of the future will require specific skills that will, for the most part, require special educational experiences that the companies aren't willing to teach. They want their new hires to have those skills before being hired. This isn't to suggest that only colleges can provide these skills. Nearly all technology schools and trade schools teach these skills. I believe that some high schools should begin to offer these skills as well. Especially in poorer urban neighborhoods and even rural areas where the means to pay for additional schooling may not be high. I do think that companies need to work with such schools to be sure to provide the needed skills.
Mr Williamson suggests that half of all children just don't have the IQ necessary to benefit from higher education. Is that right? Is America truly a country of half dummies? And just who will decide which children will go to college? Will it be only those whose parents have college degrees? He never looks at the Trade Schools. One of our biggest problems is that other countries are ahead of us in math and sciences. Is he suggesting that somewhere around the 4th or 5th grades, I suppose, we select those who will attend college and put the rest to work doing janitorial work in the schools as Mr Gingrich proposed? The second reason I find fault with Mr Williamson's thesis is that once trained to handle these menial tasks, will they be prepared to learn new skills as the old ones are taken over by technology like robotics? What he doesn't seem to realize is that schools of higher learning will also need to train young people in how to think for themselves and to be able to reintegrate into new technology quickly. Third, the ideas he proposes will encourage dropouts from school at earlier and earlier ages. It would truly be the dumbing down of America. An idea that would serve to bring back lower and lower paying jobs. Those are not the jobs Americans want nor is it what Americans deserve.

What News To Believe.

2011-11-22T07:14:00.000-08:00

Farleigh Dickinson University just completed a poll that shows that people who rely on
FOX NEWS for their news, are less informed than people who don't watch any news at all. Now you might think this poll must be flawed if it weren't for the fact that last year the University of Maryland completed a poll that found nearly the same results. But how could this be? FOX NEWS runs 24/7. Surely some of what is stated and reported on FOX must be true, right? Well of course that's true. The poll doesn't suggest that viewers don't know anything. It does suggest, however, that if those viewers aren't also watching other sources of news, they may well be less informed than they think they are. To be fair, that's true of pretty much any news source. But even Jon Stewart's Daily Show, a comedy show that makes fun of news shows and politicians who say and do dumb thing, will keep you better informed than FOX NEWS. A comedy show? But how could this be? Well the thing is, it's a whole lot easier reporting slanted information that makes your side look better than it is to report the truth. That's because if you don't care all that much about the truth, you can make up your own truth. Now as it turns out, FOX NEWS is owned by Rupert Murdock. Mr Murdock is a very wealthy and powerful man who happens to be extremely partisan. That in itself isn't all that big a problem and there's no shame in being partisan. It's certainly far better than being disconnected from what our government does or doesn't do. The problem comes in when he allows his partisanship to spill over into and onto his TV network. Which he has done. Then it becomes a source for more worthless advise, slanted news and partisan rhetoric than news reporting. Again, there's nothing wrong with even that. So long as they make it clear that that's what they're doing. The same rules should apply to any other media outlet. Of course the chances of that happening with FOX NEWS or any other partisan media outlet are about as good as my chances are of winning the next Boston Marathon followed immediately by my seducing the most recent Miss Universe. My goodness is that the alarm clock?

You Voted For Who? or is that whom?

2011-11-21T07:57:00.000-08:00

Guess what? The so called Super Committee failed in it's attempt to bring down the debt and deficit. Boy am I surprised. I was sure the Republicans would agree to higher taxes on the rich and the Democrats would go along with deep cuts to entitlements like Medicare. Well I guess ya can't have everything. But medicare is costing far too much and is expected to continue to rise dangerously. Taxing the rich or job creators would hurt job growth, if it weren't for the fact that the tax increases would by on net income. After business expenses. Like the costs associated with creating jobs. So it looks like both Democrats and Republicans have once again done us a disservice. Are you surprised at that? Did you think that political parties were intended for the public good? My goodness, you did, didn't you? Well that's okay. Being naive has it's benefits too. No actually, political parties are designed to work against the public good. No that isn't quite true. Actually political parties are designed to perpetuate themselves. It's that fact that works against the public good. I don't think it was always that way. Nor were they originally designed for that purpose. They just sort of evolved into what they are today. Now if you wanted Washington to be unable to accomplish the goals set for it and meet the needs of a society suffering from a monstrous recession with an official unemployment rate of 9% and a much larger actual unemployment rate, coupled with so many under-employed, high medical expenditures, global unrest, multiple unfunded wars and as host of other problems, if that's what you wanted, then our current two party system is working out just perfectly. On the other hand, if you'd like Washington to intelligently address these and many other problems, ----- You're screwed. That's because our political parties are convinced that the only way to govern America is to destroy the other party, and for one simple reason: the other party is just plain wrong. And wrong headed. And as everyone knows, you can't convince those in that party to listen to reason. Why, all they want to do is band together and vote down anything we try, even though our ideas are in the best interests of the country. It's simple. We're patriots. They're not.

It May Be The Law, But We Can Change That.

2011-11-20T11:06:00.000-08:00

Would anyone like to know how hard it's going to be to cut the Defense Budget when the Super committee is unable to accomplish it's mission? Just look at the Marine V22 Osprey airplane/helicopter. It's been 25 years in the making and now costs $70 million each. This despite even Dick Cheney when he was Defense Secretary for Bush 1, tried to cancel it. The Marines want behind their boss's back to push for it's continuance. So far there's 300, either in service or in construction. No matter what, we're getting them. Or look at the F35 Joint Strike fighter, the most expensive weapons system in history. Notice how it isn't referred to as a plane anymore? It's a weapons system. Really? A weapons System? Ya know why it's called that? Because it sounds like a more valuable product worthy of the more expensive price tag. Now I think we ought to have whatever we need to keep us safe and outmatch our enemies. But the question is, do we need these things or are they just the great toys that great leaders like to play with? Guess who got a ride from Washington to New York in an Osprey? Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. The Marines said it was the only way to get him there efficiently. Its that right? It was the best way? Or was it a sales pitch. Lemme give ya a ride in this great new luxury car. Don't worry about the cost. We'll work something out on that. So when push comes to shove, after nearly a year, or maybe even longer, congress hasn't figured out how to overcome their intransigence over our debt and deficit and so are hoping they can get the job done by following the rules they passed when they thought the rules wouldn't be needed, but now that they do need them, they aren't sure they like the rules they passed and so they're trying to figure out how they can do two things; change the rules and blame the other guy.

