And we thank Unions for

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I was recently assailed by pro-union people who tell me we have much to thank unions for.

I concur. Let us thank the unions for:

The federal minimum wage law. Can anyone out there buy a house, raise children and save for retirement on the federal minimum wage which is a direct result of union activity?

Child labor laws. No longer must our children slave away in factories working 12-15 hour days turning out stuff. Indeed! Now we demand children in third world countries turn out the same stuff for similar wages and similar working conditions.

The 40-hour week. Thank you unions for putting into the law a 40-hour week (which is not the case BTW, employers can define a work week to be more or less than 40 hours. Yes huhn.) With this 40-hour work week comes the requirement that such full time (a better description) employees be offered a suite of benefits and access to even more. YES! So in order to get around this requirement, businesses switch to employing people part time so they do not have to offer benefits. The nation's largest private employers do this and save money (more profits for shareholders and higher wages for management) as a result.

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/the-state-of-the-40-hour-workweek/ - bigger version

Better wages. Oh yes. As unions demand more pay, the end result is that cost is passed on to the consumers of the products the union is responsible for. Unions lead to higher prices for consumers since companies must pay more for wages & benefits, which are then passed on to customers. Unions lead to less productivity and job motivation since pay levels are usually determined by seniority rather than performance.

And how many union people shop there?

Job security. Amen, amen, amen. In a unionized company even the idiot is guaranteed a job. Unions often prevent more qualified workers from getting the jobs. Less proficient workers are often protected from layoffs or firing; thus, new positions open less frequently. Unions fight bills in legislatures, like drug testing, which make workplaces safer.

Unions represent the interest of workers. Betcha. Unions create an "us" vs. "them" hostility between ownership and workers. The union mmebers are favored over non union members. There is no "union." Further, in a union environment, workers cannot approach management directly; they have work through the union chain.

Except for people not in the union

Unions benefit everyone. Really? A business owner benefits from having control of his company wrestled away from him? How have unions benefited small farmers? How have unions benefited freelance writers Unions have driven movie making out of the United States into countries where a movie can be produced at a fraction of the cost in the US. 

THANKS UNIONS!

Sand in the gears

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The US Census Bureau recently "randomly" tapped my house to participate in a one of the big surveys they occasionally do so they can generate reports to justify their existence beyond the once-a-decade work they do.

and I responded. Won't be what they expect, but I responded.

The form is a long piece of work. It sought a bunch of details about the people in the house.

Among the details asked was race. I checked the OTHER box and wrote Human in the space provided. I do that on any form these days which asks my race.

Flip past that and the form began to ask detailed questions. I didn't object to answering the questions, per se. I know the Census keeps the information sealed for decades, so privacy is not a worry.

What I objected to is the Census asking the questions and telling (lying) to me that the information is used by local, state and national government to decide about taxes and how resources are allocated. What I objected to is having to answer a suite of questions which the Census is not Constitutionally obligated to ask.

About halfway through the form's questions about me, I quit answering. Didn't bother to do the rest for anyone else in the house. I shoved the form in the envelope and sent it back to the Census bureau.

It reminded me of the Selective Service registration I had to when in high school. Kids, excuse me, males today still have to do this. I had to in order to get financial aid for college (so it was said.) So, I filled the form out. And I filled another form out. And I filled another form out. Selective Service had (has) three different files for me, each with different information.

One of these days I'm gonna file a Freedom of Information Act request with the federal government about myself. I know I've said in the past I was gonna do it, but I just can't work up the interest to do so.

In the meantime, I'm gonna keep shoveling sand into the gears that is our government and hope someday it brings stuff to a grinding halt. Maybe then we'll work as a nation to straighten things out and prevent it from happening again.

Ok, so I'm being a pollyanna. A me bud Mel said today on IM, "everyone has to have a goal."

Cause you don't wanna know

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Raise your hand if you know someone very well who has died from leukemia or has suffered from this dread disease.

OK, now raise your other hand if you know, at least as well as the person with leukemia, the Mexican-American singer who died in a plane crash.

Now lemme tell you researchers have modified the virus that leads to AIDS to affect leukemia and how the body fights off cancer.

I now ask you, which is the more important story?

