To the Dog:

A letter to the  dog,


When I say "move", it means go someplace else. It does not suffice to change or switch positions with the cat so there are still two animals in the way. I'm telling you this because the cat is a just beautiful dumb-ass and listens even worse that you

The dishes with the paw print are yours and contain your food. All other dishes are mine and contain my food. Under no  circumstances does   placing a paw print in the middle of my plate and food  make it your food and dish, nor do I find it aesthetically pleasing in the slightest.

The stairway was not designed by NASCAR and is not a racetrack. Beating me to the bottom is not the object, and there is no prize for doing so.  Tripping me won't help you , because I fall at a nominal 32 feet/sec² which is much faster than you can run.








They don't make  anything bigger than a king size bed. I am very sorry about this.  Look at videos of dogs sleeping, they can actually curl up in a ball. It is not necessary to  stretched out to the fullest extent possible. I also know that sticking tails straight out and having tongues hanging out the other end to maximize space used is nothing but  sarcasm, so knock it off. And while we're at it, if Mommy lets you on the bed before I come to bed and you sleep with your head on my pillow, at least have the decency not to drool on it.  

Compact discs are not miniature Frisbees.  Cat poop isn't food, I know the litter makes it crunchy, but it still isn't kosher for dogs.
For the last time, there is not a secret exit from the bathroom!  If by some miracle I get there first  and manage to get the door shut, it is not necessary to claw, whine, try to turn the knob, or get your paw under the edge and try to pull the door open. I must exit through the same door I entered. Also,  I have been using bathrooms for years, canine attendance is neither required or desired. In fact, the yard is your toilet, so just stay the hell out of mine, including the porcelain spring.

The proper order of adoration is  kiss me, then lick your ass or smell another dog's butt.  I cannot stress this sequence enough. It would be such a simple change for you. 

We own a crosscut shredder. It is unnecessary for you to get in my wastebasket and shred the contents. Thanks for the effort, but cut it out! In somewhat the same vein, humans have thumbs.  We are capable of untying and unwrapping Christmas presents. Again, your efforts this last Christmas were unnecessary.

As a 50 pound Bassett Hound, there is no sane reason in the world to let a 5 pound cat intimidate you. If you want to get on your couch, do it,  f**k that little hairball!

Finally, for now, I am happy to let you out to pee as late as 10 pm. Meet me half way. make an effort, because I'll not be in the same frame of mind at 3am when the mood strikes you. In like fashion, if you feel the need to barf  because you had a luau in the trash can, warn a brother.

 Sincerely, the humans who live in your house.           

A Different Kind of War

The following was written in response to a young friend and former student who instead of joining the military became a law enforcement officer. He recently expressed that his "#1 regret" was not having joined the military. This my response. 

     Honestly, ******, don't let it be. I honestly believe I did  more good individually in my second job (teaching).  It's easy to get caught up in the rah rah spirit. We had ROTC kids who couldn't wait to go into the military, but having no idea what that really meant. Some are dead. 

     The way we're using some those kids today isn't anything like your grandpa in WWII or even my Cold war experience, where we felt we were fighting a "moral" war (if that isn't too contradictory).

        In WWII we were fighting against governments bent on world domination. Their aggression was focused outward as stated political policy. In the Cold War we always knew who the "bad guys" were - the Soviet Union.  Even in Korea, we knew the South Koreans wouldn't and couldn't survive without our help, but they wanted that help.  The way we're using the military now is not a lot different from your job as a Sherriff's deputy. Unfortunately, we're dealing with a totally different type of problem.

         There are times when I see an amputee or traumatic brain injured veteran when I ask myself  "For what?"  and the answer I keep hearing is  "To fight people whom the politicians tell us we should fight, in a place  where tribal chiefs have ruled for years."  Yes they are , by western standards, harsh to women, and they may have sheltered Osama Bin Ladin, but as a group, the Taliban were no threat to the USA.   Are we doing this to convince people who have fought tribal battles for years that they should be like us? One thing that I feel down deep inside is that if there had been no First Gulf War, there would have been no 9/11. Saddam Hussein was a militaristic bastard and cruel to his own minorities, but by the same token, it focused their anger on him, instead of us, for what they viewed as an invasion of their (Islamic) territory.

        The issue of religion as an aggravating factor isn't new either. We resisted entering WWII for 2 years after Hitler invaded Poland in part because the Germans, after all, were "like us."  That included being  a nation whose vast majority of population were professing Christians. After Dec 7th, 1941, it was easy to get all but one member of Congress to agree to declare war on Japan, because they attacked us, yes, although the Germans had been sinking ships and killing Americans in the Atlantic for several years, but also because they weren't co-religionists. We look like that to many Afghans. To them we are invaders who threaten their way of life and in many cases denigrate their beliefs.    

        Prior to the First Gulf War, the only direct Taliban contact with the US had been as a supplier of arms to help defend against  the Soviets. The British Empire  in 1839-42 and again in 1878-80 fought in Afghanistan, supposedly winning both times, yet eventually realizing that they would never truly reach political control of people who fought as described in the following quote, " The British officer John Masters recorded in his autobiography that Afghan women in the North-West Frontier Province of British India during the Second Anglo-Afghan War would castrate non-Muslim soldiers who were captured, like British and Sikhs. They also used an execution method involving urine; Pathan women urinated into prisoner's mouths. Captured British soldiers were spread out and fastened with restraints to the ground, then a stick, or a piece of wood was used to keep their mouth open to prevent swallowing. Pathan women then squatted and urinated directly into the mouth of the man until he drowned in the urine, taking turns one at a time."  Hard to deal with a mindset like that!

           The Soviets from 1979-1989 tried to "control" the Afghans, essentially attempting to remold them as a semi-Soviet Socialist Republic buffer state.  Aided by covert US aid (billions of dollars and Stinger and Red-eye shoulder launch missiles) to the Mujahideen, hard liners like the Taliban, whom many were,  the Afghans eventually resisted long enough for Russia to tire and withdraw. Oddly enough while we supplied material and money, China supplied training to the rebels.  

        This isn't  your grandad's or my wars, and it isn't Korea either. If Viet Nam taught us anything, maybe that lesson should be that all the man power, material and political will can't control a nation forever if the indigenous population really sees you as the enemy, and not their saviors. 