Hmmm! What Part Of Government Wastes The Most?

2011-11-19T09:12:00.000-08:00

Well, first there was the Simpson-Bowles committee, then two others, now there's the Super Committee. What they've all been trying to accomplish is to figure a way out of our debt and deficit troubles. The Democrats want some cuts to entitlements coupled with revenue increases. The Republicans believe it can be resolved with cuts alone. No mater what you think, we do need to make cuts in our spending. As long as pretty much everybody agrees on that issue, let's look at ways to cut and where there is the most waste. Someplace where the government spends far too much money and accomplishes far too little good for the people. Of course there's waste in every area of government from new ships and airplanes for the Defense Dept that they don't need or want, to over-regulation of energy and many other areas. But to make it easy and to finally get started, we need to pick the one area that personifies the waste. My vote goes to congress. Nowhere else are there more highly paid nincompoops than Congress. they get paid a fairly good wage for very little work, they get the best set of benefits of anyone in the country. And should they get defeated in an election, they are warmly welcomed with even higher wages by lobbying firms to lobby the same folks they schmoozed with in the halls of Congress. They also have the opportunity to go on speaking tours where they can make even more. Then of course, there's the ever popular book writing trade where they can tell the world how great they really are and what a terrific job they did while in office. Yep, there's no getting around it, the country would be far better off without all the professional politicians. Even elections would be cheaper without them. The only problem is that we would still need some folks to lead us. Maybe we could take a cue from our founding fathers who weren't professional politicians.They were citizen leaders who came together to do a job and then went home and back to their jobs.

Do You Want To Super Size That or Have Extra Cheese?

2011-11-17T11:19:00.000-08:00

You're probably aware of the First Lady's push to make our children healthier. More nutritious meals, especially at school. The President made a decision to require school lunches to be healthier. More fruit and veggies, right? Well, the congress decided, with the help of the potato growers and the pizza industry, to agree with the president and better define "healthier". So in order to better define healthier, congress explained that potatoes and tomatoes are veggies and therefore healthier. So now, school lunches can continue to offer french fries and pizza on the menu. Now I love pizza and french fries. You can tell I do by my girth. But the thing is, girth is what Mrs. Obama was trying to shrink. I have girth, and while I rarely admit it, I'm getting older, so my girth isn't quite as bad as girth in a child. Girth is the problem. I don't mean to suggest that french fries and pizza should be banned from America. Rather, I think they should be reserved as special treats. Daily consumption of french fries and pizza equates to girth while french fries and pizza reserved as special treats, equate to mirth. See! It's only a change of a single letter, but research shows that mirth is healthy, while girth is unhealthy. Maybe congress could offer a tax incentive for "m" and a tax increase for "g". But then some alphabet activists would probably point out that while a tax cut for m might be nice, it would be unfair to saddle g with an increase in taxes. After all, "g" alone is not unhealthy. Look at good as an example. There are many honorable words beginning with g. Well, okay if taxing is out of the question, we'll just have to find another way to win the new "Battle of the Bulge".

The Great Wire Robbery.

2011-11-16T07:36:00.000-08:00

Say, did ya hear about the super market robbery? No, not that one. Or that one either. This is the one where the robber fell through the ceiling and landed on the floor next to the checkout. So I suppose you think he was waiting til after hours to make the heist, right? Wrong. He wasn't interested in anything in the cash drawers or on the shelves. He was apparently stealing copper wiring from overhead. Maybe you didn't think copper was that valuable. Well I'm here to tell you it is. Maybe homeowners should start deciding what areas of the house they don't need electric service in. They could then remove the wiring to those areas in order to raise some extra cash. This is not a recommended endeavor for renters. But for owners, have at it. There is the problem that once the wiring is gone, you may not be ably to turn the lights on over the sink. I suppose you could wash in the dark, but gentlemen be careful when you shave. And no lights in the laundry room may account for all those mismatched pairs of socks. I don't mean to be a negative block to your social and recreational activities, but removing the wiring from the local super market is probably not the brightest idea you could have. Those suspended ceilings aren't all that supportive for your big feet. And then there's the part where you have to sell the wiring. Seventeen miles of used electrical wiring could be considered somewhat suspicious. Especially once the news media makes the theft public. Who would buy the wire anyway? And what do you tell the buyer? Oh I found it in the closet under a pile of dirty clothes. I suppose the dirty clothes part might be convincing if it weren't for the fact that the pile of wire probably wouldn't fit in any closet in even a mansion. And even if it would, it would hide the pile of dirty clothes. And besides, the electric garage door opener won't work without the wire so you can't drive the wire to the wire recyclers. And I doubt you have the skills to rewire it. No, here's a better idea. Get a tin cup and some pencils, grab your guitar and head for the courthouse lawn.

Where Do You Buy Your Wood?

2011-11-14T07:41:00.000-08:00

Well, of all things, you won't believe who's got a big grudge against regulations. Gibson Guitars.
For those of you who are sitting there wondering, Gibson is a world famous manufacturer of fine musical instruments. Their guitars are owned by a good many music world enthusiasts. And antique Gibson Guitars are quite valuable. So what's the problem. Well, most of their guitars have very high quality, and in many cases rare wood in them. The problem comes in when woods that are not just rare, but protected and in danger of becoming extinct in their home countries, like Madagascar. So to help these countries and help our own Forest Products industry, the government began to regulate the purchase and sale of these woods. The regulations actually do help our Forest Products industry according to industry executives. Other guitar manufacturers stopped buying from those countries. Well, Gibson got caught with some of these illegal woods. Now they're crying to the Republican and Tea Parties, a big lobbying firm and at least one Democratic congressman. They want the wood back and they want to be allowed to buy, I guess as long as the seller claims it's not illegal. How does that work? If I steal somebody's watch and offer to sell it to you, how likely is it that I'll tell you I stole it? Do the Gibson folks actually think the folks they buy the wood from are going to tell them if they harvested it illegally? Boy would I love to have them as clients. There's this bridge I just acquired and have decided to sell to you at a very nominal price. The bridge connects San Francisco with the another area of California. It has a pretty good income and is known as the San Fransisco Bay Bridge. Oh and I assure you I came by it perfectly legally. My name is John Doe. Cash only please.

Bad PAC. Bad PAC. Worse Super PAC.