Which story will dominate the news for the next week or so? How many of you had even HEARD of the Mexican singer prior to the plane crash?

BA should get one of these for Christmas.

It is hard to put into words the revulsion which is spread through me right now. While it is not the sum total of my feelings, I find Brutal Antipathy recently got very close to my feelings when he wrote "...I don't hate the human race for the fun of it.  I hate the human race for its countless acts of injustice delivered onto other humans.  I hate humanity for its willing ignorance when vast knowledge is waiting for consumption.  I hate the human race for its sanctimony and condescension in light of an ever changing face of morality.  I hate the human race for too many things to list here, but one thing is certain, my hatred compels me to do what I can to rectify the situation when I can, and to point out the problem when I can't."

Pink Floyd's song The Trial also comes to my mind.

Some people are going to be aghast at the above statements and not a few are going to wonder how I can claim to be Christian while harboring such feelings. Most of these people, when they get done judging me, will resume discussion of the young lady who died in a plane crash and forget about the work on leukemia with the AIDS virus. Ah so.

Add caption. G'head. You can do it.

Gorillas in the midst

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meet Phread Andropopogeopanatakis (pronounced John Smith).

Phread wants a job. Phread can work. Phread is willing to work (more important). Phread finds a job and is a perfect fit. Phread gets hired and likes the job, does well, etc etc etc.

Copacetic.

Come payday, Phread collects his paycheck.

As he leaves the payroll counter, a human gorilla in a monkey suit with a suspicious bulge under the arm stands with a hand out.

"Gimme $20. Gonna cost you $20 a week to work here," Magilla says.

Magilla shoves the money in his pocket. Magilla is not connect in any way with any government agency. The double sawbuck Phread just handed over is not going into any government coffer. It's going into the hands of private people.

The payout has nothing to do with how well Phread does his job. The money does not pay for him to have job training and continuing education. The payout, in fact is not necessary to Phread being able to do the job. In fact, the vast majority people around the nation who do the exact same job Phread does, do not pay this money to Grape Ape and his associates.
What should Phread do? If he complains, he gets fired. If he complains about that, he's told this is entirely legal.

What would you do?

What would you do if someone came to you every payday and demanded part of your paycheck for the privilege of working there. See above stipulations on the money and your recourse.


Lemme ask a slightly different question: A person willing to work, can work, wants to work and finds a job. Are they entitled to keep all the money they earn from the job? Disregard taxes, insurance and other voluntary contributions for this discussion. This is an involuntary contribution.

Should they be forced to pay for something they don't want? Should they have to pay for the privilege of working?

Some people think so.

Cut this down to the bare facts. Trim the excess, carve away the fat and get rid of the superfluity.

This next question is really going to make some people mad.

Under the circumstances described in the link above and my information, what is the real difference, then, between a gangster offering "protection" and a union offering "representation?"

I can't find much. As I see it, they are both a couple of thugs, one just has, for the moment, legal protection. A thug with the protection of law is a thug. Fortunately, Michigan is getting ready to remove this legal protection and let hard working people keep their money or join a union of their own volition.

If unions are actually doing the good work they claim, then they should be able to get people to join willingly. Forcing people to join is thuggery, no matter how prettily you describe it.

Don't get yer hopes up

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
So the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) promises to rule on same gender marriage.

Don't get excited about this one way or another. As SCOTUS reporter for National Public Radio, Nina Totenberg puts it, "Less expected was the court's decision to review California's ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8. That case potentially could lead to a decision on whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry."

Key word potentially.

As this is my column and I get to have my say, I don't believe SCOTUS is going to issue a truly definitive ruling on this one. When it comes to incredibly controversial matters, the Supremes often split 5-4 with neither side providing an unshakeable and bulletproof opinion.

In other words, they waffle more than a short order cook on Sunday morning.

 Totenberg's report is more optimistic: "Opponents of gay marriage appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that states are free to limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. The justices said they would hear arguments on that question, but they also called for arguments as to whether gay marriage opponents have the right to be in court at all, since California is no longer defending the ban."

The Granola State ban is on gay marriage etc etc etc etc.

I submit (again) the real decision here is: Is marriage a government function or a religious function?

You can wade through the blogs and read previous postings by me on this subject.

