A Call To Arms. We're At War Again.

       Oh my gosh. We're at war again. America seems to be at war most of the time and we've fought more enemies than anyone since the ancient Romans. But this time it's different, our government promises. This time we'll actually be saving lives. When have we heard that one before? Well, this time the enemy is transfats. I don't even know what country transfats are from. But one thing is for sure. They have invaded America and they are killing people left and right. It's pretty much a bipartisan problem. The enemy is among us. This enemy is not our true friend, even though the transfats have given us exactly what we wanted, great taste.
       These transfats with their partially hydrogenated oils stealth fighters, have found their way into our food chain. It must have been thought that the hydrogenated oil would lubricate the food chain, but it clogs things up instead. Now some folks are still not convinced of the danger this enemy presents. After all, being gratified by having so many, otherwise un-tasty edibles, become favorite  taste tempters is cause to pause, for another of those sumptuous treats.
       We should have known of this danger. After all partially hydrogenated oil! Hydrogen- ated as in hydrogen bomb! These transfats have been feeding us mini-bombs all these years and some of those bombs are exploding, killing people. It's sortta like hiding something in plain sight. Hydrogenated, right in the name and nobody caught the real meaning. What an insidious enemy.
       We would have been far better off if we had declared war on these transfats long ago, along with sugar, salt, litterbugs and a whole host of other problem causers. We could have overlooked at least half a dozen wars of choice by waging war one or all of these dastardly Doolittle's. Then there's the oil part. Don't forget that. We've been preparing to do battle with the forces of oil for nearly a century. At least foreign oil. We don't mind our own, but them danged foreigners!
       Now you may think I'm poking fun at this problem. Well I am, but it really is a health problem. And with this country's track record on healthcare, it's about time we started doing something right.
So banning your favorite snack is a small sacrifice for the greater good.
      

I Feel Bad For Those Hospitals.

         The New York Times has an article this morning about how the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, has eliminated special funding to hospitals so they can care for poor sick people, people with no insurance. How could the president do such a mean spirited thing? So I read the article to find out more. Turns out hospitals in those states that refused to participate in Obamacare, and therefore effectively blocking those patients from getting insurance, are pointing fingers at the president's healthcare law, along with those states, for this dastardly deed.
       Turns out the special funding is being eliminated by the Affordable Care Act because those poor uninsured folks will now have insurance to pay for their hospital visits. Now the law was passed before those bright red states decided to boycott Obamacare. Actually it was the Supreme Court that gave those states permission to do the boycotting. The thing is though, it isn't the Affordable Care Act that's causing these hospitals to suffer financially, it's the fault of the states that are doing the boycotting that should be faulted.
       It really doesn't matter whether you like or dislike the law. Since it's free to the states for three years and 90% free afterwards, not taking advantage of the program is almost exclusively a political choice. Those states could still join in the program or at least help those who want that insurance. So since the hospitals are struggling as a result of their states' intransigence, it seems to me the states should pick up the tab.
       I think those hospitals need to complain to and about the states, not Obamacare. By the way, the good citizens of those states still have to pay taxes, and whatever costs to the government for Obamacare, those good folks are still helping to pay for those costs. Still the argument is out there that the federal government should pay these hospitals in states that won't agree to participate. Why? The federal government came up with a solution. It's the states that refuse to accept that solution. Those states need to pay the hospitals if they don't like the solution provided. Again, it's a political problem created by those states.

School Taxes!