     Despite all the hype, medals and political saber  rattling , in many cases from persons who never served, even a "just" war sucks. A war without clear justification or with unreachable objectives, such as getting the Afghans to be a democracy and 'like us' , is far worse. I believe that in Afghanistan, as in Viet Nam, the US will finally "declare victory" and leave. I'm not so sure that like the Vietnamese, we will  regain any sort of "normal" relations with them soon,  if  ever unfortunately.  

         In my heart I'm thankful you stayed here and do what you do, because it does far  more good here at home.

Where's Frank Reagan when we need him?

Ok, it's official, I've had enough of the NYPD Union (PBA) justifying their recent disgraceful actions as being due to disrespect shown them by the mayor. This isn't Blue Bloods, and there's no Frank Reagan in the house, unfortunately.  This started when the mayor made a passing remark on the nature of conditions surrounding the death of Eric Garner, at the hands of  a police officer. (I'll use the term cop from here on for brevity. It isn't disrespectful, being derived from, depending on which source you believe,  copper buttons on the London Met uniforms, copper badges, the term "constable on patrol, or simply as a slang term 'cop' for capture)

        NYC isn't Ferguson, Mo,  and Eric Garner's lamentable death at the hands of a cop who applied an outlawed choke hold and refused to stop when Garner was unable to breathe was ruled a homicide, yet no one was charged. That triggered a wave of demonstrations and protests. Those believing that the system might work in this case were sorely disappointed. Video makes it plain that an unarmed father of four  who was no threat to anyone was killed without cause by one of four cops on the scene.

       I am well aware that those in law enforcement love to point out that theirs is a hard job (it definitely is ) and that the average  civilian has little or no idea how hard, also true.  However, as someone who has trained military personnel in the use of deadly force , and when it may be considered justified, this (the Garner incident) surely wasn't it, and no amount of revisionist bullshit can make it so, since the video is self explanatory.  Certainly the officer applying the choke hold could not have felt fear for his life, as he jumped Garner from behind.

        I say all that to say this: Public employee unions like many others, sometimes act as if every single member is always right, all the time, and any inference to the contrary (by management, the media, etc) is disloyal or unfair. This seems especially so in the case of NYPD  PBA, as the thin blue line forms any, and seemingly every, time any high profile questionable incident happens. This assumption  that the PBA seems to make,  that all cops are always superior persons who are  invariably trustworthy and  infallible is not only ludicrous, since no group is made up of perfect individuals, but it hurts the rank and file who do the best they can as imperfect persons  (as we all are) trying their best in an extremely difficult job. 

     Worse is the fact that when the ranks close in protection of  a high profile bad cop, like the man who killed Eric Garner, there seems to be a tendency for the organization to act more harshly and reflexively in subsequent lower profile cases, many of whom deserve support  by the union and management and don't get it because "we'll show them we can be tough on our own."

        I served as a union official of the largest labor union in America  (NEA) while a teacher and saw some members who expected the union to support them, even when they were clearly wrong. The union of which I was a member would fight to the last for a member who had been wronged, but we would  not support a member who had demonstrably done wrong other than to insure due process.  We also would never have mass demonstrated in support of   a member who had been videotaped doing the act in question, nor would we have disrespected the Superintendent if he had expressed his opinion of the person in question.  We also would never have stooped so low as to blame the correct response to  the bad actions of one member, as justification bad things done to other members.

        Apparently in the eyes of NYPD PBA , it is always wrong to acknowledge the high profile wrongdoing of a member, since members are never wrong.  To refute that idea (cops "all right, all the time")  I have a simple assignment, look up "Rampart scandal, LAPD 1990s."   The real disservice to the NYPD has been done, not by the Mayor, or Commissioner, but by a Union which protects a killer caught on tape and then blames subsequent events on the mayor for even hinting that maybe Eric Garner didn't need to die. 

     Shame on them, they disgrace the millions of good cops everywhere who do an almost impossible job to the best of their human) ability. As a coda, also shame on local departments who then overreact to the national uproar by jacking up good cops who may err honestly while doing their best. 

A whore by any other name

Marco Rubio has his nuts in a vise because the President has taken the first steps to normalize relations with Cuba. Clearly, some of this is political posturing, which Rubio, like many in the Senate and House has mastered. His concerns, however, need further examination. He is all a twitter because nothing in the dialogue to this point requires "Democratic reforms" in Cuba. Apparently Mr. Rubio has forgotten (or more likely, has never reflected upon) the fact that the US has normalized relations with a number of nations, China and Viet Nam among them, with no such stipulations whatsoever.

        I suppose Senator Rubio would have us believe that the continuance of communism in Cuba threatens our representative democracy. It is interesting to note however, that there are similarities between China, Viet Nam, and Cuba. In all three cases, the US decided that they should not be allowed to have the government chosen by the majority of their people.

        In the case of China, the United States poured millions into the propping up and support of the "nationalist" government of  Chiang Kai-shek against what was an increasingly  popular movement led by Mao. The communists in China had gained popularity because of the corruption and  oligarchic nature of the existing government, not unlike other revolutions in other parts of the world throughout history. The fact that they chose communism is more reaction to corruption and belief in a system, which they believed offered better opportunities for the common folk. The fact that this was already failing in Russia was not common knowledge to the Chinese masses. So the US attempted to overthrow communists in China.

        10 or 12 years later in Viet Nam, the US provided millions in material support to help the French attempt to re-colonialize "French Indo-China" (Viet Nam). The true leader of the nation, Ho Chi-Mihn, begged President Harry Truman in a 1946 telegraph, to warn off the French, who could have done little without US aid.  Torn between burgeoning "anti-Red" sentiment at home and an upcoming election, Truman ignored it.  In the message the Vietnamese leader ask for American support of Vietnam’s independence from France. He also asked for U.S. help in making negotiations with France comply with the principles of the Atlantic and San Francisco (United Nations) Charters. Both of these "charters, called for an end to colonialism. Ho Chi Minh’s telegram was  left unanswered by Harry Truman.

        The United States did not support the Vietnamese struggle against the French. and eventually, as a result of supporting a colonial takeover attempt against a popular government, we entered into a conflict which from 1954 to 1975 caused over 2.4 million deaths, of which  about 1/5 were civilians on both sides. Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."  And yet, we poured billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives into attempting to un seat a government which had the support of 80% of its population!