Anyway, I have some questions for both sides, after one brief aside,

With one exception all the arguments I've heard against same gender marriage are religious. The sole exception, by a gent who was far too smart for his own good (and I mean that exactly the way I say it) said he objected because it meant the end of the human race. He said same gender couples cannot reproduce. Tru Dat, but his argument implied everyone would start batting for the same side. See above explanation and parenthetical note.

As for those who argue on religious grounds, I ask the following:

Do you have the right to force your religious beliefs on other people?

oooooooooooo. Yeah I did.

I get a hesitant "No" to that question when I ask it in person. How about you?

In person, I then ask, OK, what if their religious beliefs allow same gender marriage?

I get a face full of Biblical scriptures. Among the more rabid, I get denunciations and comments about hellfire, damnation and so forth, stopping just short of calling for a pogrom.

Islam ain't the only religion with extremists.

How about you? If you believe you should not force your religious beliefs on other people, then how can you stop two people of adult age from marrying each other regardless of their gender?

Asking the same questions of those who support same gender marriage is a bit trickier. First, the question of marriage as a government function or a religious function must be asked.

If religious, then it's a whole 'nother ball of CnH2n+2. If the religion allows same gender marriage, then I shut up. If the religion will not allow same gender marriage, then I ask: Do you have the right to force your religious beliefs on other people? On this one, at least, SCOTUS has ruled decisively - Adherents to a religion cannot be forced to perform rituals which violate their religious tenets.

The same questions can be asked of both sides if marriage is a function of government.  To wit: Should the majority rule? Does the minority have a right to protection under the law? How far does that extend?

Perhaps this is a bit simplistic, but I'm judiciously applying Occam's Razor in a slightly different fashion to pare this down. Should the people be allowed to run the government or should government run the people?

Rephrasing, do you have the right to force your beliefs on other people?

Buncha (obscenity) liars

 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Recently had a discussion with a person holding an elected office. This person has made a decision which makes his re-election about as likely as me being elected to replace him.

Knowing this, he said he was pondering resigning. He asked my opinion.

On one hand, I do think he's no longer suited for the elected post he hold because of the decision he made. His decision is not illegal, immoral, unjust, unethical, etc etc etc. It's just a decision he made, one which a lot of people would make if they had the ability to follow through like he does.

But. The majority of me came down on the other side.

 Forget about the expense of having a special election.

In running for election, this man promised the voters of his district he would serve in that office. He made them a promise. He owes them and should stay in office until the end of his term or something prevents him from completely the term in office.



He made a promise.

Severe illness, involuntary move taking him out of his district, death, criminal charges are reasons I can accept for stepping down mid-term. Probably are a few more, but those came to immediate mind.

Too many elected politicians up and quit office because they get mad. Reboobican Reprehensible Newt Gingrich is prime example of this. He resigned, after winning the election, when the US House majority went to the Damnocrats. The people of his district elected him to represent them. He chose not to because his feelings got hurt.

He broke his promise. He lied.

And yet, a number of people voted for him to become the next president.

Now Reboobican US Sinator Jim DeMint is resigning mid term to take a job with a Cantservative brain trust in Washington.

Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar.

Get the idea?


Reboobican Georgia State Sinator Chip Rogers has also resigned to take a job with Georgia Public Broadcasting. And just when I was prepared to admit GPB was beginning to turn for the better.

Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. Liar.

Get the idea?
Of course in Rogers case, resigning to go to work for a notoriously liberal media outlet (much more so than National Public Radio), makes some sense. The man is an idiot. The Georgia Republican leader who organized an October lecture for GOP lawmakers in which a birther activist said that President Barack Obama and the United Nations are using "mind-control" to implement a sustainability agenda is resigning from the state Senate.

Running for office is a commitment for the term of office and a promise to every person in the district represented from the entire nation (president) to a City Council member in the smallest town.

Break that promise and you prove you are not worthy of holding office and should be thrown out.

Death sentence - warning graphic image

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
One of my favorite National Public Radio shows is This American Life. Show No. 480 was called "Animal Sacrifice." Part three discussed the show's host Ira Glass and his dog Piney.

Piney is a pound pooch, a rescue. Huzzah for that!

