I Wouldn't Like It Either, If I Was Getting Rich On It.

Okay, here's one for the books. The current Administration in Washington has suggested some new and fairly stringent rules regarding lobbyists. The rules would state that lobbyists may no longer offer gifts or special invitations to functions like parties, movie screenings, receptions and the like, to federal employees because there's too much socialization involved, setting up too cozy of relationships. Do ya think? Well all the lobbyists take exception to such rules. After all, these parties, receptions, movie screenings, vacations to exotic spas and the like, allow them to teach government employees about the industries of their customers. The thing is, all lobbyists, representing every imaginable industry are complaining. That makes me think this is really good legislation. If it's "demeaning", "excessive" and "would choke off their ability to have mutually beneficial dialog with government officials", it makes me feel warm all over. Isn't the "mutually beneficial" part, the part that's the problem? Where's the benefit for the public? Now it's true that these folks know a whole lot more about the various industries than do the government officials, but isn't that a good reason for government to reinstate that government department that had specialists in the various industries. So that government employees wouldn't have to depend on the people who were trying to get special consideration for the various industries instead of the public? I don't mean to suggest that government should tread harshly on industry, but I don't think government should hand over the keys to the candy store to the kids from 'K' street. I think some input from industry is necessary and helpful. But as it now stands, most legislation dealing with any industry is written by the lobbyists, for the federal employees. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Not to me either.

Hey! Is That A Real Gun Or A Toy?

Any of you folks planning on attending the Republican National Convention this year in Tampa, Florida? Well if you're not a delegate, who will have to check their guns at the door, and you would like to carry your protection on your person while you wait outside for a sighting of your favorite politician, or if you plan on demonstrating outside the convention center, you'd better think again. That means no knives, billy clubs, shovels, hammers, pepper spray or even squirt guns. The only thing you will be allowed to carry is your handgun, shotgun, rifle, bazooka or, presumably, hand held rocket launcher. But don't get caught in possession of a slingshot, chains or chainsaw. I can understand the slingshot. David used it to down Goliath, but it'll take more than a slingshot to bring down the NRA. Ya see, the city can clap you in irons for carrying a paintgun, but not a colt 45. Or a Rugar blackhawk 44 magnum or a Smith & Wesson 38 special. You can even carry a blunderbuss or flintlock, all fully loaded. How about a WW11 era M1 rifle? Yes, but you may not fix bayonet. And no, you can't carry a cap gun. The deal is that you can't carry anything that resembles a firearm, but you can carry a real firearm. You can't even carry anything that can remotely be considered related to a weapon. That's the difference between the state law that permits carrying a firearm, anywhere you want, anytime you want and a city ordinance that wants to restrict firearms anywhere that it could present a real and present danger. But, the NRA will tell you that guns don't kill people, people kill people. The fact that, when aimed and fired at someone, the gun does in fact kill, is not being discussed. The NRA will also explain that if enough people are armed, then everyone is safer. Try telling that to our folks in Afghanistan. Armies have, since the beginning of the use of firearms, have operated on the idea that having everyone armed actually causes people to get killed. That's how war works. That's how the OK Corral got it's infamous reputation. It's not that I'm against owning or carrying a gun. I like to hunt and target shoot. So I carry a gun to do those things. But when I decide to go to church or grocery shopping, I'd rather not have to think about dodging stray bullets from the gun of some dope who doesn't know how to use it in a moment of extreme stress. That's what cops are for.

Hey! Check Out That Chick!

