The Art Of The Lie.

It's okay to lie. Or at least it's legal to lie. It's in the First Amendment to our Constitution. And if you don't believe me, believe our Supreme Court. And ya know what? As much as it pains me to agree, they may be right. In the case of United States vs Alvarez where a guy falsely claimed to be a retired Maring and winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the court decided 6 - 3 that it has to do with freedom of speech. But that also means that lying in political campaigns is perfectly legal and proper to do. Well okay, it's legal. Politicians have decided it's proper to do. So when you're finally good and fed up with the lies you keep hearing in attack ads and even from the mouths of the candidates themselves, you can feel safe in the knowledge that these folks are exercizing their unalienable rights to tell bald faced lies. Even hairy faced lies. I'm not just talking about the fib you told about how many drinks you had the other night when you were out with the boys, or for you women who were out with the gals and the fact that you went to a show by "Chip and Dale" and not to a sewing club meeting. And you guys need to fes up that those drinks were at the local strip club. But we're not talking about those kinds of fibs. Because in those cases you're facing a whole different set of rules. No, this ruling has to do with people, scumbags actually, who claim to be heros in order to reap some sort of rewards. Or politicians who claim they'll save you from their evil opponent. The law says they have the right to do that. It doesn't say that if you're found out, that you won't get your butt kicked, but you might be able to successfully sue over that. That is unless it goes before a jury of your peers.

I Love It When I'm Right.

If you've read many of my entries in this blog, you'll know that I'm not a big fan of China, and I'm not a real big fan of companies that do business with China. Well the reason is spelled out quite nicely in the Washington Post today. An article mentions that several companies gave away the store on attack helicopters or, after the fact, conspired to cover up the givaway. United Technologies and Hamilton Sundstrand tried to cover up the givaway by Pratt & Whitney Canada. This is one China didn't have to steal. Pratt Whitney gave it away in the hopes they would get a big contract to build commercial helicopters for China, hoping China wouldn't use the technology for the military. Oh, that makes sense. To teach them a lesson, they were fined $75 million. But then again their net sales were $58 billion, making it just over 1%. At that rate, they could consider it a cost of doing business. There may be some criminal charges to go along with the fine, but my problem with this whole thing is, why do we allow a company that wants to do business with an enemy like China, why do we allow them to have important information? Expecially the kinds of information we know China would love to get their hands on? Now I know companies like this claim they can keep information from different countries segregated. So how're they doing on that score? It looks like they're going to have to repeat first grade. If you ask me, they should get kicked out of school permanently. I'm just not sure we can afford to do business with the Pratt & Whitneys of the world. Well maybe with technology that's deeply flawed we can.

The Supreme Scalia

Well, it's time to man up. I have to say that over the last couple of days, the Supreme Court acted semi-properly. I say semi because there is still room for improvement. For instance in Arizona, they could have and should have stopped police from stopping people and arresting them if they "thought" they "might" be illegal. But in fairness the the Chief Justice, John Roberts broke with the conservative branch to uphold the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare. What's still troubling is justice Antonin Scalia. There's a guy that's so partisan that he's willing to make the Supreme Court look like a nasty divorce. He's willing to be so partisan that he will stand up, with the court in session, and complain about the president and his decissions. That's not what the court was designed to do. The Supreme Court, Mr Scalia, is not an attack ad filming location. It would almost appear that justice Scalia is a bit out of sorts. Is he losing his grip on reality? Is he suffering from senility? He is a poster child for term limits for the Supreme Court. One term. Say twenty five years. No second term. Or maybe an age limit. How old is Scalia. Whatever it is, that should be the age you gotta quit. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I dislike him. I don't even know him. I just don't like his new-found style. I guess this would be a good time to institute a set of rules of conduct and ethics. He'd never pass any such thing.

Yep. It's The Supreme Court Again.

If you think I'm paranoid about the Supreme Court, here's an example of why I'm concerned about the court's biased actions. In a nutshell, it's Alito. Justice Samuel Alito is the ultra conservative justice who is in the lead to bust unions and elevate corporations to that of a class above human citizens. Here's just a bit of background. The Supreme Court has a set of rules it agreed to follow. It's been in place for a long time. Rule number 14 states that the court can only rule on the questions outlined in the petition or fairly included therein. In other words, the court can't wander around willy nilly outlawing this or that or approving the other. The only decisions they're allowed to decide are those that are brought to them through the channels of lower court rulings and challanges. But Alido seems to feel he's above such narrow guidelines. A union case was brought before the court. Even several liberal leaning justices agreed this particular rule must be struck down. But Alito went farther. He demanded that unions could not charge nonmembers for negotiations on wages, a longstanding right. The four other conservative justices went along with him. Now whether you agree with this arrangement or not, it was not part of the suite brought before the court. Alito was in violation of rule 14. Does anyone think he cares? Based on his leadership in this assault on the rules, if you go to court to sue your neighbor for chopping down your fence, the judge could decide that your boat parked next to your garage is not an acceptable color. The point of the having rules is so everyone plays by the same rules. It now appears anything goes if your party is in control. I thought the Supreme Court was supposed to be non-partisan?