2011-11-13T13:07:00.000-08:00

What's a PAC or two among Friends? Political Action Committees were originally designed to speak out for or against policies that special interests favored or disliked. The idea was to provide a voice for those special interests that might not otherwise be heard. Wow, did that open up the floodgates to big money and bad boys. It didn't take long before these PACs were hauling in the big bucks and the politicians could see all this money that they couldn't, no that's not quite correct., that they weren't supposed to have any control over. Then came their big break. The Supreme Court decided a case called Citizen's United. Now big money could spend all they wanted on any subject, even individual candidates and they could raise the money secretly. That's right nobody had to admit to donating to a PAC. Not even a foreign country, or presumably, a criminal organization. Now do you get the idea? Yep, Bad Boys can play bad boy games with our political and electoral systems and do it legally. Now they call some of these things, Super PACS. Don't ya just love it when your vote doesn't really count anymore? Back in the "not so good" good old days, political machines sent their henchmen out to gather names off headstones in cemeteries so they could go back and vote multiple times. They also paid voters to vote for their "man". At least the lowly voter got something out of that. Now, with these PACs and Super PACs, we don't get anything. Not even a fair vote. Why do I say that, you ask? Because they can lie about anything they want in order to confuse people into thinking their way. Bad and incorrect information can cause bad and incorrect votes. And that can cause bad or incorrect candidates to get elected.

It's My Turn. No It's His Turn.

2011-11-12T07:03:00.000-08:00

Hey gang, tonight is the 400th debate in the Republican Presidential Campaign in just under 100 days. Now, I'm making fun of a process that I think is actually a good format. Whenever you have as many people watching a campaign as closely as this one is being watched, I think it's a good idea to get them up on a stage and let them have at it. Why? Because it allows you to quickly weed out those not fit to be on the stage. The problem is that time after time, most of the candidates have shown they are not quite ready for prime time. In fact more than a couple aren't ready for Saturday morning cartoon time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting I could do better, but then I'm only running for President in a more unorthodox way, using only my blog, Sonwbeard Speaks. By the way keep those contributions coming in to my PAC, PIMP. There are still some reservations open for nights in the Lincoln Bedroom. But getting back to tonight's debate, the new front runner for second place is Newt Gingrich. It had to be his turn someday and today looks like the day. If you haven't seen him perform before, watch him as he gestures grandly. One can easily see why he considers himself to be the greatest mind of all of Romney's opponents. Which is a lot like saying he's the greatest mind in an old silent movie of the Keystone Cops or the Marx brothers. Never-the-less, he will expound magnificently and magnanimously on the wonders of his boundless knowledge in order to lavish his extraordinary understanding of all things related to all things.Meanwhile his mere human opponents will continue to muddle along under the spell of his brilliance. All the while tripping over their own tongues. The only real question is exactly what will it be that will trip up the greatest cerebral hemorrhage since time began?

Alternative Horse Energy.

2011-11-11T06:29:00.000-08:00

Well, funding for alternative energy sources is at an all time low, except for when there was no funding and before the term was invented. If you know the history of Alternative Energy, you know that President Jimmy Carter instituted funding for it when he was president back in the late 1970s. But after Reagan took office he dropped the funding. Now more recently I've heard it said that it just doesn't make sense to spend the money now when we don't have the money to spend and when it'll take decades for research to provide alternative energy sources in sufficient supplies to make a difference. Gee, that must mean that if we had continued research over the last three decades, we'd already have it. So does it make sense to ignore it now, so that three decades from now, we still won't have any alternative energy sources? Based on that kind of thinking, back toward the end of the nineteenth century, we should have been saying that oil was just too expensive and there wasn't enough supply to warrant research. After all, horses were much more reliable. So today, we could have been commuting to work in a surrey with fringe on top. If we don't get serious about research on alternatives, the day will come when we'll all be walking and using candles, which would be okay if it weren't for airplanes. It's gonna be tough to devise coal fired aircraft. And the Navy will really struggle with sails for their aircraft carriers. All that is doable, but what about submarines? A sail won't help them much. There's always a reason not to do something. And we're very good at not doing anything about potential problems. If it hasn't jumped up and smacked us in the face and isn't threatening to take away our toys, we know how to keep putting it off until it does smack us in the face and takes our toys. Then we know how to blame somebody else better than anybody. I don't know about you, but I think the best time to do something is when you realize it needs doing. Of course if you believe some folks, there will never be a need to do anything because we will never run out of fossil fuels and global warming is a hoax and there is no such thing as polution, just like evolution. And the unproven idea that the earth is round and circles the sun? Well, we all know the truth about that.

How Come The Poor Are So Poor?

2011-11-10T09:57:00.000-08:00

Fareed Zakaria, an opinion writer in the Washington Post this morning has an editorial about the lack of upward mobility in this country as compared with Canada and most European countries. The most important statement in the editorial was a quote that said "The ZIP code you're born in shouldn't determine your destiny, but too often it does". He also points out that, surprisingly, our welfare state spends very little on the poor - who don't vote very much - lavishing attention on the middle class". Do you agree with that? I mean, just listen to politicians grumble about the professional poor.
They're just lazy. Living on the government. The thing is, all the poor I know, which is only a few, I admit, are hard working people who just can't seem to get a break. I guess I don't know the right poor. But the point is that the poor stay poor, the middle class stay there and the rich still stay there, for the most part. So if that's true, then how come? Well, experts say it has to do with lack of good nutrition, good health care and good education. It seems we're not doing so well in these areas. See, if a rich child needs extra help, they can hire legions of tutors, if a middle class youth needs extra help, the family scrapes together the money to hire a tutor, but if a poor child need extra help, ???. Not only that, but rich folks can afford to send their children to exclusive private schools. Middle class families live in middle class towns and neighborhoods where they have the best equipped public schools and best teachers. But in the poor neighborhoods, the tax base doesn't allow for the best of anything. In fact for the most part, try as those districts do, they can only afford the bare minimum. The problem with that is that you wind up with a welfare state or a large criminal element or more likely, both. That is expensive for the rest of society. It would be cheaper in the long run, to provide the excellence in all categories that the rest of society has become accustomed to. Now I haven't joked around in this entry, but that's because it ain't very funny.

My Poll Is Better Than Your Poll.