        Now, to Cuba: The United States tried to recreate Cuba in our own image following its "liberation" from Spain.  American military government gave way to an American approved and framed civil government under a bevy of Cuban politicos primarily  subservient to US trade pressures. By the 1940s the Batista family had established political primacy in Cuba.  During his first term as President, Fulgencio Batista had been supported by the Communist Party of Cuba but during his second term he became strongly anti-communist, gaining him political support and increased military aid from the United States.

         Batista developed a powerful security infrastructure to silence political opponents, leading John F. Kennedy to describe the Cuban government as a "complete police state" in 1960. In the months following the March 1952 coup, Fidel Castro, then a young lawyer and activist, petitioned for the overthrow of Batista, whom he accused of corruption and tyranny.  Castro's constitutional arguments were rejected by the Cuban courts, so after deciding that the Cuban state could not be overthrown through legal means, Castro resolved to launch an armed revolution.  ( sounds like 1776 in the US, no?) Eventually, Castro, threatened by US sanction and military proximity, drew closer to the Soviet Union and announced the Cuban government as Communist.

        Again, all the US had to hear was  "Communism" and the scene was set for the closest approach to nuclear exchange that the world has seen to date.  The instigation came from the aborted "Bay of Pigs" invasion, which was funded, sponsored and executed by the US Government and/or its agencies. In response, Soviet premier Khrushchev announced intentions to base nuclear weapons in Cuba. The standoff, generally known as the Cuban Missile Crisis was a nail biting thirteen day standoff.

        Summarizing, then, there are common factors which stand out in all three cases. First: the countries in question all rebelled against unpopular regimes in an attempt at self government.  Second: in each case, the form of government they chose was Communism. Third: in each case, the United States directly interfered in an attempt to thwart the popular revolution. Fourth, and in my estimation worst, is the fact that there is little doubt that in each case, the indigenous popular will, which American politicians are so fond of  touting as the raison d'etre for democratic ideals, was ignored by the United States. An aggravating factor was the fact that many Americans had become convinced that all communists were evil and exactly the same. Equating  Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, Castro, and Mao seems ludicrous to most students of political thought today, but the McCarthys, Dulleses and their ilk had no such discriminatory ability.    

        So here we are, having established normal relations with (still Communist) China and Viet Nam, and without sanction or provision for regime change. Marco Rubio has had nothing to say about these events, either currently or in  historical context, yet he has lambasted the current President for offering the same to Cuba.  It makes one wonder what he's really after - oh. wait, his South Florida constituency has many Cuban exiles and dissidents.

        When you sell your virtue for money, it's called prostitution; when you do it for votes, it's simply politics as usual. A whore by any other name.....!

Too Big?

                            Too Big?

     “Folks, this government isn’t too big to fail, it’s too big to succeed.”  With this catchy little phrase, Sarah Palin endorsed her pal, (apparently) Rand Paul, as presidential candidate. I'll, come back to this statement when we discuss an interesting chart that is of interest later in this discussion, but, while we're on Stupid Palin tricks, let's look at some of the post 2008 campaign quotes, which you may have missed, hoping as I did that the Wasilla Nitwit would just go home and shut up.

        "He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."  (2011) Of course she was referring to Paul Revere, who would have been chagrined to realize that he was "warning the British" - mega-"duh"

       "We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn't that ironic?" (2010)--Yes, Sarah it's also an endorsement of single payer national medical care - remember - that which you and your Tea Bagger buddies hate because you think that's what the Affordable Care Act is? Ironic, huh?

        "Because of that one episode, that one episode, that would turn an issue into what it has become over the last two years. I think that's ridiculous. That's one of those things, where that issue...that I don't read, or that I'm not informed, it's one of those questions where I like to turn that around and ask the reporters, 'Why would it be that there is that perception that I don't read?'" (2010) I'm literate and I do read, and this is ludicrous.

        "But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." (2010) Any questions?

        “Look, the perception of Obama, of him and his potency across the world is one of such weakness … People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates.” (2011)  And she can see his fiefdom from her house!

       Now that we have established the               "not-so-bona fides" of Ms. Palin, let's examine further the  opening statement (I'll repeat it so you don't have to page up)    “Folks, this government isn’t too big to fail, it’s too big to succeed.”   This is a very recent statement, having spewed from her mouth just after Rand Paul announced his candidacy.   Of course her claim is aimed at convincing the great unwashed that are so much of the Tea Bagger clan that the Republicans represent  less spending, smaller government and increased growth.  The  truth is reflected in the chart/graphs below which reflect just how diametrically incorrect her assertions are.

Let's start with growth: The GDP (Gross Domestic Product, for the less economically inclined - is " "an aggregate measure of production equal to the sum of the gross values added of all resident institutional units engaged in production (plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs). A simpler and essentially correct definition is "the measure of total national goods and services production, minus  Government spending to produce them")  

        The brown line represents Government spending and shows that in both  the Clinton and Obama  administrations federal spending as a % of GDP was lower than in either Bush administration!  Even more interesting is the fact that the largest gaps between federal spending and growth in private sector GDP occur in Clinton's second and Obama's first terms. 

      In other words, while carping about the size of federal government spending when the Democrats have the White House, the Republicans actually have increased Government spending (and size) significantly more with Bush 42 and 44, then handed the mess back to President Obama. This makes Ms. Palin and her comments seem ignorant and undereducated, especially for one who had aspirations to national power.  When will we be rid of this poseur's, unwise, untrue and unwanted misinformation? The answer to that lies in the fact that a significant number of her fans, as well as the entire Faux News team are just as ignorant.

Matt Ohrberg at work

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=944833998863640&set=vb.100000111477873&type=2&theater

Everything Old is New Again

      Lest anyone believe that the recent deplorable incidents of unarmed civilians dead  at the hands of police are unprecedented (and I know few believe that) here, in his own words is the late Chief  Daryl Gates of the LAPD speaking in the 1980s. Gates earned notoriety for his controversial rhetoric on many occasions. Some of the most notable examples of this were:

     In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Gates stated that infrequent or casual drug users "ought to be taken out and shot" because "we're in a war" and even casual drug use is "treason".