Well my little chick-a-dee, you're about to be cast adrift in a sea of un-inspected processing plants. The Agriculture Department is seriously considering curtailing it's poultry inspection service for several reasons. It would be a cost saver, no question about that. At least for them. And at least for now. But also, they claim it's an outdated program. It's antiquated and therefore it needs to be eliminated. As opposed to modernized. Besides the poultry industry is fully capable of handling the job, quicker and better than we are. Strong arguments to be sure. But let's stop, step back, and give some thought to this idea. What would this change mean to you and I? Would we save money? If you considered the savings to Ag. Dept. as those figures relate to you and I, the savings would be so minuscule as to be unnoticeable, but the increased cost to the industry in replacing those inspectors, assuming they will replace them, might well be noticeable because they would be passed on in the price of poultry.  Would there be a larger supply of poultry? I didn't know there was a shortage of poultry now. But it would allow the industry to triple the output. Do we need three times as many chicken breasts and thighs? Have any of you experienced a shortage of breasts or thighs anywhere? At the Colonels or nuggets at Ronald's or the King's? Doing away with government oversight has always had the effect of reducing the protections for the public. If not in the short run, then definitely in the long run. And guess what? They already seem to be feeding chickens banned antibiotics and more. If they're willing to do that, why stop there? So which is more important to you: three times as many chickens as you need, or better inspection of the chickens available at the market? Corporate goals are always about more profits but rarely about discarding potential profits by government inspectors. Government inspectors are supposed to be about better food safety, but not so much about profits. So which side do you think the corporations are on? So which side are you on? If  we need more birds on the shelves, by all means increase production. If we increase production, by all means increase inspection. If our corporations need bigger profits, modernize, cut staff and have at it. But let's not skimp on safety.

You Do It. No, You. No, You. No, You.

Ya know, America is a pretty good place to live. And do ya know why? It's because everybody else who lives here are pretty much good people. Oh yeah, there are some folks who are less than desirable, but by and large, most folks are okay people. We do have our disagreements to be sure, but mostly they're political in nature. See, we have some folks who are called Progressives and some other folks who are called Conservatives. And still others who are called Independant. They're the ones who used to be Progressives or Conservatives and got fed up with their former groups. Nobody likes them very much, but everybody needs them. Now the Progressives and the Conservatives are always complaining about one another and the things they want to do. The truth of the matter though, is that both are wrong about half the time and both are correct about half the time. And the thing is, if they were honest about it, both would admit they're wrong about half the time. But that's the rub. That's why, in Washington, neither side can get anything, or very much done. Because neither side is willing to admit they're wrong about half the time. Now there are some very good reasons why they won't admit it. Can you imagine either side trying to accomplish anything if they came out and said they're only right half the time? But the number one reason neither side will admit to being wrong half the time is that neither side is willing to go first. It's sorta like a bunch of kids sitting around the backyard daring the others to go first. Then double daring them. Except that with kids, eventually a few actually get up the courage to go ahead and do it. And then they all jump in and do it. But with politicians, nobody has that kind of courage. If only some of our legislators would find that childish courage, they could all admit to not having all the correct answers. And none would have to be embarassed by it. Oh well, we can't all be perfect. We just like to pretend we are.

Okay Folks. Show Us What Ya Got.

Let's see what's new in the news today. Oh good. The Supreme Court is poking it's nose in our business again. In a 5-4 vote, they have decided that it would be a good idea if the police were given the right to strip-search any person who is arrested for any offense. That's strip-search as in no clothes, as in I hope it doesn't happen next winter along a windy, cold, snowy, busy highway. Do ya think cops will be strip-searching folks for jay-walking? So if you pass a bad check, you're going to be up against the wall with your aft and even amid-ship showing. Just you look out if somebody says "up periscope". Maybe that's fitting. Now, I can see strip-searches for people who are caught shop-lifting. After all, you have to find all the stolen merchandise, don't ya? Especially TVs and such. What I don't see, is how this will work for people caught in a shootout in one of these Stand Your Ground law states. As far as I can tell, nobody would be subject to the strip-search or both would. And what about suicide attempts? If a guy is up on the ledge of a sky-scraper threatening to jump, who's going to volunteer to go up and conduct that strip-search? The court was concerned about gangs as part of the reasoning for the searches. Does that mean there will be group strip-searches? Is that wise? I mean, it's bad enough that somebody might be caught with their pants halfway down, as is the style for many, but do we really want them all the way down? And what about middle aged and older folks? Who's gonna want to watch that show? If a pretty young girl is driving her convertible down the highway, just how many times should she be stopped and searched before she winds up engaged. To the law enforcement officer. Or a passing motorist. Or what about a mother with an infant in the car? Who gets searched? Maybe the infant should be the one. After all, maybe it needs to be changed anyway. Cleanup is optional for the cop. Now honestly and seriously folks, I can see times when it might be a good idea, but as is often the case, our favorite U.S. Supreme Court seems to have gone a bit too far. I mean, they're way past second base on this one.