2011-11-08T06:35:00.000-08:00

I keep hearing in the polls that 75% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. Okay, I can buy that. But just what direction are they talking about. Is it that there is more polarization in American politics than at any time in many decades? Because I agree with that. Is it possible that people feel our foreign policy is wrong? Because it looks to me like that's the one bright spot. Maybe it's our financial industry that seems to have screwed up the country while profiting immensely. To go with that we have done so little to place strong checks and balances on banks that are too large to fail and even banks that aren't too big to fail. Likely folks are mad we haven't been successful at creating jobs. Well, that's true. Or how about the fact the we've allowed much of the rest of the world to leap frog ahead of us in education? That's part of the problem with jobs. Is that the direction they're upset about? Because if it isn't, it should be. If folks are mad about that, they're right to be mad. Is it the debt and deficit or out of control spending? Or maybe it's immigration or the courts, or too much money in politics or global warming or alternative energy or food prices or the speeding ticket you just got or more on education, or even all of the above? Don't ya just love pollsters who don't ask the questions that would be helpful? Saying people are unhappy about the direction and stopping there isn't kidding me. They either don't know what questions to ask or they have an agenda they're afraid the answers might not support. Hey pollsters, did you know that America isn't actually moving at all. It's still right here in the same old place in North America? So if you're going to ask if we're headed in the wrong direction, let's find out what direction that is. And then let's find out exactly what direction people would like us to head in. Because you're not helping. You're just taking up time and space. And frankly, we have better things to do with our time and space. And, if you're trying to help politicians, be advised, politicians really don't pay any attention to polls unless they favor the politicians in question.

Boy Do I Love Flat Taxes.

2011-11-07T06:42:00.000-08:00

What is it about flat taxes or the 999 proposed by Herman Cain that some folks like so much? Well let's look at the 999 first and that'll answer some of the flat tax questions too. The 9-9-9 proposed by Mr Cain reduces corporate taxes from 35% to 9%, but in fairness it eliminates many loopholes. It changes personal income to 9% from anywhere from 0% to about 28% but it eliminates most loopholes too. Then it adds a 9% sales tax on everything. So, for example, in Pennsylvania where we have a 6% sales tax, it would go to 15% total. So what? Well, a sales tax comes down hardest on the poor because both poor and rich pay the same for a quart of milk or a loaf of bread. So it takes a far bigger percentage of the wages from the poor then from the rich. Now you might think then, that a flat tax must be fair, right? Wrong. If I make $20,000 and pay 9%, that leaves me with $18,200. Hardly enough to live on. But some one making $500,000 would have $455,000 left. Even someone making $100,000 would have $91,000 left. Now I don't know about you, but I could get by on $455,000 easier then I could on $18,200. I could even squeak by on $91,000 easier. But what about the person making even less than $20,000? It has to do with fairness. The more you make, the more you should pay, as a percentage of your income. And here's the thing, the wealthy, like it or not, are the only ones with the where-with-all to pay more. Well why not cut the size of government? Of course there is waste, but nowhere near enough to make the difference needed. And it's beginning to prove out that outsourcing jobs to private contractors doesn't help. In Michigan they're finding that the switch to private contractors paying much less for the same work, leaves the savings showing up as costs in other parts of the budget. Like unemployment, food stamps and medicaid and the like.

You Be The Judge Of Judges.

2011-11-06T11:15:00.000-08:00

Well guys and gals, this Tuesday is election day. I hope you vote. It's all about locals. Which doesn't excite the press, but it's really important. Consider facts like judges are, more and more, being bought and sold on the open election market. Now you may find that hard to believe, but if you haven't been watching ads on TV against one judge or another, you've missed out and you're in a much better position to select a judge then the average voter. Here's the problem. Special interest groups are spending money to fight for or against the election of judges. But judges aren't supposed to be in favor of the desires of special interests. Nor are they supposed to be against the desires of those special interests. Judges are supposed to follow the law. If a special interest doesn't like the law, they need to support change in the law, not the courts. I don't know why judges are elected anyway. Or rather, I think a non-partisan committee, for state and federal courts would be better. The committee picks two people it feels would be best for the court. Then the people vote on those two. The only question then is, who picks the committee members? All I know is that it would need to be almost anyone but a politician. Seriously. Judges are not supposed to be Republican or Democrat. When it comes to their decisions on the bench, they're supposed to think neutral. They're supposed to be impartial. If they have a friend involved in the case, they're supposed to requse themselves. How come? Because they're supposed to be neutral, remember? In fact there should be a law that any judge who gets a dime from any person, special interest or political party should be disqualified from trying a case that in any way relates to that person, special interest or party. It's not that I don't trust people, it's just that I don't think people can be trusted.

My Friends, As A Politician, I Asure You.

2011-11-05T12:31:00.000-07:00

Here's an example of how well our government is working these days. You recall the so called "Super Committee" set up last Summer to come up with a plan to decrease our debt and deficit? Uh huh, well to spur them on toward success in that effort, it was decided that if they were unsuccessful, perish the thought, then automatic cuts would kick in. But not just to the favorite whipping posts of one side or the other. Nope, it would cut from the favorites of both sides. Social Security and Medicare on the one side, defense on the other side. Well, we're fast approaching the game time and neither side of the "Super Committee" is being super. In fact they're being the same old, same old. But don't let that concern you, because a slew of bills have surfaced in the House and Senate to replace military budget cuts with budget cuts to other "unspecified" programs. Notice how the other "Unspecified Programs" aren't specified. That's because they'd like to make those decisions after the vote. Less debating and they can sneak in whatever they want. And you thought they were dumb. See, the thing is this, just because the congress said it would do one thing, doesn't mean they'll do it. It could just as well mean they'll do something else. Most likely the opposite of what they voted to do. The nice part of being a politician, especially in Washington, is that you do or undo just about anything you feel like doing or undoing. That's why you should always trust a politician to do what he or she promises to do. It's like the old joke: Ya know when a politician is telling a lie? When his mouth is open. Now that's a bit unfair. After all, there are politicians whose word is good. It's just hard to figure out who he gave that good word to. Well, actually that's not true. You can bet that whoever gave him or her the most in campaign donations and who is most likely to give even more is the one that will get that good word. My guess is that it won't be me. And I'll bet it won't be you either.

Don't Ya Just Hate Computer Geeks?