     His dismissive response to concerns about excessive force by police employing "choke holds." In 1982, Gates attributed several deaths of people held in choke holds to the theory that "blacks might be more likely to die from chokeholds because their arteries do not open as fast as they do on 'normal ' people"

     The Christopher Commission report, issued July 10, 1991, following the beating of Rodney King identified a police culture of excessive force and poor supervision, and recommended numerous reforms, as well as Gates's removal. Gates finally announced his intention to resign on July 13, 1991. 

     It should be noted that, in addition to pioneering the SWAT team concept, Gates also was the inceptor of PDID: Gates made substantial use of the LAPD's Public Disorder and Intelligence Division (PDID) squad, even developing an international spying operation.(Isn't that supposed to be the CIA's job?) In the lawsuit CAPA v. Gates, with the Coalition Against Police Abuse (CAPA) as one of two dozen or so plaintiffs, Gates and the LAPD were sued the on First Amendment grounds that exposed the unlawful harassment, surveillance, and infiltration of the progressive movement in Los Angeles by LAPD agents. 

     The lawsuit against Gates and the LAPD proved successful. The PDID was ordered to disband, and did so in January 1983. In February 1984, an out-of-court settlement awarded $1.8 million to the named plaintiffs, individuals, and organizations who had sued the City of Los Angeles. The lawsuit brought against Gates and the PDID, settled out of court because the PDID didn't want to have to disclose any more of its patently illegal activities, which it turns out included selling much of the collected data on local activists to a right-wing organization called Western Goals that had links to the John Birch Society, ultimately cost the City of Los Angeles $1.8 million.

     Gates' firing did not end the corruption or violent behavior of some in the LAPD. The LAPD Rampart scandal revealed  widespread corruption in the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (or C*R*A*S*H) anti-gang unit of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Rampart Division in the late 1990s. 

     More than 70 police officers either assigned to or associated with the Rampart CRASH unit were implicated in some form of misconduct, making it one of the most widespread cases of documented police misconduct in United States history. The convicted offenses include unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of false evidence, framing of suspects, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and the covering up of evidence of these activities.

     So, as we see, Not much new about a few "unfortunate"  deaths. Tragic, really, isn't it?

Really? Ask his Hopkins Colleagues!

If the headline "Carson Surges to Second" doesn't bother you, then you probably shouldn't leave the house unaccompanied. That is the recent headline on a web news service reporting the results of a recent candidate preference poll among those identifying as Republican. If you consider, even for a second that Dr. Ben Carson is even remotely capable in the political realm I fear for you. It is true that he is  Professor of Medicine Emeritus at Johns Hopkins University. It is true that he is a recognized expert in neurosurgery,  having pioneered the use of hemispheric separation, in the brain to treat severe seizure disorders. It is true, as well that he is a self made man, having risen through determination to join the ranks of celebrity doctors.

       Unfortunately, he is abysmally ignorant in  areas that actually matter to persons without brain disorders. For starters, he actually believes the earth is somewhere around 4800 years old! His extreme  fundamentalist views on some topics make Pat Robertson seem liberal by comparison. He has so little knowledge of the way economies function that he believes stiff tariffs are a solution to trade imbalance. This of course is diametrically wrong, as other nations would follow suit, and we no longer are self sufficient in natural resources, especially rare earths, the stuff of which high end electronics are made.

        Carson's positions are ignorant in some cases and simply retrograde in others. His stances on important topics include:

On Economics:

     In January, 2014 he said this: "If you let the economy work the way it's supposed to in a free market environment, there'll be plenty of jobs and people determine their own value by what they know and what they are capable of doing."

 This is Carson in favor of laissez faire economics, and somewhere, J.D. Rockefeller is smiling.  Of course 7 days earlier he had touted the need for Government regulation to avoid meltdowns like 2008. Can't seem to decide, huh Ben?

Civil Rights:

On Sean Hannity's show he said. "My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition,"

Apparently Carson believes gay persons practice  bestiality and pedophilia (in the face of overwhelming proof of the opposite)!? He later apologized, probably when someone pointed out that gay people vote.He also, of course is opposed to gay marriage, citing  Biblical grounds. (which of course assumes everyone thinks the Bible is a legal document)

Again on economics (sort of):

"In the Bible, God instituted a system of tithing, 

which meant giving 10% of one's profits back to God. Since God is all powerful and owns everything, he certainly does not need any percentage of our profits. So why did he institute tithing? Could it be that he understood that all human beings are subject to greed and that by requiring them to give away 10% of their profits they might learn a valuable lesson about not hoarding and about voluntarily sharing with others?"

Ed. note: While Bill gates and Warren Buffett routinely give away a lot, neither does it on religious grounds. Wouldn't it be cool to know if Trump  and the Koch brothers "tithe"?

Remember, Mitt Romney said it "Corporations are people, my friend!"

On (public) Education:

"I think having charter schools, having school vouchers, things of that nature are extremely good because unless you are competing for those students, it's very likely you're going to become complacent. So we need to put the appropriate stimulation there to increase the competitive nature of education." 

This in spite of the numerous charter school failures, and never mind that those not able to get into charter schools would be consigned to public schools stripped of their brightest and best (and their funding.)  Educational choice nationwide could well produce the same school inequalities we saw in the south during segregation!   

On Energy:

"After the 9/11 crisis, if the president had seized the moment and declared that we would become petroleum independent within the next 10 years, business, industry, academia, and everyone else would have been foursquare behind him, and we would have been much further ahead in the fight against terrorism than we are today.

The moderate Arab states would have been terrified about losing their economic base and would most probably have turned over Osama bin Laden.

An enormous number of jobs would likely have been created in the process of switching over to a new energy source, and Wall Street would have been booming.

The environmentalists would have been ecstatic.

Most importantly, the terrorists would have been deprived of much-needed funding, which would have gradually strangled their efforts."

More muddled than this is hard to be. First, Saudis bow low to their ultra conservative Wahabi sect, in return for being allowed to remain a monarchy. The moment  a Saudi had proposed turning over Bin Laden, a Saudi, by the way, they would have faced massive Islamic fundamentalist backlash.   

In like manner, stating that environmentalists would have favored more drilling is ludicrous, requiring no explanation.

