Adam, Did You Feed Rex Yet?

Whatta ya say we stop funding religious theme parks with tax money. Sound silly? Well in good ole Kentucky the state is giving $40 million to a "for profit" outfit partly owned by a church group to build a "Noah's Ark" theme park. I guess they already have one on creationism. Now if folks want to believe that Adam and Eve raised dinosaurs on their farm just outside the Garden of Eden, it's okay with me, and there's nothing wrong in having a park with an Ark as the attraction, but I'm not sure I'd want my tax dollars going to build it. Not even if it was legal to have the state financially support the project. Of course, I'm not strong on taxpayers support of any project that's owned by a for profit company. Not unless it was part of some sort of a loan. On the other hand, if the states are going to insist on grants to such things, then I'd like to get in on the gravy train too. After all I go to church regularly. Or do I attend the wrong church? Is there an official church that I don't know about? I mean should I change my membership? Hey, a buck is a buck. Didn't Jesus turn over some money exchange tables though? Hmmm. Maybe I'd better stay where I'm at. Maybe the state of Kentucky should take a second look at where and how they're spending the peoples money. Not a bad thing for every state to do. The U.S. too.

Republicans, Democrats.They're All Politicians.

Okay, the Republicans offered a proposal for a 2012 budget. It was a poor choice and I think many of them know it. But they've got a point here. The Democrats have not given any suggestion of a budget proposal. Not even a compromise from President Obama's proposed budget. So how come? I mean they used to bust the Republicans for not having any ideas when they were in the minority. So now with the Democrats in a minority in the house and a close call in the Senate, "Where's the beef"? You'd think the Dems would want to show the Repubs how it should be done. But they seem to be afraid to say a word, except to vote down the Republican plan. Which certainly is the right thing to do. Look. It's time to show a little honesty. It's time to tell the wealthy that they're going to have to pay a little more in taxes, or at least start paying taxes, for those who haven't paid any in spite of enormous incomes. I understand that it won't be popular with Republicans who will claim it might hurt job growth. Well, okay, put a clause in it that if a wealthy person has a business and creates some jobs, his taxes won't be increased. How hard is that to say? How hard is that to do? In fact it would probably be a very popular statement. And the Republicans would have to agree with it or look like real stinkers. Everybody seems to agree that some cuts have to be made, across the board. That is, everybody except the population. We haven't been asked. But if there needs to be cuts, then there needs to be some tax increases, because without both we're still not doing what needs to be done. Maybe the problem we're having here is because the ones charged with the responsibility of solving our problems are politicians.

Well? What's Your Energy Choice?

It makes oil companies sound a little desperate. They've been pretty much blocked from drilling in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico for safety reasons. And there's another push on to develop alternative sources of energy. Couple that with continued concerns over middle east oil stability for the future and suddenly, presto, we've found tons of oil right here under our feet in places like S.W. Texas.  Enough to rival Venezuela in output. Just one little problem. It's in shale, like the natural gas their drilling for around the country. Which presents another problem. See in S. W. Texas there's a continuing drought. To get the oil out of the shale they have to "Frack" it. That means forcing millions of gallons of water down each well, which they don't have any to spare, and there are poisonous chemicals in the "fluid" that is contaminating drinking water wells in spite of denials to the contrary. So! Here's the choices Americans have; We can suck it up and let them pollute our drinking water and Frack Baby, Frack, or we can keep buying from countries that don't like us, or develop new alternative energy sources, which will take time and money. You thought this was gonna be fun? The first two lead down a road that will never reach the destination we want, the second will hurt like hell for now. If none of these choices work for you, we could go back to my idea of burning political campaign signage to create alternative energy and offer Republican or Democrat electric. Come on. You've got ten seconds. Make up your mind.

Even Legislators Need To Obey The Law.

Hey, remember last fall when the Democrat members of the Wisconsin Senate skipped town and the Republican members then passed a law basically attempting to destroy public unions. Well the Republicans made one mistake. In Wisconsin, you have to give certain notice before you pass a law. It's sort of part of their sunshine law. Anyway, a judge has struck down the law. The law stated that public sector unions couldn't collective bargain. Which turned those unions into not much more than social clubs. The law exempted unions for police and firefighters. Apparently the legislators felt there would be too much sympathy for first responders while there might be some animosity against teachers. They may have been right in that thinking. Although I can't understand why that should be so. What I really don't understand is why the courts didn't strike down the law based on the idea that it favored some while harming others. That seems to me to be discriminatory. Now, I get it that conservatives don't like unions. Unions generally help liberals in elections. And corporate execs especially don't like unions because they cut into corporate profits. The thing is that corporations feel, rather strongly, that the only thing that really matters is corporate profits. They and they alone should be allowed to decide on anything that affects that bottom line. In fact they don't feel that anyone else should even try to influence those decisions. My honest opinion is that if corporations had their way, the minimum wage would still stand at about one dollar a day, with no paid holidays, no vacations and no sick days. As I've said before, the healthcare plan they would prefer is a pink slip if you get sick or injured. Life wouldn't be much different from the feudal dark ages in Europe. I'm not sure America could have survived under those circumstances. This all proves that  the courts sometimes get it right.