       What is it about taxes and schools? People seem to be against anything that might cost a little more in taxes. No matter if it means better or worse education. In fact it seems there are a lot of folks out there that believe less tax money means better education. Maybe they don't actually think that, they just don't want their taxes to go up, no matter what. Fair enough, but we still need to improve our education in this country. Because America is falling behind other countries in that department.
       Of course even in that department, some folks don't believe it for one minute. Some folks don't care, they still won't vote for higher taxes. How come? Well, partly because some folks don't have any kids in school now, so why should I have to pay for somebody else's kids. Of course somebody else paid for your kids and for you to get a good education. Opps, ears are now closed.
       Here's another argument; When you get ready to retire, who's gonna pay for your retirement? It'll have to be the kids in school today or the near future. Social Security and the economy that you will be forced to depend upon will be forced to depend upon the level of education and the caliber of that education these kids have received. That's because the countries with the best educational systems will get the best jobs. And that will determine those country's economies and ours.
       So while more money just thrown at the current system probably won't help much, cutting teachers and programs will hurt. What needs to happen is politicians need to quit ignoring and complaining about our educational system and start working to redesign it. Look at the countries that are excelling in education. Countries like South Korea, Finland and even Canada. How can we claim some programs are too hard for our kids when Canadian kids are doing these programs and surpassing our kids? We should be ashamed that we're not holding our kids to a higher standard.
       I don't blame folks for not wanting to pay higher taxes for a system that's not producing the way we need it to. But when new approaches are suggested, we need to stand behind them. That didn't happen in Colorado this week. When inequality is killing the chances for success for poor communities and their children, we need to correct the imbalance. That didn't happen in Colorado this week either. Ya know what that is? That's just plain DUMB. Penny wise and pound foolish.

Don't Pester My Drilling Rig.

       Have you heard about the Greenpeace ship that was boarded by fifteen armed Russian security agents back in September? The folks on board the arctic Sunrise were peacefully protesting against a Russian drilling rig owned by Gazprom. They were taken to Murmansk and charged with piracy. Now, Putin's people have added the dreaded HOOLIGAN charge to the offenses against the prisoners.
       Well, I don't know what you may think of Greenpeace, whether busybodies or interferers or just plain old fashioned tree huggers, but I'm aghast to learn these interlopers have taken to piracy on the high seas. Can you imagine a crew of unarmed environmentalists turned pirates attacking a drilling rig in the Arctic ocean? I presume the plan was to take this 'prize' to the nearest port and seeking to outfit it into a stealth attack drilling rig in order to sally forth to capture additional drilling rigs for the treasure chests on board these Russian Galleons.
       But for these peaceful pirates to actually have turned into HOOLIGANS is reprehensible. Why I'm surprised that it only took fifteen armed agents to subdue the thirty people from around the world. To capture that many HOOLIGANS I'd have expected a fleet of warships complete with no less than fifteen hundred marines. Russian Security Agents must be far more scary than I had previously thought. Especially when fully armed and ready to match up with unarmed pirates.
       That's the part I don't understand. Unarmed pirates? Where were these pirates' combat signs? You know, NO DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC, or OIL IS BAD or DRINK VODKA NOT GASOLINE. But no such weaponry was mentioned. Unless the mere charge of HOOLIGANISM is sufficient to explain the danger they presented to the crew of that ill-fated drilling rig under full sail. How fast did the Arctic Sunrise had to travel to catch up with that drilling rig? Were they flying the skull and crossbones or were they sneaking up on the unsuspecting crew? This would be the stuff of a new piracy on the high seas thriller if it weren't for the fact that a nation member of the United Nations, Permanent Security Council is actually using these silly charges against a pesky environmental group simply because the group was, well, pesky.

As Fatal Flaws Go, We've Got A Beaut.

       Do you know what a "fatal flaw" is? Charles Blow, in the New York Times this morning explained one when he suggested that Republicans in Congress seem to think the way things were two or three decades ago are so much better than any way they could be in the future. It seems that nothing can improve what we had 'back then' so let's get back to then, now.
       The problem is that things weren't all that great back then, but they could be much better now if only people would begin to try to work together. And let's not forget that Democrats are not without faults. While the Affordable Care Act is a good start, it isn't the panacea Democrats seem to think it is. And things certainly aren't all that much better than they were a few decades ago.
       Now I wouldn't expect the Republicans and Democrats in Congress and elsewhere to sit down around the old campfire and sing Kum be Yah. Nor do I expect that they will huddle around in a think-tank setting to come up with the kind of legislation we need for our country to succeed. Ya know, actually I do expect them to do just that. Not the Kum be Yah, but the think-tank and the kind of legislation we need. They won't, but that's what I expect of them. Conservatives and progressives have different ideas of the way things should be. Unfortunately neither way would work well on it's own, for everyone, but an amalgam of something between the two just might work out to be a great solution.
       So what are the chances of that happening? Well, that's the real fatal flaw in our world and in our country. Nobody trusts the other side enough to try it out. Everybody seems to hate the idea that the other side might have a better idea, and they hate it so much they aren't willing to try. I'll bet that if you put an ultra-conservative and an ultra-liberal in a room together, between the two of them they couldn't figure out how to get out of the room. Even if the door was left open. They'd be too busy accusing each other of getting themselves into this sorry fix.
       What if we had a law that stated that anyone elected to national office who could not agree to work together with the whole Congress to create fair and helpful laws within 30 days would be ushered out of office and not be allowed to run again for four years? But what Congressman would vote for such a law? I guess it would be fair to say Congress is a fatal flaw.