 The "terrorists" gain their funding through heroin trade, not petroleum.

 When the current President, also a Harvard grad, but light years brighter, proposed alternate energy source funding, conservatives responded with "drill, baby drill" led by the cheerleader from Wasilla (and wouldn't  Carson/Palin be a great ticket?) Dumb and Dumber III!

On poverty in America:

"Growing up, I heard many complaints from those around me about poverty, but visiting such places as India, Egypt, and Africa has provided me with perspective on what poverty really is. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people in the world live on less than $2 a day. Many of those living in poverty in this country, in fact, would be considered quite wealthy by poor people in other countries. Also, here in the US, there is no caste system to determine one's social status, (really, Ben?) so there are many opportunities for people to escape poverty without resorting to a life of crime. You are much more likely to be judged in this nation by your knowledge and the way you express yourself than you are by your pedigree. I'm not sure we realize how good we have it on this point."

While it would certainly be nice if our society really was at this point, reality is far different.  Apparently, a Carson government would simply let people starve until we get there (and we aren't close!) 

 On health care:

" I have to tell you, ObamaCare is really, I think, the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way."  

This statement simply defies both belief and description, especially in the light of the following:  

 "Our 1st child, Murray, was born in Australia. The health-care system in Australia provides substantial benefits for its citizens, and when a baby is born, the family receives a "baby bonus." Although it was a two-tiered system, I did not witness much resentment by those receiving their basic care free of charge against those who could afford private insurance. There may be some substantial lessons that we can learn from such a system."

OK Ben, which is it? either Government involvement in healthcare  insurance sucks or it doesn't. Oh, wait, maybe it  sucks in America but not in Australia. Or maybe you're an idiot.

If you thought that was bad, look at this:

 "Today, insurance companies call the shots on what they want to pay, to whom, and when. Consequently, even busy doctors operate with a very slim profit of margin. This is an ideal place for the intervention of government regulators who, with the help of medical professionals, could establish fair and consistent remuneration. To accomplish this, essentially all of the insurance companies would have to become non-profit service organizations with standardized, regulated profit margins." 

This from the man who advocates free market economics with minimal regulation?  Of course, this also means he doesn't understand that insurance companies are regulated at the state level and that in competitive markets actuaries already recommend rates which keep their companies competitive - the essence of Adam Smith's market theories at work.

On Politics:  

"There is also the rise of the Tea Party. The very fact that so many people are joining the Tea Party or becoming politically Independent suggests that people are less willing to be spoon-fed by a largely biased media and are thinking for themselves again."

 Good lord, this man is ignorant! Rarely has any political group in America been  fed more directly or more exclusively by a biased media than the Tea  Partiers. I think Carson mistakenly was referring to normal media outlets, but these people get the ultimate in biased reporting - Faux News, all propaganda,, all the time.  

Carson also, of course rejects many scientific initiatives related to energy and climate, since God will take care of it, as he did when, in a dream, he helped Carson pass freshman Chemistry (yeah, really).

In summary, I'm quite sure Dr. Carson is a nice man and a good doctor. I'm equally sure he is a political naïf, who doesn't even really suspect much about economics, religions other than his own and numerous other issues a candidate ought to be at least passing  familiar with.  While he has distanced himself from the Westboro Baptists, , he cites the Bible as authority just as they do.  It worries me. Ask former Hopkins colleagues how good a choice for public office Ben Carson would be. The answer might surprise you (but not me).

Is "X" the new "Z"?

Is "X" the new "Z"?

          

      While watching (insert your favorite TV show here) the other night, it occurred to me that I was seeing an abnormally high percentage of "new and better" drugs whose names begin with the letter X. That's odd enough, since X is the third from last in usage frequency in English. Stranger yet, the "Xs" are invariably  pronounced as "Z", which is essentially tied with X for that third from last spot.  Just for information's sake,  "J" and "Q" are 25th and 26th respectively. So, because I have this kind of time,  I had to ask, "Why this trend?"  It turns out that this is apparently derived from the same basic place as housing development, Auto models  and country club names - that is, the name has little bearing on the actual product.

         We commonly refer to Jazz as the original American art form, but certainly Advertising is a close second. while Jazz is good for your soul and reflects the artistry and virtuosity of the performer, advertising is based on one simple commandment - make the public  want, and think they need, shit you would otherwise probably not buy. Period. At the turn of the century, advertising was more about announcing the availability of a given product and its price.  Flash ahead to 2014 and the lines of people camping outside an Apple Store to be among the first to purchase a product they've never seen, but which, Apple's adverts assure them, they must have, or risk being unhip. A century ago advertising told you how much apples cost per pound.  Today it tells us why they are the next "great/new/ must have" thing.

          I have already blogged at length on Auto model names and how housing development names are chosen. I even volunteered to do it (make up names) for half of whatever they currently pay the idiots who do it.  A review of these literary masterpieces would reflect my belief that truth in advertising is a good thing. There are no deer at Deer Island, no Bay in Bay Springs, etc. Likewise, auto names , especially Asian ones, are simply inventions of letters that somehow, to the Asian mind sound attractive - Elantra, Camry, Miata, etc.  

          Let's return  to the naming of drugs, before I mindlessly digress into a perhaps related, but less germane, rant. A partial list of recent "X" named drugs gives us:  Xalatan, Xalkori, Xanax , Xarelto,  Xeljanz,  Xeloda,  Xenazine,  Xenical, Xeomin, Xgeva, Xiaflex,  Xifaxan, Xofigo, Xolair, Xopenex, Xtandi, Xyntha, Xyrem, Xyzal..... ad nauseum. None of these names, it should be noted, even hints at the drug's usage.

          Less recently, drug companies at least made an attempt to name a drug in a manner that suggested, however vaguely, at the drug's purpose. "Abilify" at least had the root of the word "ability" or "able", probably in an effort to assure the user that they would somehow be more "able", or gain the ability, to refrain from strangling their spouse in a fit of depression.  "Abreva" shortens (abbreviates) the length of time your cold sore lasts.  "Lipitor" sounds a bit like it might relate to lipids (fats) which to most of us is related to cholesterol. "Replens" replenishes tears. "Elavil" elevates mood. And Dulcolax, Exlax and Turbolax....well, you can see where I'm going with this!

