I Remember Recess. It Was In Grade School.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.