Putting On Airs.

       I just got an email from one of my Senators. Actually he's not necessarily my Senator, but he does represent Pennsylvania as one of its Senators. Anyway, in the newsy post he tells about how he stands up for justice, as though anyone would admit to standing against justice who is running to keep his job. But he goes on to tell how he has "spoken on the floor of the Senate." He even had a picture of himself holding up a poster sized photo of a man in uniform.
       Would you like to guess how many Senators were in the background, sitting at their assigned seats? Well except for the young woman helping to hold up the poster, there was a total of zero members present in that photo. Now, I'm sure there were at least one or two present, probably waiting their turn to speak. When you see a Senator speaking on some subject not up for a vote and even many that are, there usually are very few members present. They have more important things to do.
       The Senate is billed as the most important deliberative body in the world. Well, sometimes that's true, but most of the time they're off meeting with lobbyists and fundraisers. Sometimes they manage to squeeze time in for a hearing or two, especially if the media is present. Don't get me wrong, I think the Senate is important and Senators are required to make hard decisions. Decisions that will determine whether or not they will get the funding they need to get reelected.
       It's just that when you hear one mention how he or she spoke on the floor of the Senate about this or that of interest only to his constituents, you can be fairly certain he was there all alone. Hey, as a visitor to Washington being shown the Senate Chamber when it is not in use, I could speak in that Chamber. Like to ask a question or something.

Ahh! To Export Or Not To Export., That's The Question.

       Ya want to hear a good joke? Well, U.S. oil refiners and U.S. oil producers are arguing over which should be exporting the oil. The producers claim that if they export oil, the world prices will come down bringing domestic prices down. Oil refiners claim it will cut them out and cost the American consumer more at the pump. It's unusual for these industry partners to be squabbling.
       So what should the federal government do? Allow for exporting crude oil or increase exports of gas and diesel? My guess is that either way, domestic prices will rise. The industry already has that figured out. They're not fighting each other that hard yet. What it's about is who gets to make the bigger profits and who doesn't. That was easy to figure out.
       But here's the part I don't get. If we have so much extra oil that we need to start exporting even more than we do now, why do we need to build a pipeline from Canada to Texas to pump, dirtier than you can imagine, tar sands oil, which will then be exported? Is this a national strategy that will help America? It sounds more like a corporate grab for cash.
       Now I'm not suggesting that corporations shouldn't grab for cash. After all, that's what they were designed to do. But what's in it for America? It looks to me like the only thing America can get out of it is the possibility of mishaps, spills, toxic waste and headaches. The Canadian company that wants the pipeline has threatened to build one, in Canada, to the west coast of Canada. Maybe that's what they should do. It would be one less problem for America. I just don't see a need for America to be involved. If our oil needs are too great to do without this extremely dirty Canadian oil, which will be exported anyway, why don't we stop all exports and use our own oil? It sounds like we'd be able to decrease our dependence on foreign oil even more, or maybe all together. And that includes not exporting the north slope oil from Alaska.
       The idea wouldn't harm those we've been exporting to, because they could just start buying what we stopped buying. The same amount of oil would be changing hands. Why can't our government see this? Now I realize there's more to it than this, but it really looks like we're being had. It's a joke.

Yes We Have No Bananas.

       Which would you rather have, income equality or opportunity equality? In order to have income equality the government would have to tax the wealthy very heavily and pass it on to those less fortunate. To have opportunity equality, government would still have to tax the wealthy in order to make the less fortunate have a better opportunity to become successful.
       Gov. Chris Christy made that very point the other day. Now, I'm no particular fan of his, but I have to agree that income equality could only be mediocre at best. But to level the opportunity field would require more finesse although it would allow a whole lot more people to prosper enough to help those who do not. The thing is, his party has not done any such thing.
       What's needed most for opportunity equality is to raise the level of education in America and eliminate the high costs of that education. It would require the expansion of SNAP (food stamps) and all nutritional help. Then, how do you arrange for poor children to have the advantages that only the rich currently enjoy, like home environments that foster practices like reading, exposure to the arts, and the myriad other perks wealthy children enjoy.
        But with all its challenges, opportunity equality is the best our country can do for all its citizens. The rich will still have the edge but everyone would be able to exercise their best attributes and profit from their best efforts. That's not true now. A poor child has little chance to receive the better education or put their better ideas to the test in  the marketplace. There's just too much inequality.
       Wouldn't it be nice if Democrats were to adopt this strategy?" Wouldn't it be nice if Republicans were adopt this strategy? Wouldn't it be nice if they actually wanted to accomplish these goals and were willing to make the hard choices to make these accomplishments possible? That's the trouble with dreamers. They actually thinks such accomplishments are possible in these times. But if we don't, we'll wind up a banana republic without bananas.

It Couldn't Happen To More Deserving Folks.

       How are you on dark humor? It should be sad to hear of people dying, even folks who are of a disliked set of people. But sometimes it is somewhat funny too. Like this story in the New York Times today. It seems that a group of students and the teacher at an academy of the Islamic Republic of Iraq and Syria were killed. What happened is the teacher was showing the class how to work a bomb that is strapped to you. Unfortunately, or you may think fortunately, the belt was loaded with explosives instead of a dummy belt. So when the teacher pressed the button to show the class how to do it, he did it. That is to say, he blew them all up including himself.
       Now like I said, it's not nice to wish evil toward anybody. But if you're gonna wish evil toward anybody, this might have been the group you'd most like to wish that evil toward. But here's the thing, this academy was a bit north of Baghdad. It was somewhat known to be a school for terrorists. Right there. Right where they had easy access to the folks they planned to blow up.
       So how did the neighbors take the news? One person called a friend with the news and was described as being as happy as though it were his wedding day. Presumably he enjoyed his wedding day. Now I admit I shant attend the funerals. I do wonder, though, do these students get the 20 or so virgins promised them? What about any women in the class? Do they get 20 male virgins? What about the teacher? Maybe he'll be forced to be one of the virgins.
       Ya see how dark humor goes? It can take hold of you and force you to have dark thoughts. But I don't think dark humor gets you any virgins. Unless they have horns and tails. And one of them just possibly was a teacher in his past life. So remember, if you enjoy some dark humor, you'd best ask for a little forgiveness. You probably needed it anyway.

