Are You Related To A Corporation?

       I'd like to tell you about a very distant relative of mine by the name of General Electric, or as we in the family call him, Gen. Gen is something of an extraordinary person for a distant relative. I say that because most, if not all of my close relatives vote regularly and pay taxes every year and at the standard rate for their income group. Not so with cousin, twice removed, Gen and all his friends.
       Ya see, Gen isn't allowed to vote and it's certainly not because of his age, he just never got the right to vote. And usually he doesn't pay taxes, in fact he quite often gets a refund from the government that can amount to nearly 75% of his net income. He has his own business in which he employs thousands upon thousands of employees, and nearly all of them pay taxes.
       The thing is Gen is a corporation. Now almost any person can incorporate themselves, but with Gen, he actually is a corporation. He's not a living breathing human person, he's a Supreme Court appointed person. Corporations are like that, ya know. Now I'm sure there was some obscure reason for making the claim that corporations are people, probably for tax purposes. But think about it. Corporations seem to get the rights of actual people without any of the disadvantages of real people.
       You never heard of a corporation being rushed to the hospital for an attack of appendicitis, did you? No, and you never heard of a corporation like General Electric going out for diner either. Gen's CEO probably goes out quite often and on the corporate's plastic to boot. Something else Gen can do that the rest of us can't. He can call up just about any member of Congress or even the President and ask for a sit down, and get it, to discuss some piece of legislation he likes or dislikes. And the thing is, he's more than likely to get what he wants because he spends a whole bunch of money on elections and campaigning.
       And there's the rub. Corporations get to write legislation and bring extreme pressure on Congress to do their bidding, unlike you or I who have a hard time getting to speak to a staffer. So if some piece of legislation is gonna harm you, forget about getting it defeated if it will help a corporation in the slightest way. Maybe something should be done about that.

I Finally Get It.

       I finally get it now. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. After all this time I finally get it. It's true. It's like, well it's like spaghetti. Spaghetti doesn't make you fat, people who eat too much spaghetti make you fat. So to keep from getting fat, you eat less spaghetti. Simple solution, just abstain from eating so much. Go on a diet.
       So if that spaghetti diet can work then why can't we go on a gun diet? Of course for any diet to work for a whole society, everyone who eats spaghetti has to cut back. The same should then be true for a gun diet. The whole of society has to cut back on guns for this diet to work. That means fewer gun purchases and fewer shots being fired. Buy less ammunition. And some need to abstain altogether. Folks who are addicted to spaghetti will have to abstain, and some gun people will also have to abstain.
       My vote is to have the NRA abstain. They seem to be addicted to guns. For everyone. So for this gun diet to work, the NRA is going to have to abstain from guns for every last person on earth before we get down to the last persons on earth. I propose for these addicts to shooting, that we limit the shooting to a few days a year. For those who seem to be addicted to killing, we form an addicted list and not sell them guns or allow them to possess guns.
       Let's face it, we've become a nation of gun lovers who aren't afraid to tote them thar guns all over towns and cities and diners and churches and movies in the hopes of getting a shot off at some real or imagined bad guy. Maybe we should use the money we would ordinarily spend on guns and bullets and all that on paying for more cops who are trained to protect us. Just like spaghetti addicts could spend their pasta money on salad greens.
        Just a thought.

Whose Fault Is The V.A.?

       Boy oh boy, did you see the reports out about the V.A. and how over 300,000 applicants died before they could be processed into the system? How over 800,000 applicants are waiting to be processed? That's unbelievable, it's unconscionable. How could the V.A. be so irresponsible? The V.A. was formed for the express purpose of serving veterans, especially those in need of medical services. How could that many veterans in need of medical attention not get processed into the system and begin receiving the medical care they need?
       Ya know what? Whoever is responsible for this backlog should be punished by the courts and receive sever prison sentences. There's just one problem with that idea. If we did that, there would be no one left in Congress to pass any laws. That's right, ya see, starting back about 20 years ago, Congress began to cut funding or not increase funding, in order to keep even with inflation, for the V.A.. Then all of a sudden we got into two wars.
       And unlike previous wars, instead of many, many soldiers getting killed, our military doctors began saving those lives. Wonderful, but it meant that many, many more injured veterans were now in need of medical care. But guess what Congress didn't do? They didn't increase the funding for the V.A. I guess Congress thought that if we could save all those lives, we could take care of them.
       The problem is the doctors saving those lives were in the military, but once the lives are saved, they discharge them. That's when the V.A., which already had it's hands full, got swamped with all those extra veterans but no new money to take care of them. Try this sometime. Put ten gallons of gas in your car and drive until you run out of gas. Then put another ten gallons in and continue driving for twice the distance. Doesn't work? The V.A. can't do twice the work with the same funding either.

Kick Her Out At Our Own Risk.