Win If You Win, Win If You Lose.

       I've talked about Farm Subsidies before, but this is about crop insurance. Now, I think crop insurance is a smart idea. It requires that farmers pay a premium for loss of crops because of weather. Then if they do lose their crops, they get paid by the insurance for the loss instead of experiencing catastrophic loss and the government stepping in after the fact like after hurricanes. This all sounds good, right? And it is, as far as it goes.
       The problem, though, and you know there's always a problem, is that when they get paid for their loss, farmers get repaid by the government, in other words taxpayers. But after all, food is too important to overlook. The thing is, however, that even if a farmer is in an area where they know they're going to be in a  severe drought, as long as he plants the seeds, he's gonna get paid by the insurance. So as far as the farmer is concerned, and the seed company, the insurance is a great deal.
       There's another kicker though. If the farmer plants his seeds, knowing they will die, he still gets paid, but he gets paid at the inflated price those crops would get  during the drought because of scarcity. So he gets a higher price, because if somehow he had been able to sell real product during the drought, he'd have reaped a larger than usual profit. This makes the farmer hope for dry years, or early frost to kill the crop. So farmers can actually make more if they lose their crop than if they harvest a good crop.
       I don't think that's what Congress had in mind when they passed the law. At least I hope Congress didn't have that in mind. Although given that a number of Congressmen own "working" farms, you never know. Now, if you don't believe in climate change, it's no big deal to you, but for the rest of the country, we could wind up paying these farmers and seed companies way too much money for doing pretty much nothing. I can see smart entrepreneurs buying fallow land in drought stricken areas and planting whatever seeds are most likely to fail as an investment.
       I guess the thing Congress should do is limit the consecutive years of drought it will pay for. Then stop the loophole that would allow phony farmers from taking part. Of course that's asking a lot of a Congress that has trouble agreeing on what day it is.

The Problem Is That Everybody Has A Different Idea.

       I'm trying to figure out how they think this will all work out. They say we need to reduce our deficit. They say we need to improve our economy. They say lower taxes is the first thing to do. They say we need to develop jobs. But everybody seems to have a different idea as to which is more important, here and now. And a different idea as to how to overcome each of those problems. Why, there are even folks who think that education is the most important concern.
       Of course when you look at each one, you find other folks who will explain why each one isn't the most important issue. Take education for instance. Some say we need to spend more on education, some tell you throwing more money at education won't improver the outcome. The retort is that less money certainly won't improve the outcome. A lot of states have decided to cut funding to education, presumably to see if it helps or hurts.
       But if you ask companies why they don't bring more jobs back, they'll tell you our workers aren't prepared to handle today's hi tech jobs. Now whether or not you agree with that, that's the answer you get from the companies with the jobs. Well, that and the taxes are too high. But after you look into it, you find most companies pay very little in taxes for one reason or another.
       So, in order to reduce the deficit, if you cut taxes, how do you pay down the deficit? With lower revenue? How do you improve the economy if jobs refuse to comer back. It makes sense to me to concentrate on education. If our workers were better able to handle the newer hi tech jobs, they'd make more, thereby providing more revenue, even with lower taxes. Of course just spending more on education really won't guarantee a better outcome. We have to be smarter about how we make our kids smarter.
       We need to stop teaching to tests and start teaching critical thinking, especially in math and science. Students need to learn how to think. For themselves. Multiple choice and true-false tests are too easy to guess at. It's time to make students think about a question. About how to answer it. How to communicate that they actually know what the question is asking and that they have figured out how to answer it. Because that's what job creators want from the people they hire. That's what will tell us how much to spend on education.