          Enter the "X pronounced as Z" drugs, none of which names convey any detectable sense of usage or purpose.   Of 1436 products added to the British National Formulary (BNF, and the only source I could find for this rant) between 1986 and 2005, more than a fifth had names that began with z or x or contained a prominent x or z within them. In 1986, only 19 branded drugs began with one of these letters. Over the next two decades, the number of brands beginning with a z increased by more than 400% (to 63) and those beginning with an x increased by 130% (to 16). In the same period, the overall content of the BNF grew by only 80%.

          Why this proliferation of exotic "nonsense names"?  I would propose that it could possibly  reflect  the fast rate at which new products were being introduced, the fact that the difference between many “me too” drugs was more apparent than real, the immense rewards that were seen to accrue from innovative marketing, and the fact that the ploys available for use in the naming of drugs are so restricted. I believe it more likely, however,  that we as consumers are unaccustomed to seeing the "X" and "Z" words and their relatively infrequency in everyday language makes them stand out in memory. It would have been of no consequence two or three decades ago, since we saw little prescription drug advertising in media. Now we are urged to "Ask your doctor about......"

          We also see the kindly grandpa at the secret fishing hole which he can now reach with son and grandson because of a product which ameliorates his COPD. Medical issues which used to be the subject of doctor patient discussion are now cleverly abbreviated so we all can enjoy them.  "Afib", "COPD", "Low T", "PAD" are all examples  of recent entries. We've come a long way from "Father John's Cough Medicine" which treated ....(wait for it) coughs! It should however, in fairness,  be noted that it was loaded with Cod liver oil and tasted of licorice and had relatively little effect on coughs.  

         So who cares? Obviously Big Pharma cares truly, madly deeply, since the actual production cost of drugs like atorvastatin is essentially dirt cheap, since it is essentially  a calcium salt!), While "on patent" for the previous 20 years, Lipitor made Pfizer a ton of money for a very small R& D cost. Off patent, and produced in many places, it is so cheap, that I actually get it free (no co-pay)  using an on line pharmacy.

          All the "X" drug manufacturers hold out that same hope for  their drugs, and advertising is slanted at the rosy outcomes and positive results possible with these new and cool sounding medications. Xenecal is a classic example. It doesn't even treat a real medical condition, rather is a prescription weight loss aid. Interestingly enough it is designed to be used with a low fat diet and weight maintenance,(which would seem to  preclude the need for its use! Because it is advertised on TV as a miracle weight loss drug in the USA, the most obese nation in the world excluding Samoa,  many ask for it without considering the other things Xenecal can do for you. That list includes:  oily spotting in your undergarments; oily or fatty stools; orange or brown colored oil in your stool; gas with discharge, an oily discharge; loose stools, or an urgent need to go to the bathroom, inability to control bowel movements; an increased number of bowel movements; stomach pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, rectal pain; or weakness, dark urine, clay-colored stools, itching, loss of appetite, or jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes). problems with your teeth or gums; cold symptoms such as stuffy nose, sneezing, cough; fever, chills, sore throat, flu symptoms; headache, back pain; or mild skin rash. This only the list of common  side effects. maybe one should just put down the cheeseburger?   

         This barrage of medical products isn't going away, as Big Pharma has very deep pockets, grossing $460 billion annually, and reaches into them often. House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell each were individually awarded over $130,000 by the Pharmaceutical industry, this year. Pfizer alone spent $1.37 million buying members of Congress. Although Their major players would have us believe that their profits are all used for Research & Development, that is also grossly misleading. Merck was very public about having spent $1 billion dollars to bring Vioxx to market. They were relatively quiet  about the $2.5 billion in sales it generated in its first year on the market.   That's a 150% return on investment in the first year, and after that it's mostly profit, as manufacturing costs are low. Of course, even though Merck tried to disguise the heart attack frequency increase in Vioxx users, it was forced to recall and stop production about five years later. In addition to its own studies, on September 23, 2004 Merck apparently received information about new research by the FDA that supported previous findings of increased risk of heart attack among rofecoxib (Vioxx) users . FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market.

         So keep on being grabbed by those catchy "X" and "Z" drug names.  Just remember, they are after your money first, your well being second.  If you use their product and get better, well, that's 

nice, too.  

What you believe isn't always what you know!

The next time one of your idiotic acquaintances of either extreme starts bitching about how the "gummint" controls the price of oil and overtaxes it, show them this. The Federal Government has taxed gasoline at just 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. The tax is the only, repeat the only control the fed exerts on the price of gasoline, and it has remained unchanged for the last 21 years. If you live in NY or CA, your state is taxing a gallon almost 4 times as much. 60% of the federal tax goes directly back into infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc). How does your state, in my case Florida, spend the 54.3 cents (or more) per gallon it collects.?

Again, to put this into perspective, the fed's share of the price of a gallon of gas (averaging) is about 6%, while California, as the most egregious example takes 23%. The fed uses the vast majority of this revenue to fix and/or build infrastructure IN THE STATES! What does your state do with their much higher share? In fact, adjusted for CPI increases, the real impact of the 1993 tax of 18.4 cents/gallon is just over 13 cents today. I only went here this morning, because an acquaintance mumbled something yesterday about "gas prices dropping just before the election. but now they'll go back up because "they" control the price of gasoline." Somewhere Adam Smith is weeping. And if you don't get that reference, you're part of the problem, lol!

How much ammo?

        Before you get all pissed off at what I'm about to write, remember, I'm a 26 year military veteran, not some civilian waving the flag and claiming patriotism. I read today, that former Marine Andrew Tahmooressi has been released from jail in Mexico. Good.  I'm glad he's repatriated and free from jail, since I doubt he represented much of a threat to Mexicans.

     What I find puzzling and a bit troubling  are the various reactions of the media and politicians to his imprisonment and to his subsequent release.

Today, Faux News trumpeted the good news, citing the "efforts" of  (of course) conservative lawmakers and groups to secure his release. At no time, in the release I read,  did it even mention why the ex-marine was in jail. I say ex-marine specifically because as usual, the person's previous national service is interpreted by some as a mitigating circumstance or proof of character. CNN did mention as an aside, "several guns."

