So where Do You Go On Vacation?

       I have friends who love to go to the shore. Some go a lot. I could never see what they saw in the seashore.  After all, what is there to see? The view? Look, what you can see from the seashore is water. Water from the end of the beach out to a line on the horizon. Then the sky starts. Sand, water, a line and then air. What's that all about?
       Now some folks like to watch the young scantily clad women. I admit that's nice. I suppose women like to watch the young scantily clan men. I don't like that idea. I suppose it's because I'm not young anymore. I wouldn't ever go out on the beach scantily clad. I'll bet people would watch, but not for the same reason they watch the young and scantily clad. I couldn't stand the guffaws.
       No, the best view at the seashore is the view from the water looking back at the land. See, it's the changes in landscape that's interesting to look at. You know, a tree here, a hill there, some rocks over yonder. Now that's a view. Hills or mountains, and valleys and the flowing water of a stream or a mountain lake nestled in a quiet valley. I could walk around, scantily clad, and nobody'd see me. Now that's what I like. You can still see water and air, but you can also see trees and grass and hills.
       The problem with all of this is getting there. It doesn't matter whether you want to go to the shore or the mountains or a city. You either have long waiting lines at the airport or you drive. Driving means road construction. There's only two times of year. Winter and road construction. A two hour drive takes about six hours and if you're lucky, or prepared, you won't run out of gas at a construction site. Or get a flat tire from a pothole not yet filled.
       And as for the beach, I've been there. It's so crowded you're lucky if you can see the water anyway. I know people who have nice homes in the country. Swimming pools, a nearby golf course, a big screen TV. What in the world are they gonna do at the beach they can't do better at home? I guess it's just the "getting away" that people enjoy. 
       I suppose if I was from the flat lands, I wouldn't mind the shore. Some of those flat states are like the shore. But green fields to a line and then air. Except there's no scantily clad young people. I guess that would be a reason to go to the shore.

We All Miss Campaigns.

       I heard, the other day, that there are just twenty nine short months until the next presidential election. Are you satisfied with the level of campaign rhetoric at this point? It seems to me we're getting short changed on the campaign decibel index. Now, I admit, we are hearing some pleasantries being floated toward Hillary, but not much toward Bill as yet, and that's unfortunate.
       And what about the other potential Democratic contenders? I haven't heard much about Joe except for the usual wisecracking. But there hasn't been much speculation about anyone else. I'm sure we'll hear from more, but time's getting short. Then you have the Republican lineup. There's Rand and Paul and Chris and Bobby and Marco and Ted and W's brother, but not many more. Aren't we entitled to a much larger array for this open presidential election. There's no incumbent Barak to hate or vote against.
       Now that I mention it, have you ever noticed how much presidents are disliked and how poorly they've performed, in the eyes of the other party. It's true of almost all presidents. And for several years, at least, after they're out of office. Did you notice how much Clinton was reviled. Then suddenly after the 2010 elections, loads of members of the other party began claiming how great he was. Now to be sure there were still plenty who disliked him, but his name kept getting dropped.
       Of course if Hillary actually does run, Bill will lose all of his charm to opposing party members. Just like George the younger. And isn't it interesting how even their own party faithful want to back away from these pariahs for the first few years they're out of office. You could float battleships between them and newer contenders.
       But getting back to election campaigning, don't you think we, as a nation, deserve to be hearing and seeing many more dirty trick campaign ads by now? I mean, I'm sorry, but I think we're getting cheated in this entertainment venue. Don't you miss all the lies and the bending of truth until it groans and screams in agony? I miss all those lies. From both parties.
       Which brings up another question. Why is it that all the lies always come from the other party and all the truth comes from your party? Have you ever thought about that? Here's another one; why does the other party always think your party is the liar, while you know very well it's the opposing party that spreads those vicious lies?

It's Your Post Office. Sell It.

       There was an OpEd in yesterday's NY Times about the U.S. Postal Service. It was mostly humorous but it did hit on some of the problems the USPS faces. Can you imagine any company being forced to keep 75 years of employee retirement funds on hand. Who could stay in business with rules like that? Or how about keeping tiny outlets open six days a week and deliver door to door each and every one of those six days.
       Oh yes, and do all this while the internet is taking away much of your business with free delivery 24/7. But even worse than that is that the USPS isn't allowed to even sneeze without Congress's approval. Congress has to pass legislation for anything to be changed by the USPS. And I guess you know how long that can take or that the chances the new legislation will appear anything like what is needed or asked for.
       But as humorous as this article was, the best part was one of the comments a reader sent in. The comment stated that since the Congress isn't doing anything anyway, why not have them make mail deliveries for the USPS. Now I don't recall the name of the person who said that, but he (it was a man) should be given his own show on Comedy Central.
       Think about it. Congress is in adjournment more than they're in session, it seems. Not only that but every Congressman and Senator has multiple offices in nearly every city and many towns in their home states and districts. Have you ever been to one of these offices? You walk in and wake the person or persons up to ask your question. Why not have these good folks deliver the mail or have postal workers man the Congressional offices. Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot of training to pass out photos of the legislator.
       I'd suggest the Post Office rely on volunteers, but what with the scarcity of volunteerism and the necessity of Congressional approval, the USPS could be out of business for several decades before anything could come of that idea. I guess we should remember that the USPS is not a private company. It's a government service. And like the article and comments ask; is it the plan to convert it into a branch of UPS?

Who Would Have Guessed.