If We All Own It, Why Aren't We Getting Paid For It?

        Don't taxes make you just mad as all get out? Even if you admit that without taxes, we'd all be in very bad straits, we still hate to think about taxes. So any source that helps to lower your taxes makes you a happy camper, even if you don't like the out-of-doors. Who wouldn't jump for joy to save a dime in taxes. You might even agree to vote for someone just because they promise to keep your taxes low and better yet to lower them even more.
       So that's why Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett has put $225 million from the Tobacco Settlement Fund into his budget. Except he's using it to pay towards the State School Employee Retirement System. Now in case you don't remember, the Tobacco Settlement Fund came about because the tobacco industry got sued some years back and the fund was set up to pay for a variety of health-related and biotech programs.
       So the question is; Do Pa. Governor Corbett and, I'm sure, other states have the right to use these funds for purposes other than intended? I don't know about legally, but it can't possibly be morally appropriate. So even if it helps to keep your taxes a little lower, it's not doing the job for which it was intended. And this is just one example of  an election year budget line item. Are there others? Just read the newspapers to get a little in-depth reporting that TV doesn't have time to do.
       This information came from a Scranton Times editorial by Robert Swift in Harrisburg. And in the meantime the state continues to lose money year after year because Mr. Corbett refuses to tax the gas industry with a severance tax. His per-well flat tax misses by a mile because the wells continue to produce for many years. And remember that Pennsylvania is the only state in the country that doesn't tax the industry in this way. Why is it we're so dumb? Say, isn't Corbett running for office again this year? Ya know, that gas is owned by the state as well as the land owner.

Used-To-Haves And Never-Hads.

       I just read an article in the Huffington Post that explained something I'd been trying to understand for some time. The article is "I'm a member of the American Used-To-Haves." It's about a woman who lost a good corporate job and has continued to slide into poverty. But the point she really covered was that she "had never been poor. Didn't know how to be poor." It's relatively easy to be rich. You can buy what you want and pay for it in cash if need be. Whether it's a decent home, car, nice clothes, dinner out, or basic needs.
       But to be poor or become poor is a whole different matter. And to become poor is even harder to survive. If you were born poor, you grow up knowing you can't have what others have, but if you lost your job during the Great Recession and before that in the Great Industrial Flight, you've got to learn how to be poor. If you were earning a decent income but now you're trying to survive on little or nothing, it's a difficult transition.
       Then to make matters worse, the folks who could have helped or might yet, aren't likely to do so because they don't understand what it's like to become poor. The wealthy have no concept of what life would be like. To not being able to get a good paying job. No matter how hard a rich man may try, he can't understand what it's like to lose your dignity, your ability to provide for your family.
       Politicians who could provide for the poor, even friendly politicians just don't get it. Washington has bigger fish to fry. What with deficits, debt, foreign policy, subsidies, political appointments, and most importantly raising funds for elections, they don't understand the need for food, shelter and a job. If you spend most of your time considering multi million or multi billion dollar legislation, how do you relate to the difference between $15,000 and $30,000. They see the numbers, but they don't mean anything to someone who's making six figures and looking to vastly increasing that amount. It's like looking through a fog. You really can't quite make out the problem. And most don't even try.

Forget Big Brother, Try Bigger Oil & Gas.

       In Pennsylvania, the courts now seem to have control over the souls of the people. So just you watch out you churches. You no longer have a say over your parishioner's souls. That's right, a judge,  Judge Kenneth Seamans, county judge in Susquehanna county, has ordered an injunction against a woman in favor of Cabot Oil and Gas. No trespassing on any of the lands they own or lease. The only reason given, unofficially, is that she is trespassing on the souls of the people of the region.
       Now I have to admit I'm conflicted about Fracking, the procedure used to extract gas or oil from shale , far beneath the surface. On the one hand I believe it's a potentially dangerous process that has already done harm around the country, but on the other hand natural gas is a vast improvement over coal in the production of energy when it comes to the environment.
       But poor Ms. Scroggins is now barred from going to the local hospital, the stores she shops at, the VFW, the local animal shelter where she adopted her pet dog, and any of the more that 200,000 acres of land (about 312 sq. miles) they lease. And to top that off, Cabot doesn't even have to show Scroggins what properties she was barred from. She's got to find that out for herself.
       I think it's important to state that Ms. Scroggins, 63, has never been arrested and nothing she has done "was illegal or presented a public danger." And while Cabot wouldn't speak to The Guardian, a consultant did speak and made the claim about her trespassing on the souls of the people. So now 40% of Susquehanna County, Pa. is off limits to Ms. Scroggins.
       Ms. Scroggins was informed of the hearing three days before it took place. She was unable to hire a lawyer in time for the hearing, but Cabot had four attorneys, nine witnesses, company employees and the security firm they hired. They weren't even required to prove that the leases they hold give them the right to keep her off those properties. If I owned a farm and had signed a drilling lease, would Cabot have the right to say who I can invite to my daughters birthday party? I think overreach is not a description I would disagree with. Does a judge have a responsibility to protect the rights of all the citizens that come before him? Even those with unpopular opinions? If he doesn't, it seems to me he should.