Rand Paul vs The Patriot Act.

How much do you know about the Patriot Act? I have to tell you that I don't know much at all, except that I don't think I like it. Here's why. The government never just asks for only what it needs.It always tells us it needs much more then it really does. But then that's a natural human trait. That's not to suggest that our government is human, or even humane. That's not even always a bad thing. But when it comes to the "big brother" kind of thing, it's almost never a good thing. We're not talking about an extra two cents tacked on to our total tax bill. It's about looking into our private business. Now if that was only some impersonal, unemotional computer, then no big deal. But it isn't, It's about some person with some motive, supposedly well intentioned well thought out reason, for doing it. But what safeguards are in place? That's just it. I don't know either. So who am I supposed to trust? Maybe some guy who knows me who has some ax to grind? Far fetched, maybe, but what if? Just who keeps an eye on things? If everybody in congress was in agreement, then I'd have to figure it's okay. But back when it first passed, right after 9-11, not everyone was. There were a lot of Democrats who were unsure. The Republicans jumped all over them, the  Democrats caved in and voted for it. Not because they agreed, but because they were intimidated. Now the shoe's on the other foot and a new Republican, a Tea Partier is fighting it. Rand Paul, someone I would never agree with, has questions that sound familiar. He's getting bullied by a Democrat! But the arguments sound familiar. In ten years they didn't have time to look at this thing carefully and decide how to properly administer it and safeguard us. Now there isn't time. Who's kidding Whom?

How Come Education Is Getting It In The Head.

Education in America continues to have problems. Starting with New Jersey where the state supreme court has told the governor he can't cut funding to schools if that means cutting the educational opportunities for students, especially students at risk. But a number of other states have cut funding for schools in a variety of ways, all in the interest of eliminating shortfalls in their budgets. The question is this; Is cutting funding for education a good way to preserve the future for our young people? Will they be better off with a lessor education? We know that the wealthy will be better off, because otherwise the only thing left in many cases is to increase their taxes. But the thing is, if the young people are less educated for the future, will they also be less prepared as workers for the wealthy who claim to be the job creators? What does a lessor education mean in terms of earnings power for the future, for industry and it's need for more skilled workers, and for the government, when lower tax revenues from lower incomes will mean higher taxes or lesser services? I really can see no good coming from cutting funding for education. Now I understand the idea that more money doesn't necessarily translate into a better education, but as I've said, less funding doesn't translate into a better education either. In fact, I believe the opposite is true. My reasoning is that when a school district is forced to cut something, it isn't always where the harm will be the least, but rather where the more popular will be preserved. Schools shouldn't be about what's popular, but what will provide for the best education. Where we need to increase funding is where there can be independent thinking on the part of students. I'm convinced that's where we lack leadership in education. That and problem solving. Both of which go hand in hand.

Put Me Down For An Interest Free Account.

Whatta ya think of Newt Gingrich? Now, I've read two books about the Civil War by him and enjoyed them. Having said that, I also must admit that I admire anyone who can get a $500,000 interest free, standard revolving account from Tiffanys. That sounds a bit like a made to order ponzi scheme. Here, look at it this way. You buy, on credit, $500,000 in jewelry from Tiffanys. You sell it for, oh, I don't know, lets say half. $250,000 cash and all you have to do is pay the interest on the $500,000 which computes to about $0. I could afford those payments. Now if I could get a couple of other stores to work out similar deals, I'd be fairly well set. I know I could use Tiffanys as a reference. After all, I'm current on my interest payments. I called today to get more information, but nobody seemed to know who I was or who I should talk to. They kept telling me that such accounts are only for serious contenders for the presidency. Well, hey, I'm serious. If it means a half a million, interest free, you bet I'm serious. Wouldn't you be? And I'll tell you this much. I'm just as serious as Newt is. So he wrote two books. So what? I'm writing one too. Remember?  And I promise not to find fault with the party's budget proposal. In fact I promise to agree with any party that will nominate me. Hey. I'm a very easy going kind of guy. Another plus for me over Newt is that I already have an established PAC. It's P.I.M.P. in case you forgot. It stands for Put In My Pocket. Now if a party plays it's cards right, I might see my way clear to channel a little from my pocket to theirs, if you get my drift.