Legitimate Women.

I've been reading about and listening to this Todd Akin from Missouri. He's a U.S. Congressman on the House science committee and he's running for the U.S. Senate. But instead of campaigning, he's teaching sex education. That's right. He is a strong supporter of the right to life wing of the Tea Party. In that capacity he has decided to impart some of his extensive knowledge of the female body to the people of Missouri and to the country at large. I find this very helpful. For instance I had no idea that a woman can go out and get raped and it might not be legitimate. And of course, if it isn't legitimate, she could get pregnant. I wonder if he's suggesting contraception? Anyway, if, on the other hand, it is legitimate rape, why, that woman can curtail the process of becoming with child. I had no idea. Why wasn't I told this before? Exactly how is a woman able to do it? Does she just squeeze or is it more of a thought process? Does it work better for women with high IQs? In The Borowitz Report, a blog, he suggests Akin would do less harm in the Senate than on the house SCIENCE committee. I disagree. I think he would be best suited to a position on the faculty of Johns Hopkins Medical School. Or perhaps editor of a major medical journal. Perhaps he'd like to be appointed head of the World Health Organization. Talent like this is hard to come by and should not be wasted on mere Senate membership. Even though the perks are nice. In his spare time maybe he could council women who have already been raped, legitimately, or he could council women who may be raped in the future, illegitimately. And by the way, what is this legitimacy issue with him all about? Let me say here and now that I do not consider myself to be an authority on anything about the Female species. The longer I live, the less I know. But this Mr Akin seems to be far more knowledgeable than anyone else on earth. Either that or he's been skinny-dipping in some sea in Israel. Why doesn't he write a medical textbook?

It Takes A Lot Of Money To Buy A Judge

I don't know how much you pay attention to elections. But of elections I can't imagine anyone paying much attention to judicial elections. There are very few folks who could name the judges in the appeals courts or state Supreme Court of your states. I'll bet most people can't even name the judge in their own county. And why should you? You don't expect to ever have to go to court. So on election day when you step into that booth and start picking candidates and you come to the section on judges, you vote for whichever party you belong to or you vote for the one who's name you recognize from the TV ads. Question is, was that an ad complaining that he is a terrible person unfit to be judge or was it the ad that said he's the best? If it's an ad you remember, it was probably an attack ad. Now why do you suppose PACs and Super PACs spend so much money on judicial elections? Even more important how can Super PACs spend millions on judicial elections but not divulge the names of the donors to the public. You can bet they divulge the names to the candidates they support. Why? Because they want some consideration in court after the election. So, therein lies the difficulty. Because while some judges won't play favorites, there is that possibility. And so far it has been proving to be the case that a whole lot more decisions are being made in favor of business interests than in the past. I can tell you this much, we all need to pay more attention to who we vote for and we need to speak out against money in Judicial elections. Better yet, lets appoint these judges based on merit.

Republican vs Democrat.

What is a "true Republican?" What is a "true Democrat?" Is there a litmus test for either of these titles? Does one "win" the title by exhibiting some special gift or ability? Well, a look at the Republican party won't easily explain the process of deciding the issue. A look at the Democratic party won't give you any clue as to the proper etiquette involved. But to the best of my ability, let me try to decipher the answers to these most vexing questions. A True Republican is a person who acts and thinks exactly like Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, but not like FDR or hmm, there must be someone else. Well anyway, the idea is to think and act exactly the way a particular constituent thinks you should act. You should be a strict constitutioinalist, which means you should accept without question certain sections of the constitution and ignore certain others. Okay, so what is a True Democrat? To be a true democrat, you should be, ahhh, hmmm, to be a true Democrat you must ahhh? Come to think of it I don't think there is any such thing as a True Democrat, but you should believe strongly in the Constitution. At least certain sections of it and most often not the same as those the Republicans believe in, and you should ignore other sections of the Constitution, but not the same ones as the Republicans. I think a True Republican is just like Reagan, but completely different, while a true Democrat is unlike anybody else. Now as a Republican you may disagree with me. You may feel I've been unfair in my calculations and you're willing to stand united against me. As a Democrat, you may disagree with my findings for a myriad of reasons but you will never be united.   

My Capital Gain Gets Taxed Higher Than Yours.