Internships Are A Wonderful Opportunity. Except In China.

Ahh yes. Moms and dads all over the world send their kids off to schools of higher learning in the hopes of assuring them of a rich and fulfilling future in the field of their choice. Well, except in China. In China, moms and dads send their children off to schools of higher learning so they can get invited to do internships with companies where they can learn life-long skills on production lines working 10 to 12 hour a day, 7 days a week for 3 or 4 months. The kids accept these invitations to become interns because they're promised they can continue they're schooling. Presumably the idea is that, no internship, no school. Now I suspect these are unpaid internships. Otherwise, why bother to push the internships over full employment. I should also point out that what little oversight there is on employment rights in China, don't apply to interns. It's a sweet deal for American companies like Apple. Apple's Chinese company "employs" over 75,000 interns per year. They work on production lines so the internships relate to and enhances the educational experience in college majors like music, history or political science and a host of other unrelated fields. Ya gotta hand it to China. They know how to keep the costs down in industry. Cotton plantations in the southern part of America had found the same cost saving opportunity in the early part of our history. While many in the south don't remember this approach to economic growth, it was called slavery. I don't mean to suggest China practices the same economic strategies, because they don't grow that much cotton. But they haven't missed the basic principals that were applied. Nor, apparently, has Apple. And the bonus is that the practice isn't illegal in either country. I mean it's legal to do it in China and it's not illegal in America for companies like Apple to do it in China. It's a small thing, but they seem to like it that way, for the company, not necessarily for the student. For the student, it's long hours, hard work and no pay. Just the sort of thing you might look forward to if you want to learn how to put this dot on that spot 12 hours a day 7 days a week for 3 or 4 months a year, every year you're in school. Sort of makes ya wanna become a dropout, doesn't it?

The Problem With Problems.

Ya know, there only three problems with America. The problem with the three problems is that all three are just one problem. Well, what is it or what are they? The problem with the three problems is politics. But the three problems can fix the problem if we only would make the necessary changes to the problems. The three problems are: closed primary elections, campaign financing and congressional redistricting. Now any one of the three could, if solved, improve the system immensely, but solving all three should solve the problem. Of course that doesn't mean that progressives and conservatives wouldn't disagree any more. Actually, nothing in the world could change that. But a completely open primary election would eliminate the party stranglehold on elections because the top two vote getters would be the nominees for the general election. Could be two Conservatives or two Progressives or two Independents or any combination thereof. Once the political parties don't control elections anymore, we'd see substantial improvement. If we put in place some real financial campaign reform that allowed for a reasonable ceiling on campaign spending or government funding only, with teeth in it and an FEC that didn't deadlock on everything, we'd see substantial improvement. If congressional districts were actually formed to represent a complete community or region instead of a gerrymandered system of squirming and wreathing sections designed to give special consideration to particular parties, you'd begin to see substantial improvement. That would leave just one problem to solve. It's the hardest problem to solve and that's why I left it to last. I left it to last because I always put off to last anything that's hard to do. The last problem is getting politicians to go along with these changes. There is no solution to this problem because politicians would be unable to easily find a way to circumvent the solutions. None of these solutions are in the interests of politicians. They're only in the best interests of the citizens. Now do ya see why I left this problem til last?