2011-11-02T11:44:00.000-07:00

Why is it that computers and computer sites and engines et al, think that by changing their formats they have reinvented themselves? That they then have a fresher newer better product or service? They need to take a cue from automobiles. At least in this respect; No mater how much cars change, in America, they always have the steering wheel on the left side, but you always drive on the right side of the road. No matter what. Well, no matter what except the postal service which has it's steering wheels on the right. And look at the shape they're in. No, with cars you turn the ignition or push the button to start the car. You put it in reverse to back up and in forward gear to go ahead. Why do computer people always think that it isn't change unless everything changes. So that the way you used to do something no longer gives you the same effect. When this happens, you can email the service staff who will help you by emailing you a list of forty seven answers, none of which is the one you need. Then a sentence pops up to ask if this helped. No damn it, it doesn't help. When you finally get someone, they email you to do something you've never done before, and they expect you to know how to do this new step. Then they tell you to frag it. Frig the Frag, I want to know what to do. No, actually I want to do what I used to do. But the new format will allow you to do so much more. Will it make my bed and run the vacuum? Will it pour my coffee? Because that's what I need. I don't need or want it to do all those other things. I don't need it to inform me when the last train for Yuma leaves the station. I'm not going to Yuma. Maybe I'm an old geezer. But I'm not the only old geezer. How about making a computer for old geezers? Huh?

Inequality Makes The World Spin.

2011-11-01T07:44:00.000-07:00

Ya know, I don't often agree with David Brooks, the New York Times conservative columnist. But in today's column he talks about inequality in terms of two different terms. On the one hand, there is the inequality between the 1% and the 99%, he says. That's the Wall Streeters and bankers and CEOs against the rest of us. But the other type is the inequality between the college educated and those less fortunate. And that's the group with the greater disadvantage, the greater inequality. Brooks points out how much easier it is for the child of a college grad to get into college, get through college and finish with far less debt to deal with. If your parents didn't get to college, the chances are you won't either. That's where this country is in trouble. And it's why this country is in trouble. Because we have a shortage of college educated workers and an over abundance of non-college, untrained workers. And until this country figures out a way to change that, we're going to continue to have a problem. Now some of the problem can be solved with trade schools. The thing is though, some children of less educated parents should go to college and some children of college educated parents should go to trade school. Here, the problem is that college folks often tend to look down at trade schools as being for those not smart enough to go to college, while trade school folks often look down at college folks as not being able to fix a light because it needs a new bulb. This is the IT era, unless the computers are down. Manufacturing is better done with robots, unless the robots don't work. Or that new house won't get built unless a skilled worker builds it. And none of the equipment will get designed unless that engineer designs it. So we have not only a problem of inequality, but a problem of lack of respect. From both sides. In fact, if there were more respect, there would be less inequality of any type.

To Gift Or Not To Gift.

2011-10-31T09:44:00.000-07:00

Getting away from politics for a day, I've been wondering about something that came to my attention the other day. Here's the question, if I give you a gift, can I assume that when the time comes that you no longer have need of or use for that gift, I have the right to reclaim it? It seems to me that if I do, then it really wasn't a gift, but rather a loan. If that's true, then why do those who want gifts back still insist on calling them gifts. And act as though they had gifted someone. Now if it's a loan, perhaps there should be some sort of loan contract signed and, depending on the value, should also be notarized. Let's say, for the sake of argument I give you a toaster oven as a Christmas gift, then I think ownership should pass to the recipient, you. Otherwise, I should ask for a signature on a promissory note that states possession must revert to the givor, me, upon any decision not to use it any more or to get rid of it, by the givee, you. This way, the givee clearly understands that this is a loan and that there are certain understood principals that must be followed. Like proper maintenance, periodical cleaning using an approved method, regular inspection by the givor and perhaps, again depending on the gift's value, proper insurance coverage. In other words, if I give you a set of earrings that are imitation silver, although not of great value, they never-the-less must be properly cared for and my investment must be protected, if they are to be on loan. Now you may feel this is not a proper discussion to have on an open blog, but let me tell you that several presidential contenders have already weighed in on the subject, and I want to resolve the problem before it becomes a political a football. I believe the seriousness of this business and the widespread practice of loan-gifting needs to be addressed. I await your recommendation as to the naming of this practice and expect you will be in complete agreement and accord with me. If, on the other hand you disagree, I will expect your legal brief on my desktop no later that the third Friday of November, 2011.

This Is The City I Love.

2011-10-30T09:41:00.000-07:00

I don't usually write about local things, but I thought you might get a laugh about the city of Scranton, Pa. Pennsylvania has had a program for "distressed cities" that affords them some special opportunities that were designed to help them get back on their feet again. Scranton has held this designation for decades and decades. all through the prosperous years of the nineties. In fact It's hard for me to remember a time when it wasn't designated as distressed. Now being distressed during times of plenty is somewhat humorous, but during a deep recession with extended high unemployment it shouldn't be so funny. That is unless you're talking about Scranton. See, they have a mayor and a chair of city council who seem to hate each other with a passion. Now you might say that that probably makes it difficult for them to work together. Not so. They just simply ignore anything the other does or proposes. So last year when the mayor proposed tax increases and some layoffs for this years budget, the council under this chairperson, instead, gave out substantial tax cuts with no layoffs and stated that the mayor could not unilaterally lay off anyone without councils permission. Which it presumably would not give. So part way into the year, the city was about to run out of money and the mayor laid off some firemen and police officers and maintenance workers. The story goes on and on. Now the mayor wanted to stop some retirement payment obligations, but the state Supreme Court had said he cannot do it. This sort of stuff has been going on here for about as long as either this mayor and this chairperson have been in office. You could sell tickets if you could get the two to appear together, but you can't get them together, even for a council meeting where the chair demanded the mayor attend. He didn't. Th reason I write about this comedy is that it's so much like Washington, that you'd think both were written by the same playwright. Except they aren't plays off Broadway. Both are actually hurting peoples lives and don't seem to care. Whether it's a city council chairperson or a Senate minority leader, they both seem to hate the mayor/president enough to harm the whole city/country. Isn't it time to stop? Both?

Hey, That Foreigner Could be The Guy That Gives You A job. Or Not.