Here's one of the really big controversy's of the day. Capital Gains Taxes. Just how unfair are they and to whom are they unfair? Some say the tax is unfair because you already paid taxes on that money and now they want to tax it again. WRONG! The capital gains tax is not on the money you already earned, it's on the money made off that investment money. Here's anther one; it's not fair to folks who work hard and have to pay a higher rate. The reason for a lower rate on capital gains is so wealthy investors will keep their money here in America. But look at Romney, he only pays 14% or less in total while a secretary puts in long hard days going bug-eyed over a computer. One of the real problems comes from the "Carried Interest" tax exemption. Money managers, like Romney's income from Bain, doesn't get taxed like normal income. It's taxed as if it were capital gains. Then if you're wealthy enough and smart enough, you can use additional tax shelters that allow you to defer paying taxes for years. Oh, it's all completely legal. It's just that these shelters and exemptions or aimed squarely at the wealthy. I mean if you qualify for food stamps, you're still legally permitted to try to use these loopholes, but then you don't have any money to hide. If you had enough money to hide, you wouldn't qualify for food stamps. So in actual practice, only rich people can use these loopholes. What this country needs is for the tax code to be more fair. Lets say that any and all income is capital gains. That's because even a one dollar bill is capital. So either that or stop giving the rich all these extra loopholes and shelters, especially shelters, so we can lower the rate for everyone. Problem is, rich folks don't want to lose their shelters and loopholes and exemptions, and they've got the money to fight any proposal put forward to do so. And lets face it, money speaks louder than poor people can holler.

Thirst, Tis A Terrible Thing.

It has just recently come to light that our president, the person chosen to lead our country to a brighter future, has frittered away the opportunity to carry out that sacred responsibility by consuming beer. And, as if that were not enough, he has brought into the White House itself, a micro-brewery for the production of beer. Now while I'm not suggesting such an act is illegal, it is in complete non-alliance with fair play. You see, while having your own micro-brewery in the White House might make you popular with beer swilling Minnesotans, and Wisconsinites, it most assuredly will not be approved by Californians and New Yorkers, both known for wine making. Nor will Tennesseans or Alabamians, where corn liquor is the favored beverage, be mollified. It might be necessary for the president to consider a grape arbor and some cornstalks on the grounds. While he's at it he might want to consider planting some seeds of the Camillia sinensis plant in order to harvest tea leaves for those who do not imbibe in less gentile liquids. There's an added advantage of such a planting as you might harvest a Tea party as well. The Coffee plant also comes to mind as does the Theobromo cacao or cocoa tree, in order to round out the selection. Then, of course you must consider an orange and lemon tree so as to satisfy the southeast USA. I can attest to the taste of Tomato juice as well. It will also become necessary to house a cow. My only hope is that there will still be room at the White House for the purpose of running the government of the United States. After all, it is no small task to balance the dangerous waters of international affairs, the terrible troubles of our economy, the vexing responsibilities of our banking and businesses oversight, the well being of our populace and provide for the drinking habits of all who visit the White House.

The Third Economy

Here's another question Mr or Ms President. Our economy is still in very poor shape. The stock market may have come back, but the rest of the economy is still stuck in recession.  Your job, since you've accepted the presidency, is to get the economy rolling again. What is your first move? And since the congress has been unwilling to grant any favors regarding the economy for the past three and a half years, what can you accomplish in the next four years? On the one hand, you can try to stimulate by ordering infrastructure improvements and raise taxes on the wealthiest, as the president wants or you can cut entitlements including Medicare and medicaid, food stamps, education funding and much more while cutting taxes for the wealthiest and some for middle-class as the other candidate wants. But infrastructure spending requires congressional support and taxes on the wealthiest won't be enough to pay for those expenditures. On the other hand, cutting entitlements means more people losing their jobs, which means less confidence and in order to do that, you need congress to approve. Now you could suggest trying to get congress to get together and compromise. But then we tried that. Now, back in the old days, that used to work. Now-a-days, however, congress will have none of that. So, Mr or Ms President? Just how are you going to get around those problems? And remember, you have to stay within the law. See, as president, you don't own the country, you just manage it for the owners and your bosses are the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court. And the court hasn't been all that helpful of late either.

There's No Good Guy, There's Only Bad Outcomes.

What would you do if you were president. Right now. Start with Syria. The rebels are clamoring for the U.S. to take some actions. Like a no fly zone and weapons. But they're not alone. Pundits and politicians are recommending action or even demanding it, for humanitarian reasons and for political reasons too. On the other hand, can we really afford to get into this civil war? But a monster is killing his own people in order to keep what he doesn't deserve. He's a partner in crime with the leaders of Iran. Setting up a no fly zone in Syria would be very dangerous. That's because Assad has a sophisticated air defense program, as shown in the downing of a Turkish plane. So it's a manpower and finance question. Whatta ya do Mr or Ms President? There are opposition leaders who are finding fault with your inaction, but as with our intervention in other mid-east countries, when we did something, they started finding fault with the fact that we did something. And I honestly don't think that either party would act differently this time. So you're gonna be accused of being the bad guy either way. Now, do you spend our young men and women and our money to do the right thing? Or do you do the right thing by staying out of it, militarily? Here's a better question. Can we afford it? Do we have troops to do the work needed to handle the job? Where do we get the money to do it? Our military has been overextended for a long time. How many times can we keep sending our youth into harms way? And the last two wars we borrowed the money to go to war. Can we afford to do that again? Can we afford to raise taxes to do it? So you wanted the presidency, huh? Well you got it. Don't choke on it.