Straight up.

Piney is allergic to a LOT of things and his diet has to be changed periodically as he develops an allergy to what he'd been eating. F'dang.

Piney also takes medications. No worries mate! Lotsa entities do.

Piney takes medication to keep him calm. Ummm. Ok.

When going outside for regular bathroom breaks, Piney wears a muzzle. Ummm. Ok.

When coming inside from the every morning bathroom break, Ira's wife is almost always asleep. Inside the apartment they live in, Piney turns and lunges at Ira attempting to attack him. Say what?

When interviewed by the show's reporters, Ira said he could not remember how many people Piney had bitten. Ummm.

Two of those bitten were children.

Bonus points if you can tell me where this originally appeared.

Oh. Hell. No.

That dog needs to die. Now. Put a gun to it's head, pull the trigger and cease worrying the beast is gonna attack someone else.

I understand a lot of people will be horrified by my attitude.

Suck it up buttercup.

I got standing to talk. Do you?

The back of my head has a pair of scars, one not much visible these days. The other is considerably smaller than the original cut. This happens with scars over time.

Not me, but you get the idea.

The lacerations were from a neighbor's dog. It attacked me. About a minute after the dog attacked me, it died. The owner killed it with a shotgun.

No questions. No quarter. No recriminations. One. Dead. Dog.

As a teenager, I had a very expensive purebred dog. It attacked a child. Dad beat the dog until it was bleeding from the ears. Some time later it attacked another child. At my request, Dad killed the dog. I couldn't do it.

Understand these dogs were not being taunted or teased. The dog just attacked.

Clan Genius has also shared living quarters with another dog that bit people. I was OK with that one. Athena, a blonde cocker spaniel, would bite any adult that got between her and my children if she didn't know the adult. No objections there. She was protecting my kids.  Athena died of natural causes.

JMSIII, AKA the Old Man, by best friend, college roommate and godfather to my daughter had a dog which bit Susan. I still regret not killing the damned thing that night. Some time later, it attacked one of his kids.

Dead. Dog. He had it put down.

Where I come from, dogs that attack children are killed. Quickly and usually by the owner.

Bite child = automatic death sentence. That's the way it should be. Ira Glass' dog needs to be killed. You don't have to like this or agree with it. But if you bring a dog around me and it attacks a kid, I'm killing it. On the spot.

Whither parity?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If the vast majority of people where held accountable to the same set of rules they want applied to everyone else, much screaming would ensue, plenty of blood would be shed and most of those fighting and screaming would be saying "THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT!"

(I drop into second person here to put some flesh on these bones. Please, take it personally if you will.)

Then, pray tell, what the hell did you mean?

Never mind. I know what you meant.

You want the rule to apply to them and not to you.

"I do not!" you complain at me.

Then why are you screaming when the that rule is applied to you? Never mind, we're just going to get into a tautology with the core of it being you didn't bother to think.

Ok, done with second person.

In addition to apply equally, parity also means taking the time to understand as many and as much of the consequences as reasonably possible. Failure to follow through like this can lead to disaster.

I am reminded of a D&D session I GM'ed one day. One of the players was being attacked pretty severely. Another player had a Wish. He cast his Wish - something along the lines that he wished the other person would not be attacked, hurt, suffer, etc.

So, I killed the character. Just. Like. That.

It met every requirement of the Wish, but was certainly NOT what they had in mind. Think about that next time you demand something, a new law, a new rule or want to restrict someone's rights.

I regularly run across people who think the media should be muzzled. IOW, there are things, they say, which media should not discuss. What they refuse to accept is any prohibition on media also applies to them.

They refuse to wrap their minds around the concept.

But that's the failing here anyway. Very few people want parity. They want superiority. They want to dictate the rules, but not have those rules apply to them,

Me? I want parity. I want the rules I apply to everyone else applied to me. I even want the rules other people apply to others applied to them. I'm even willing to let someone else pick most of the rules. G'head.

Just make sure whatever rule is picked, it's applied with parity. (Second person warning.)

Chances are really good, you won't like what happens when things swing around to you. No, you won't.

I calls 'em like they are.