2011-10-29T09:50:00.000-07:00

Did you know that some legislators in Washington have begun to temper their anti-immigration rhetoric? It seems that they're beginning to hear from constituents that being against immigration is hurting businesses and job creation. In a time of very high unemployment, being against businesses and job creation isn't all that great of a position to be in. Here's the thing, being "down" on immigrants, legal or illegal, hurts many businesses, but mostly agriculture. That means rural, that means areas that had been "down" on illegals. But since laws are being passed and local law enforcement has bared down of illegals, folks are finding out that it's not such a good idea after all. Okay, but how does job creation come from immigration? Well, in Thomas L Freidman's new book "That Used To Be Us", he points out that science and math standouts are the folks that come up with the most new patents and begin the most new startup companies, all of which hire, guess what, employees. So you ask, what does that have to do with immigration? Well something like 70% to 80% of the top graduates in math and science from American colleges and universities are foreign students. But it can take up to ten years for them to get a visa to get back into America. So, many are just staying home where they start those new companies and compete with us instead of coming here and hiring Americans. I'd call that bad policy, wouldn't you? Another thing Freidman mentions in his book is the idea that people think that if their kids are better educated in their school district then the next door district, they'll be able to get better jobs. But Freidman says, it's not the school next door they must compete with, it's the school in China or India or Singapore or Denmark or all the other industrialized countries in the world. That's because we compete with these nations for jobs. Jobs go where the best educated workers live. We'd better start getting our act together, because we're way behind much of the rest of the world. And those countries we're ahead of, have cheap labor that we can't compere with either. We sort of sit between just average education and very high tech job requirements. Where do you think we sit? On the outside looking in? Could be.

What Makes A Corporation A Person?

2011-10-26T21:43:00.000-07:00

I just read the other day, or maybe it was yesterday, that there is a bill in some state house up for consideration that classifies a fertilized egg as a human person. Now before you jump all over me, let me say that this entry is not about whether or not this makes sense. And by the way it is referring to human eggs, so you can go ahead and have your chicken eggs over easy in the morning. Personally I like mine poached, on toast. No, rather, it got me to thinking about corporations. Ya see, human persons start out as fertilized eggs. So I was wondering, how do corporations start out? I mean if they are people too, then how do they start out? Do they face the same dangers of not being conceived if birth control measures are used? And once born, do they breast feed or are they bottle fed? These are the kinds of questions that keep me up at night. Like, if human children have pediatricians, do corporation people have oaktreeicians? Where do you take a sick corporation? And at what age do corporations start school? Are they even required to attend public school? Does all of this sound silly? Well just how do you think it sounds calling corporations, people? If you have a house warming party, would it be improper to not invite your next door neighbor, Walmart? And what about your daughter's wedding? If DuPont is attending, I'm not. And when Jiffy-Lube moves in on the other side, there goes the neighborhood. That's the problem with the Supreme Court. They always leave more questions unanswered than they answer. Wouldn't it be nice if they just once gave us an answer that made sense and actually settled the matter once and for all. But no, they have to beat around the bush, presumably waiting to hear how the party in favor wants it settled. Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as you all know. Maybe they should be appointed by the corporate people and confirmed by the tree it took to give birth to that corporation. That's because ,after all, they're just a piece of paper, people.

What's All This Class Warfare About, Anyway?

2011-10-26T12:15:00.000-07:00

Ya know why there's so much distrust and anger in America today? Well the Congressional Budget Office just completed a study showing that the top 1% have increased their income by about 275% adjusted for inflation, but the bottom 20% income grew by only 18%, over the last 30 years. Also, the top 20% now make more than the bottom 80% combined. But that's not what really has folks so upset. Here's the thing. The folks at the top, the top 20%, the ones who prefer to be known as the Job Creators, are the people who decide how much money the folks at the bottom, the 80%, will be paid. If the bottom 80% don't like it and they ask for more, the top 20% can just say no. If the bottom 80 demands more, the top 20 can just ship the jobs overseas, happily so. The thing about that is that the top 20 then make even more and the bottom 80 make even less. But even that isn't what's the problem. The problem is that if you don't have any say in what you make and the top 20 are willing to take unfair advantage of that fact, and they do, you tend to get mad as hell. But what's even worse then that, is the fact that the government has pretty much made all that income disparity possible. In fact the government is the entity that caused it to happen, intentionally. It must have been intentional. They changed the rules so nothing else could happen. How did they do it and why? Well the how is because they changed the percentage the top 1% and 20% pay in taxes. They now pay a lower tax percentage then they did thirty years ago. And a lower tax percentage means lower taxes which means you keep more money. The Why is a little more conjecture. My guess is that politicians get more campaign donations from the top 1% and 20%, in fact that's a proven fact. When you're a professional politician, campaign donations are necessary to stay in office. STAYING IN OFFICE IS THE REASON FOR BEING A PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN. Therefore you have to do the bidding of the ones who provide your "bread and butter", so to speak. It ain't rocket science. Although the pros would like you to think it is.

Ahhh Yes. I Smell The NRA Again.

2011-10-25T07:26:00.000-07:00

Well good ole NRA is at it again. Yep, never let it be said that the NRA would pass up any opportunity to make things more dangerous for Americans. Now it's a bill before the House of Representatives that wants to make it possible for anyone with a permit from any state to carry it in any other state, any time. For instance a New Yorker, who must pass a rigorous set of requirements designed to eliminate all but the most trustworthy before obtaining a permit to carry a concealed firearm, would then be allowed to carry that concealed firearm in a state like Tennessee or Montana where, presumably, you must be able to prove you are actually alive to obtain the permit. Well that doesn't sound so bad. The problem is that the folks from those states and similar states could then carry in New York, or Massachusetts. Let me ask you this, If you need to carry a concealed firearm for protection, why would you want to go to places like New York or Massachusetts in the first place? Why not stay at home and hide under the blankets? The next thing they'll want, is to be able to carry them on commercial airplane flights. You think I'm kidding? They won the right to carry in national parks and bars. What do you think is the next step in the natural progression of self protection? It's air transportation where actually using that gun could imperil the lives of everyone on board, that's what. Then it's probably a law that would require everyone over the age of 10 to carry a concealed firearm. Oh yeah? Well let's see what's up the NRA's sleeve in the years to come. It's not likely to be in the best interests of the American citizen, that's for sure. As I've said before, the NRA was formed to work on behalf of sportsmen and foster opportunities for the sportsman to participate in the peaceful enjoyment of using and owning sporting firearms. So why are they so interested in non-sportsman issues? I wonder, again if it has anything to do with the huge financial donations from gun manufacturers and the gun manufacturer's desires to sell as many different firearms as possible? You betcha.

Just Who Should We Blame For Falling Behind?