         Reality is this: the ex-marine had 3  weapons in his truck - a .45 pistol, a pump shotgun, and an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, all loaded . he also had  400 rounds of ammunition. Now I'm all for personal protection (actually I'm not)  if you need it, but 3 loaded guns and 400 rounds of ammo is a Ted Nugent level of nuts! What got him jailed (also unmentioned by most sources) is that in Mexico, possession of a weapon that is restricted to the military (like an AR-15 or an AK-47) is a federal offence, not just a crime, but a major crime. Tahmooressi's release was made by a Mexican judge who did it without ruling on his  guilt or innocence of the offence.

       OK, so what?  As a  military man, I am well aware that, in the main, military personnel are simply a microcosm of society, some better, some worse. The fact that a person is ex-military is not the relevant issue here, his or her character is. As proof, I will cite just a few examples:  Danny Rolling (5), Charles Whitman (16),  David Berkowitcz (8) , Sammy (the Bull) Gravano (16), Timothy  McVeigh (168), John Muhammad (10). These men all have something in common; they were all honorably discharged from the US military, and they all committed multiple unspeakably violent murders. The parenthetical numbers are the number of fellow humans who died at their hands after their honorable discharge.  This is a radically abbreviated list, by the way.

        Mr.  Tahmooressi is allegedly suffering from PTSD. Hell, let's concede that he  is actually suffering from PTSD.  Most of the ex-military serial killers cite PTSD or a similar militarily induced emotional problem as fundamental to their heinous acts against civilians.  What he did is a Federal crime in Mexico. Period. His status as a former US Marine is simply that - a former status, that is until Far Righters decided to somehow  use it to smear the current administration. It is possible, even probable, that Mr. Tahmooressi posed little threat to anyone, yet, a member of his immediate  family said he carried all those loaded guns because "they made him feel safer." Can you say "paranoia?"    

        So how do we differentiate between those vets who are exemplary and good citizens and those who are time bombs - I propose we do exactly as we would anyone else - by evaluating their actions.  If  they have PTSD - treat them, provide all the care available  for as long as necessary. If they violate the law in a foreign nation - well, what would we do if a former Mexican soldier did the same thing?

     It is estimated that in the UK as much as 10% of former military members are, or will be, in jail 

following discharge for some reason.  I  can't find 

numbers for the US, and won't try to extrapolate. I 

will say that I feel it appropriate and obligatory to 

honor the service of those who volunteer to 

defend the country. However, I would also state that having served doesn't in the least mitigate crimes committed post discharge, in fact, I would argue that perhaps we should  expect a bit more respect for law, rather than condoning , or explaining away such transgressions. Finally we should continue to hold all Americans accountable for their actions without creating imaginary "special circumstances" for some based, on actions in another time and place. 

   
     

Another bullshit spam E-mail!

     Another spam chain e-mail day!  This one from someone who is apparently far too ignorant to understand what a budget is (and isn't) , far too  lazy to check facts, and far too Far Right to care. 
The e-mail has a picture of Congressman  Paul Ryan, handsome dude that he is, at the top and then proceeds, and I'll cut this, where appropriate, for brevity: Note the highlighted and multi-asterisked  line items are perennial Far Right targets. 


"PAUL RYAN'S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS"

A List of Republican Budget Cuts
Notice S.S. and the military are NOT on this list.

These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.
Read to the end.
* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.  **** (why should kids learn their letter?)
* Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings. ****
* International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings. **** (Yeah, who needs Art?)
* National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.  **** (see above!)
* Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon , eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U..S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings. ****
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.
*Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings..
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings. ****
* New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.
* Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts -- $9 million annual savings
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings. ****
* Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.  ****
* Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings..
* Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.
* U.S.Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings..
* General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years. 
*Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings. WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?(added by sender)
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings.
*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT??? (added by sender)
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.
*Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings. WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL (added by sender)
* Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.
*Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs -- $900 million savings.  ****
* Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings..****
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
*TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place?!
Maybe this is why the Democrats are attacking Paul Ryan.
Please Send to everyone you know.." And thus it ends.

     While it seems  obvious that some of these items might be passé, There are others, all, mind you, alleged  by implication to be favorites of Democrats which the frugal Republicans wish to rightfully, of course, do away with. The truth here, as it always is in dealing with Far Right loonies, is far from simple and closer to partisan.

      Where to start? Ok let's take the first lie first: This isn't a budget, it accounts for no expenditures, simply describes cuts) was actually introduced as The Spending Reduction act of 2011. It was introduced by Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, not Paul Ryan! It stayed in committee in the Republican controlled House, where Democrats couldn't have prevented a vote if they wished to, so obviously this vote was prevented from moving by the House majority, Republicans as we recall.  As to the particulars, you're right, some of this stuff deserves an asskicking for whomever proposed it, but many have been there for ages and ages. and neither party has had any desire to get rid of them.

    The  very first bill to kill the Congressional death gratuity was introduced by a TN Democrat, Rep. Jim Cooper; again,  it ain't Ryan (or even Republican) material! 

     As for the unpaid taxes of federal employees, that would be about 0.8% of the total unpaid taxes.($114 billion) Why not have everyone pay their taxes?  Retired military owe over a billion!, active duty and reservists owe about $336 million. The proposal is to fire any federal employees who are delinquent. What an easy way to get a discharge, huh? Again, this is not  a "Republican" idea, it has White House support on the principle involved. Again, the vast majority of unpaid tax is owed by non federal people. 

     As for the "Mohair and wool subsidy", Eisenhower signed it into law in 1954, been there ever since, again, a Republican initiative, not Democrat. 

     The "Alaska native....trading...Massachusetts" line item was signed into law by GW Bush in 2001. 

     Of course "Obamacare (the Affordable care Act) costs are there, they hate it because, as most Republican Governors now admit - it works! 

      OK, I'm tired of looking stuff up, which is what the originator of this previously discredited chain e-mail should have done. There is a bunch of stuff here that should go out the window, and I believe federal employees as well as the other 99.02 % of tax delinquents should be pressured to pay their taxes. I also believe Congress members probably don't need a years' salary as death benefit, although the members apparently actually got the money, unlike Walmart, who secretly insured employees, named themselves beneficiaries, and kept the death benefit themselves! 