       Holy Moly, even China, China, is now starting an aggressive carbon cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gases and clear away it's pollution. Before we know it America will stand alone against the idea of the cap and trade plan. I suppose that's exactly where some folks want us to be, all alone. That way we can thumb our noses at the whole world.
       Obama would like to have a carbon cap and trade program, but there's just too many against the idea. So what's left for him to do? He has to defer to government restrictions. That's not popular either, but at least he has the authority to do the right thing to fight greenhouse gases. So here we are looking down the road at higher prices on energy instead of lower prices.
       Now I know that statement will cause a lot of disagreement, but it's pretty much a fact. What I can't figure out is why the folks who are against cap and trade think that way. After all most, if not all, of these folks are mostly interested in and in favor of business. They prefer the Market to government edict. Well, that's exactly what the cap and trade offers.
       Here's the deal; in a cap and trade program, a level of carbon emissions is set by the government. Then the government steps back and allows the market, business, to figure out how to meet or surpass that goal, or not. If you beat the mark, you can sell the extra to any company too lazy or stubborn to do the job. There is an incentive to find a better way. And hasn't that always been the American way?
       So a company that figures out how to pollute less makes more money, a lot more money, than the company that doesn't. I think, if I'm not mistaken, that's called capitalism. So either way we're gonna get to lower carbon emissions, but cap and trade cuts prices and makes more money for business. That's why I can't quite figure out the arguments against the idea.

Whatta You Think About America's Problems?

       Let's see now. What do you think is the number one, single issue in America that's causing our country to be less than great? What is it that's holding us back? Do you think it's terrorism? Or jobs or the economy? How about the debt and deficit? Maybe you think it's the Congress. Some people think it's one or a combination of these issues.
       Some people think it's the President. If he had never been elected, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. But then the same can be said for our Congress. But what about that deficit? Oh, it's dropping pretty steadily. Well then the debt, it's not dropping? The economy is continually improving though, even if at a snail's pace.
       The lack of jobs, at least good paying jobs, certainly hurts. Let's face it, most of the jobs coming back are much lower paying, so much so, that people cannot live on just one or even two jobs. At least not without help in the form of entitlements or charity. Jobs are absolutely a big problem, but are they the biggest problem? And then we have terrorism which hurts in at least two different ways; you have the danger of attack, but you also have to give up so many rights in order to be protected.
       What about Congress and the President? What if everyone in Congress was replaced tomorrow and the President the next day? Would that solve our problems? Is it apathy on the part of the electorate? What if we raised the taxes on anyone who didn't vote in each election? We'd get more people voting, but who thinks they would care enough to become knowledgeable?
       I personally think the biggest problem facing us today is gerrymandering. What the heck is gerrymandering? It's a way that majorities in state legislatures redistrict so that their majority is guaranteed, thus making it necessary for Congressmen to appeal only to the most extreme part of their party. It means, then, that they must only represent that extreme and never represent the minority. However, any way you slice it, Congress is supposed to represent everyone.
       If we somehow required that each district in both state offices and national house districts were mapped out to as close to a square as possible, or had to conform to municipalities as closely as possible, two things would happen. First a lot of representatives would lose their seats in the next election, and those that didn't would be forced to represent everyone in their districts. How bout dat?

Can You Dance The Mean-Spirited Dance?

       Well, politics have finally come around to candidates calmly discussing the issues of real importance to Americans. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in Kentucky where a U.S. Senate seat is being contested by sane opponents arguing over jobs, healthcare, defense, education and a whole host of other critical areas of concern.
       These discussions began in earnest on this last Saturday when the top contenders explained variously how one would not run to the left or the right of the incumbent, but would run over him. Another challenger pointed out that if the incumbent was told he had a kidney stone, he would still refuse to pass it.
       Fortunately the incumbent decided to keep to the issues and mentioned that his opponent's father talked to Obama who told him to work on women's votes so he sent a check to Anthony Weiner. All this took place at a church social and bar-b-que in the western part of the state. It all took place amid cat calls and booing. A grand time was had by all. Oh, and by the way, this was not "all in fun." This was all done in obvious dislike of one another.
       Ah yes, and what of the really important issues? Those are the issues. It's all about getting elected. It has nothing to do with the needs of Americans, or Kentuckians. Nor is this a fluke occurrence. It isn't just Kentucky. It's about American politics. In fact it's about politics in general.

       You may ask why such a sorry state of leadership. But the answer is that these politicians are giving people exactly what the people want. The people want to be entertained, not bored by facts. There seems to be a desire among the electorate to have their representatives to Washington dance the mean-spirited dance for their entertainment and allow the voters to complain about the real issues.

Just Where Does Poverty Begin?

Do you remember back in 2012 when Obama was running for a second term? Remember how he wanted people making over $250,000 a year to pay more taxes? Remember how they complained that $250,000 was not rich? That it was nearly poverty in some places? Well last night the Daily Show reminded me of that and it got me to thinking about the folks who are asking to raise the minimum wage.
       So I decided to look at what it would take for a minimum wage earner to make$250,000 a year. I got out my trusty calculator and punched in $7.50 per hour for a forty hour work week. My calculator, which never lies, told me it would take 833.333 weeks per year for a minimum wage earner to make $250,000. Or looking at it another way, it would take 641.02 hours per week or 91.57 hours per day based on a seven day week. Another way to look at it is a minimum wage earner would have to work 16.02 forty hour weeks per week to earn $250,000 per year.
       Well. What's the point to all this? I guess my point is more of a question. If $250,00 per year is near poverty, exactly what is minimum wage near? Because $250,000 works out to $4807.69 a week or about $120.19 per hour
       Maybe what we should have been saying is that "for some people, $250,000 isn't such a big amount of money, but for most people, it is. And for people forced to work for minimum wage, it's astronomical. I think that if people making $250,000 or more a year don't want to be singled out, they should stand up and be in favor of a minimum wage hike. And that includes everybody in Congress. And the President.