2011-10-24T07:29:00.000-07:00

There are some things I just don't understand. Some questions I have. Like for instance, why don't we provide returning soldiers from active duty with the training and skills they'll need in order to get a decent job? Hey, for that matter, why don't we provide that kind of training in skill sets for everyone who's out of work? To match those industries looking for workers. And how about this? Why don't colleges and universities and even trade schools do the same? Why is it that colleges, universities, trade schools and even high schools keep cranking out students that simply aren't ready for the next step in their lives? If a graduating senior in high school is going to college, why aren't they ready for college work? But how about if they plan on entering the workforce right out of high school? What has public school provided them with so they can actually land a job other than flipping burgers? I keep reading how we've fallen behind the rest of the world in education. How in the world could this have happened? I mean, how hard is it to keep a step ahead of the rest of the world? We held a substantial lead for decades. What changed? Who's at fault? Now, I really don't want to know who's at fault, unless the same fools are still in charge. What I want to know is who hasn't been keeping their collective eyes on the ball? And only if they're still in charge of that. Some say it's the immigration policies that has kept out immigrants we really need. Some say it's industry that hasn't kept education informed or worked with education. Some will say anything to shift the blame away from themselves. What I want to know is when is somebody going to do something about it. Our elected officials don't seem to have the faintest idea how to solve the problem. Hey, they don't seem to even be able to ask the right questions of the right people. But if not them, then who? Whom shall we trust to get the job done. What does the "job" entail? I think it's time for education, government and industry to sit down and figure this thing out. Once and for all. At least for the near term. But then lots of folks don't want the federal government involved in local issues of education. Well let me tell you, local issues haven't been attended to locally so it's time to bring in the big horses. Some say it's not industries responsibility. But industry is the first to suffer and the first to complain about the lack of skills. It's time for industry to get involved. And don't let education off the hook either. Education should be looking for ways to better prepare these young people to perform in the workplace, not just waiting for somebody to tell them it's time to change. And then anguishing over it. Everybody is anguishing over this problem, but nobody is fixing the problem. Yet. And then there's the parents. There's far too many parents who just don't really pay much attention to their children's education. As long as the kids maintain a certain grade average, they're satisfied. It may be buggy whips, but as long as there's an "A" in it, then it's okay. Does this sound like a harsh assessment of the situation? I meant it to be.

What Is It About High Tea and Occupation?

2011-10-23T10:47:00.000-07:00

Every article I've read tells me the same story. The Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street both agree on about 80% of everything. Now the fact is that only the rank and file members of both groups agree. The leadership of the Tea Party, the Republicans and the Religious right, and those who would become the leadership of the Occupy movement, the Democrats and the Unions, believe that there is little or no agreement. Does that sound familiar to you? Republicans and Democrats, and by that I mean our esteemed leadership, can't agree on anything. So, what is it that the regular members of both movements agree on so much? That things are screwed up, that's what. The only difference is that the Tea folks think it's the government that's to blame while the Occupy group are convinced its Wall Street and bankers that are at fault. Ya know which side is right? The Tea Party is right. The Occupy Wall Street is right. But how can both be right? It's simple when you think about it. Wall Street owns the government. Both Republicans and Democrats get their financing for campaigns and various outings and perks from the folks on Wall Street and at the Banks. And politicians never bite the hand that feeds them. There are other big donors too, but they fall into the main category too. Oh politicians give a brief 'tip of the hat" to the electorate during elections, but that tip is but the tip of that iceberg. Mainly they bow and grovel to the folks that own them. It's interesting to understand why they're owned by such folks. See, the thing is that what they crave most is to remain in power. That power that comes with being a part of the Congress of the United States of America. or being the president to a lesser degree, is like nothing else on earth. But it takes loads of money. The reason the presidency is a lesser degree is that it's limited to two terms, while you can stay in congress forever if you have the money to get reelected. Once you've served as president, that's it. If you're in Congress, you make the laws or break the laws, or change the laws, or you would if you could all agree, which you can't, but you can still make loads of money and open broad opportunities should you ever get defeated and want a high paying job as a lobbyist or public speaker. That and the work week is short and the work season is shorter.

Make A Difference Day Is Today.

2011-10-22T07:47:00.000-07:00

Well today is "Make A Difference Day", presumably in someone Else's life. Well okay, here's my idea of making a difference in your life, and mine too. Lets agree that I'm right and you've been wrong all along. Now there, doesn't that make you feel better? It sure makes me feel better. Suppose we were to have said you were right and I was wrong? I'm not suggesting that's true, you understand, but suppose we did? Then the truth came out and it turned out that I was right all along and you were wrong. Wouldn't that make you feel terrible? It would me. So lets just stick with my plan. Now I thing you should tell me you're sorry for all the times you disagreed with me. That would make me feel even better. It might even make you feel better even if it bugs you to admit it. I have to tell you that being right has always been a great joy for me. Like the fact that the Iraq war was a monumental blunder on our part, from the beginning. Even now when President Obama has stated that all U.S. military will be out by the end of the year. Still many ultra conservatives and all GOP presidential contenders think we should stay longer. Why, the Iraqis have stated that if any stay, they will not guarantee that the troops will be protected from prosecution for any charge they may wish to place against them. That pretty much says "Yankee Go Home" to me. It's time to bring them home from a war we never should have gotten into in the first place. But you won't hear that from the far right. It's time for them to Make A Difference, today. Admit I was right all along. And be happy for the thousands of American troops that will be out of harms way. At least for now. At least until they have to go to Afghanistan which was the right war but has become the unwinable war. And you need to agree with me on that too.

What Foxhole Do You Belong To?

2011-10-21T06:41:00.000-07:00

Lets hear it for our Senate. If you think that having fewer, lower paid firefighters in your city will make you safer, boy does the Senate have a plan for you. If you think having fewer and lower paid teachers in your district will make for a better education for your children or grandchildren please raise your hand. The Senate just blocked a bill to fund the additional firefighters and teachers, because it would have meant a tax on people making $1 million or more a year. Why? Because they are the job creators. One thing I don't understand though. The tax wouldn't be levied on total income, but only after paying all employees and all business expenses. In other words the tax would be only on the "NET" income. So the tax really wouldn't affect their ability to hire more people, only their take home pay. Do you suppose that the Senate and the House of Representatives, for that matter, don't realize this? I find it hard to believe that these folks couldn't figure that out. My guess is, it has more to do with politics than with doing what's right for the people of this country. Ya know, I love this country. And there are a lot of reasons why I do. But the political parties aren't two of those reasons. They aren't even one of those reasons. That's why I think the time has come to abolish political parties. I suppose there was a time when it made sense to have political parties. The problem, is career politicians have turned them into mortal enemies of each other. Each election cycle turns into a war in which neither side will allow the other to do anything good for the people. They'll lie or cheat, whatever it takes to win. Now America has quite enough enemies, thank you very much. What America doesn't need is two more. And I contend that political parties are enemies of America because their fighting causes we citizens to suffer. We're collateral damage. These party leaders aren't citizen legislators the way our Founding Fathers intended. Our Founding Fathers were citizen legislators. They served long enough to get the job done and then they went home and back to work. That's why we need term limits, not professional, career politicians.