     Many public area employers provide a death benefit for little or, no premium. Although a year's salary seems high for dying in the saddle, US corporations routinely award far more to CEOs who fail miserably. One quick example:  Mattell's CEO received $50 million in severance pay in 2000  after being employed for only two years during which time Mattel's stock price fell by 50 percent, wiping out $2.5 billion in shareholder value.  His payout for miserable failure was about equal to 287 Congressional death gratuities. I'm just sayin'! 

Bottom line: 1:  It ain't Ryan's "budget (or Bill or whatever) In fact Ryan wasn't even among the bill's 32 co-sponsors!  
 2: there is no massive "Democratic opposition" to many of these proposals  
3: It has been kept tabled in committee by the Republican majority in the US House, via a committee chaired by a Republican.
 4: The proposal to end the Congressional death gratuity was introduced by a Democrat .   

So why send this at all? It has to do with appearing to be fiscally responsible and blaming one's shortcomings on others. In all honesty, Ryan has nothing to do with this scurrilous chain e-mail other than his picture being  attached to it. It is simply another Far Right attempt to smear moderates of  both parties by implying that if Ryan supports  these line items , some of which are, no doubt, wasteful, then "wasteful" Democrats all oppose him. The inverse is true in many cases, however, as in the Congressional death gratuity issue, where it is a Democrat who has actually proposed ending it.  It also lumps into the equation several organizations  (PBS, NEA, NEH) which the Far Righters hate because they encourage people to learn and think for themselves. 

Another example is the proposal to end the Davis-Bacon ACT.  I am dead certain that no one receiving this e-mail could identify the law in question, in fact, I would be willing to bet  that less than 1 in 10,000 Americans could do so.  Naturally, proposing to overturn  a law no one can describe is easy. Actually it's a cheap shot. The law in question was sponsored by two Republicans and signed into law by A Republican president, Herbert Hoover. Simply put, it required that contractors working on federally funded projects (over a specified total cost) have to pay their workers a wage equivalent to the prevailing local wage. This was an attempt to discourage contractors from importing  (at the time) black or immigrant workers at low pay, rather than hiring locally and stimulating local economies.  While the act has been controversial, the controversy had usually centered not on the intent of the law, but the quality of its enforcement. In an era of real concern about non-documented immigrants undercutting home grown worker's rights,  many Republicans should adore this act, as it would avoid the use of cheaper immigrant labor, and insure a fairer marketplace of labor - oh wait, maybe they really don't want that (or their corporate masters don't).
      
     One more time, this proposal has been stalled for over two years by House Republicans, not Democrats as it implies! It also isn't a Paul Ryan proposal.
  
Facts can be embarrassing,   can't they?

Who is Rick Scott Running Against, and From?

        Just heard for the billionth time the Rick Scott campaign spot in which he appears to be running not against Charlie Crist, but against Barack Obama. The spot uses the phrase "Obama's federal takeover of education." Hearing that, disregard everything else because it is a lie. Common Core (which is what the ad is referring to) is not a federal government initiative. The reality is that Common Core came out of years of discussion between private, nonprofit groups and state education departments.

        The goal was to better prepare students for college and careers and to ensure that students in different states learn the same academic concepts. On a personal note,  over  20 years of teaching, I have seen some of the frustrations placed on students whose family move has placed them in another state's core curriculum framework to their own great disadvantage. In fact, Florida has implemented something very like Common Core across state school districts for just that reason, for student benefit and continuity.  

         The Council of Chief State School Officers -- a national organization of public officials who head state education departments -- discussed developing common standards during its annual policy forum in 2007, a year before Barack Obama won the presidency. In 2009, that council and the National Governors Association agreed to create Common Core. They developed the standards with the help of teachers, parents and experts. Although Common Core is voluntary, the Federal government has had a role in encouraging states to adopt the standards. Why? Because preparing students consistently and with rigor is a good idea, that's why, dumb ass! States earned a small number of extra points (40 of a possible 500) in the competition for grants from Race to the Top, Obama’s signature program that provided added money for education, if they adopted standards to prepare students for college and work.

       So...who could possibly object to this? It turns out that there are numerous  state efforts to refuse to use (which of course any state can do, it isn't mandated!) Common Core. Is it because they teach math? No. How about English? No. It turns out that as one might suspect, those old bugaboos  separation of church and state and political point of view are to blame. Here is a quote from a California "Stop Common Core" website:  "In case you’re wondering, nowhere in the “Rights and Responsibilities” teachers’ guide is there any mention of the founding of America, our God-given rights enshrined in the Constitution or the protection of individual rights through limited government."

       Holy Cow, Mike, who could object to that? Let's start with "God given rights."  If "God"  gives rights, why are women being sold as ISIS whores in Syria today? Unless you live alone in a cave on some island you have those rights accorded you by whatever government you live under, not God. The phrase "God given rights"  Is small consolation to someone living under an oppressive government.   Second, this is a third grade book being criticized, and it isn't a true history book at that, nor is it meant to be.  The founding of America is covered in depth in high school level US History classes, and again in US Government. Last, the construct of the Constitution is difficult enough to teach and thoroughly convey to high school juniors,  I know because I taught it. I can just see the family at the dining table asking little 8 year old Timmy "Hey, son, how about that  separation of powers, huh?".

        Now for the icing on the cake: Don't like the way this text is put together? Don't use it! Now wasn't that simple? in fact there are no standard texts associated with Common Core, and school districts nationwide will continue to do as they have traditionally done  in selecting textbooks . Unfortunately, not all will be as smart as Orange County, Florida, where teacher committees review and recommend text adoption. In some districts, local school boards, almost never consisting of  anyone who really knows education, will select texts. Unfortunately, these districts' students will suffer as they leave school believing that "Creationism" is science, and similar agenda driven drivel.  

        Put in perspective, the total Federal interface with common core is an 8% edge in "Race To the Top" money for states adopting these educator prepared and Nat'l Governor's Association approved standards! Compare that methodology with the Bush II  "No Child Left Behind" catastrophe which actually was constructed so as to withhold money from those schools which needed it most!  States don't have to adopt Common Core, but they are better positioned to secure the federal money if they do. Period. One wonders how many Republican governors are now attempting to distance themselves from their own well thought out prudent and actions in this area for purely political reasons.