       Whatta you think about the accusations against A.G. Kathleen Kane? If true, I think she has no right to be the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. That's the beauty of our democracy. We have the tools to remove her from office. Unlike some of our most noted adversaries, we remove those who refuse to obey the law. Those are the rights associated with a democracy.
       But what about the responsibilities of a democracy? In America, you are considered innocent until proven guilty. And that is a very good thing. It's a rule not present in those noted adversaries. That being said, it seems premature to demand the ouster of Ms. Kane from office just yet. Shouldn't we wait until she's found guilty, assuming she will be?
       I know, it makes us look bad to have such a high ranking elected official fall under such accusations, but how bad would it look if we kicked her out only to find out she's not guilty. What if it really is a case of political vendetta against her instead of the other way around? Without taking sides, I'd like to point out that neither side of the political spectrum would be above such dastardly demonizing.
       The point is, it could just as easily be as Ms. Kane has suggested, than as her detractors suggest. So, shouldn't we let the courts sort it out first before we decide who to kick out of office? At this point, it does sound like somebody's head should be on the platter, but not until it's determined just whose head that is. An example does need to be made, but if we're going to decide a case like this before there is a fair hearing, then what do we have courts for anyway?
       Slippery slopes are great for skiing, but not so great for climbing.  It's easy, sort of, to slide down a slope, but climbing out of a mistake is a lot harder. Let's not make any such mistake just yet. Let's show everyone that we're smart enough to allow the system to work.
      

Pro-Birth.

       Did you happen to watch the two Republican debates on Thursday? I know, I know, it's way too early to bother wasting time on such things, but it did point out one item that they all agreed on. Well actually there were several. Hate anything Obama, hate anything Clinton. There was that other one. You know, the one about the Pro Birth thing.
       If there's one thing that isn't Obamaish or Clintonesque, it's the Anti-Choice movement. the Pro-Birth movement. Oh I know, they like to call it the Pro-Life movement, but as has been pointed out, you can't call yourself Pro-Life if your only concern is that those babies get born.
      The thing is, though, if you tend to forget about those babies once they're born, if you don't demand funding for the programs that look after the health, nutrition and education, as well as affordable housing and a host of other necessities for those babies, then you really aren't Pro-Life-After Birth, are you now.
       It's a fine thing to want to protect an unborn child. After all that child can't protect itself. But seeing that the child has a chance to be born isn't even half the job. If the child is part of an affluent family, they're in good hands. But if they happen to draw a poor single mother struggling to stay afloat by herself, don't you really have to see that that infant and later, the young child and teen has the helping hands to prepare him or her for a fruitful life as an adult?
       That's the rest of the job of being Pro-Life. And if you're not prepared to do those things, then do you really have the right to call yourself Pro-Life? If not, then at least be honest. Call yourself Pro-Birth and be done with it.

Deadly Weapons

       The Washington Post reports that 558 people have been shot dead by police in America so far this year. That's an average of almost 80 people a month. Almost every one was in possession of a deadly weapon when they were shot, according to police reports. Everything from a stick, to knives but mostly guns to even a sword.
       Who threatens a cop with a sword today, or a stick? Now some have been nationally publicized, like Abdulazeez in Tennessee over the marine recruiting station shootings, but most are more locally reported. These numbers seem way out of whack. And it's not just minorities being singled out. There's plenty of whites and blacks and some Hispanics. It seems to be non biased.
       But why so many? Reading some of the reports, can't help but bring you to the point that some cops must be trigger happy and more importantly, far too many unstable people are in possession of firearms. The police seem not to have the respect due them and maybe with cause in too many cases.
I'm not convinced that a lot of police have the proper respect due the citizens they're charged with serving. Maybe I'm way off base. but I don't think so.
       Now the police I know of, here in my little town seem respectful, but even them, I don't know how they would treat someone not local. What's going on in America? Is respect just a quaint custom of the past? Nice sounding but not practical or deserving? When did we change? Has politics changed us? I know that politicians are far from respectful of their opponents, but that's nothing new. Has their disrespect for one another deteriorated to the point of bitterness not previously seen? Historians say no.
       No, I think that politicians have resorted to lying about their opponents so publicly because of 24/7 news cycles that they feel the need to one up their own comments. As for disrespect, I think it's disrespect for the citizenry that's the cause. And the support for "guns across America", that's the root cause.

What Minimum Wage?

       There's been so much talk about raising the minimum wage to so many different amounts that it's hard to keep score. Then there are the arguments for and against those raises. It'll stifle business growth. People need to be paid a living wage. Most minimum wage earners are teens living at home. Most minimum wage earners are single parent adults.
       I'll bet you can find counter claims for every argument put forward. But is doubling the current rate going a bit too far? Maybe so, maybe not. Let's remember just how long it's been since it was last raised. I've got a suggestion that might solve two problems at the same time.
       Why not tie the federal minimum wage to the Congressional wage increases. Members of the United States Congress receive increases automatically, they do not vote on them. That was a semi-good idea. They can't vote themselves a raise. But if they can't even vote themselves a raise, why should they be able to vote for or against raises for the bottom rung of workers in America. Every time there's a raise for your Senator or Congressional Representative, an equal percentage raise in the minimum wage would take place as well.
       That would eliminate all the fuss over why poor people should get raises. Or it might raise a flag on how much our representation in Congress is getting for so little they do for us. Now I don't mean to suggest that these fine legislators aren't worth all they make, or even that they should make more. But if they're worth more, shouldn't the people who serve them in stores and eateries and everywhere else, be worth more as well? The same should hold true for states. A raise for one is good for all.
       Maybe then we could get on with even more pressing issues for our Congress to work on. I know it would be another stake in the heart for our legislators to lose control over yet another facet of power, but the need to streamline our government is important too.