Anyone Who Isn't Native American Need Not Apply. Go Apache.

2011-10-20T09:01:00.000-07:00

Hey, have you heard the one about Alabama's new anti-immigration laws? The harshest in the country? Well here's the way it goes. A foreign company wants to open a factory in America to make cars. Alabamans find out and try to lure the company to their state with reduced taxes and exceptional lands and so on. The company says to the Alabamans, Aren't you the folks that don't like outsiders? We're not going there. Yep. The law is backfiring on them. Farmers are trying to figure out how to get their crops harvested because locals won't do it because the work is too hard. Businesses are closing for lack of workers or because owners are fleeing the state. Property owners are trying to keep their lawns and gardens from going the way of the wild. It's even hurting Alabama's tourist industry. As if things weren't bad enough in Alabama, this law is making them out to be the meanest hatemongers in the country. So what's the plus side? Well, a lot of "undesirables" are leaving town. Which means there are more homes empty and available. Just what's needed in a down market, right? This well thought out policy should be tried in one more state and then be outlawed. But it should be done sooner than later. What's the thinking or lack of thinking behind these types of laws? The fear is that these undocumented workers are taking jobs away from Americans. But the thing is, there just aren't many Americans willing to do the physically hard work under harsh conditions for low pay that these jobs represent. Are there some doing more skilled work? Sure, and those jobs pay more. But how come the Americans didn't apply for those jobs? I have my own opinion on that subject. The folks that complain the most are the folks that would sit on the couch in front of the TV and expect companies to come knocking at their doors. Life doesn't work that way anymore.

Ahhh Congress. Ya loves ta Hate Em

2011-10-18T09:31:00.000-07:00

Have ya noticed how many small, population wise, states are moving their caucus and primary dates up? Iowa just moved theirs up to Jan. 3. If they keep going, somebody will hold theirs the day after the general election, for the next election. It's no wonder Iowa wants to be first. After all it's quite an important state. election wise.What do they have, five or six electoral votes? Maybe the idea is to get them all out of the way before the big states, population wise, get into voting. What if the whole country all voted or caucused on the same day, just like the general election? Wouldn't that be better? Not so, say the small states. See, they wouldn't get all the attention the get now. So they wouldn't like a same day solution. It's like eliminating all political parties and have the two top contenders have a runoff in the general elections. What chance do you think there would be of having that pass the congress? Uh huh. Just about as much chance as we'd have of getting term limits through congress. So if congress is the reason we can't get important and needed bills through the congress, do you suppose the problem is with congress? Or maybe it's with the parties and the individual members of congress? Or maybe it has to do with somebody who came up with an idea to get all the members of one party to sign a pledge that basically says NO TAXES, even if it destroys the country. Now I don't like taxes any more than you do, but if push came to shove and we needed taxes for, oh say, better education, I think I'd be willing to spare a little bit more. Anyway the problem is still with congress. Well actually the two parties. And the individual members of congress.

Ranting about this and that.

2011-10-17T11:39:00.000-07:00

When I was a child, I kept being told that candy and other sweets were bad for my teeth. Well now I'm grown up. As much as I'm ever going to be. Now I'm told sweets are bad for my diabetes. When I was young I didn't want to loose my teeth, but I wouldn't mind loosing my diabetes now. Who would have thought that something that tastes so good would be so bad. But then again most things that are really exciting aren't good for you and most things that are boring are particularly good for you. It all comes down to sugar. Now the corn growers are telling us that whether it's cane sugar or corn syrup, corn sugar, sugar is sugar. As if that makes corn syrup good for you. Here's a flash for ya. Whether it's cane sugar or corn syrup, sugar is not very good for you. At the risk of sounding like a preacher, why is it necessary to have corn syrup in so many packaged food products? How about putting less in our packaged products. How about putting less salt in everything that doesn't have sugar and even some that have both. Because I'm told that salt is bad for my heart. I'm telling you, I like the taste of sugar and salt. If they're going to be bad for my health, how come we use them so much and how come we enjoy them so much? Why not make them healthy in large volumns? I'm just asking. Or failing that, how about making what's good for us, really tasty? Like chocolate frosting. There are loads of other things that are bad for you too. Red meat isn't too good for your heart, smoking, well okay on that one, but how come deep fried foods of any kind are bad for ya? Why aren't deep fried carrots or brocolli or chicken or potatoes good for ya? I like deep fried. I'll even promise to use extra virgin olive oil if only it'll be good for me. It really does seem that there is someone, somewhere who has decided to prove that there is nothing good for ya. Don't sleep on you side, don't sleep on your stomach, don't sleep on your back and never sleep behind the wheel. I fell asleep driving once. Nothing bad happened. It was in Alaska and mine was the only vehicle on the road. Does that prove anything? No. So then, why is the water I drink, bad, and the air I breathe, bad and the fuel I burn in my car, bad? I guess it's just the way things are. Too bad.

Life Or Death. A Little Help Please.

2011-10-16T05:27:00.000-07:00

Did you know that the oil and gas companies are still getting subsidies in the form of tax relief? Now, think about it. If the price of gasoline goes up, the subsidies go up. How's that for a double whammy. So the next time you stop to fill up, just remember, you're helping to pad those record breaking profits the oil companies seem to keep producing. Of course the coal industry keeps getting help from Uncle Sam too. Like land grants. But here's the real rub. Just one bad investment of a clean technology company and everyone is getting down on the entire industry. How come? Why do we seem to want that industry to fail, but want industries that truly are harmful to us, to show record profits and still subsidize them? Who said the oil industry needs financial help? What? Are they so poor they can't afford a cup of coffee with their morning barrel of oil? Don't get me wrong, I don't want the oil industry to go belly up. At least not until we develop a clean alternative. Then it would be a fairly good idea if the oil industry sort of faded into the background. Just a small niche industry, a closet industry. Just enough to handle our lubrication needs. The way things are now, we seem to be lubricating their wallets. To the point of over lubrication. Here's a novel idea. How about we start helping to come up with an alternative to oil a whole lot and stop helping the oil industry, which doesn't need the help, based on it profits, a whole lot? Less for oil and more for alternatives. Give me life or give me death. Doesn't seem like it should be a hard choice.