Ahh. The Senate's Farm Plan.

The Senate, only marginally more likable than the House or Supreme Court to me, has passed a new and improved Farm Bill. I say improved all the while sarcasm is dripping from my brain. It does have a few good points, however. It eliminates the so-called Direct Payment Program that gave big agri-businesses funding no matter whether they did poorly or very well. Instead they replaced it with a very handsome crop insurance program that will do pretty much the same. On the other hand, they did manage to cut back on food stamps $4.5 billion over ten years, a welcome piece of trickery to help those in need. More sarcasm. They also managed to cut back on environmental protections to protect land potentially in danger of erosion, although somebody put part of that back in an amendment. Sarcasm continues. So the total bill comes to $969 billion over ten years, a $23 billion reduction from last year. Now if you think this is bad, just remember that the House of Representatives gets a shot at cutting more out of it, to make it more affordable. I wonder where they'll find the waste to cut out of that bill? Would you like to bet $10,000 that it isn't more likely to come out of food stamps than out of the insurance for giant agri-businesses? My guess is that somehow the House will figure out how to put the screws to small farmers and food stamp recipients but protect the big boys. I think that's eligible to be called more sarcasm. It's not that I think our Senators and Congressmen don't care about people. They do care. But they care about the folks who don't really need their help and not those who do.

Immigration Laws.

Well the Supreme Court struck down three of the four sections of the Arizona immigration law, in spite of what you may or did hear from the Arizona governor. But not to be too careful, they did allow states to hold anyone who a police office considers may be an illegal. What does that mean? Racial profiling. Now you'll certainly hear yelps of pain from those who plan to do just that. They'll claim that they would never do that. They'll claim that, all the while they're doing it. Of course, this opens up additional possibilities as well. Suppose your mother, lets say a fine redheaded Irish lady, gets pulled over for speeding. The officer admonishes her for exceeding the speed limit by, oh lets say, thirty miles an hour. That would be just about enough for that fine Irish lady to lose her temper and give the office an earful. Well, now that officer has an additional option. He can arrest her for possibly being in this country illegally. Now your mom can be found in the local lockup, until you can provide proof that she is a legal resident. If your mom is like mine was, she won't remember where those documents are. So by the time you rifle through all her files and boxes to find it, she will already have been deported. On the other hand, maybe you've always wanted an excuse to visit Ireland. Well, now's your chance. Just be advised. She may not be in the best of humor when you see her. If she gives you a piece of her mind, you can send a letter of thanks to the Supreme Court.

Who's The Biggest Insider Traders In The Country?

How well do you know the stock market? I'll bet you don't know it as well as your Congressman or Senators do. Rare indeed is the politician who leaves Washington poorer than when he got there. One of the reasons is that they're allowed to buy and sell stocks in companies who have legislation that they will vote on in committee and on the floor that will affect the company's bottom lines. See if company 'A' wants more leniency in regulations, as an example, and your Congressman sits on the committee that will decide on that issue, why, Mr Congressman can buy a bunch of stock if he thinks his vote will help the company make more profit. That or sell stock if his vote will hurt. It's what we call a stacked deck in the parlance of a gambler. Now, not long ago, Congress passed laws stopping administration officials from taking advantage of this type of insider trading. But somehow it just slipped their minds to stop themselves from this kind of stock transaction. See Congress called it insider information trading and barred it. But they don't consider it insider trading when it comes down to themselves. For themselves and their families, it's more a case of informed investing. Like any good and smart investor who researches a company before investing. Congress doesn't research a company. They research what companies they will be voting on. How come they can get away with this kind of stuff? They can get away with it because they voted to allow themselves to do it. Or rather they didn't vote on it at all thereby allowing them to continue the practice. It's all very legal. It's all on the up and up, so long as it's legal. And it's legal until Congress makes it illegal. Any guess on when that'll be?