And speaking of parity, I direct your attention to this story. Ain't pickin' on Catholics. This just happened to be in my newsfeed today. The hypocrisy here can be found pretty much everywhere. Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pagan, Atheist, Buddist, Hindu, Democracy, Totalitarian, Muslim. Pick anything where people are grouped together.

On one hand the Catholic Church has denied a boy access to a ritual because he publicly expresses a belief which is in contradiction to Catholic teachings. Yet other people who also go against Catholic teachings are not excluded.

What's the difference? I ain't figgered that one out yet. I am one of those people who has been excluded from participating in certain religious activities for the things I say and do. Perhaps it could be that my sin, being different from theirs, is unacceptable. We must be reading different Bibles.

Anyway, I ask again: Whither parity? Most people say they want it, but most people become liars when equal application is applied.

Stouble Dandards

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I have long been of the opinion that marriage is more complicated than most people think, and I don't just mean two people trying to live so joined.

Part of my consternation is: Who gets to officiate the ceremony?

If marriage is a religious institution, then government has no part in determining who can perform the ceremony, provided it is conducted as a religious ritual. If marriage is a government function, then government can indeed decide who and who may not officiate a ceremony.

Judge Sarah Evans Barker, a federal judge appointed by the late Ronald Reagan, has ruled a person who officiates a marriage ceremony must hold a government-sanctioned role. Religious figures and government officials, as defined in law, may officiate.

At first I thought this was a double standard and double speak and so on, hence the title of this post. As I wrote, my thoughts jelled to some degree.

To me, this ruling pushes marriage toward being a government function, not a religious one. It's government because government allows someone who is a government functionary to officiate a marriage. Period.

That government allows religious figures to officiate a ceremony is a nod to the multi-millenia-old tradition of marriage being overseen by religion. Common Law, in other words. Common Law, especially one this ancient, holds as much sway in courts of law as codified law.

Religion has long been a function of the state, but overseen by the religious side. Talk about your marriages of convenience!

The judge in this case is sort of ruling on the Constitutional Amendment erroneously called "separation of Church and State." The judge ruled that getting ordained enough to perform marriages is pretty simple, but the group suing over this one chose to not get someone ordained. The plaintiffs steadfastly refuse to engage in religion.

By stating that as well, the judge is clearly saying marriage is a religious matter, at least when government is not involved.

The more I think on this one, the more I think this judge has issued a ruling that comes down on the side of religion. While the judge clearly did not define what a religion can be, the judge also said official sanction by a recognized religious body is necessary to perform a marriage.

So, what Judge Barker has done here is clearly split the middle and left matters exactly where they were.

Is marriage a state institution or religious institution? Judge Barker's decision doesn't tell us either way.

Who you calling crazy?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If you have a cold, a quick check can reveal the specific virus attempting to take over your body. This is empirical science. The rhinovirus can be seen, observed etc etc etc.

Rhinovirus is from the ancient Latin rhino meaning to jab the middle of your face into places it does not belong and virus meaning to feel downright icky. And so the word rhinovirus describes the sensation of reviewing a member of Congress' expense account or your body being invaded by a virus that makes your eyes water, nose run and stomach rebel. Not much difference in the two.

This is empirical. The budget and the virus can both be studied under lab conditions with plenty of safeguards to prevent contamination to prevent getting infected and turning into an extra on The Walking Dead.

Empirical. It can be studied, duplicated, seen, manipulated. It exists in a hard form and has been proven over and over and over again.

D&D or DSM...

Enter now the DSM, and no, I don't mean something that involves geeks sitting around a table rolling dice and pretending. Except I do. DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a publication of the American Psychiatric Association. Shrinks, in other words.

DSM first came out in 1952. DSM-V (five) has just come out. If thought I was kidding about geeks sitting around a table and rolling dice, think again. While I admit to not being a psychiatrist, I know more about the field than the average lay person. I also know a WHOLE lot more about what goes on at the conferences than pretty much 99 percent of the world. The fraction who does know more are the shrinks, their assistants and medical field reporters.

DSM-V has some changes. According to some in the shrink field, DSM-V went too far. Others say not far enough.

Psychiatry comes to the masses.

According to one member of the APA’s Board of Trustees, “the evidence just wasn’t there" reports John Cloud in the abovelinked article. Evidence? EVIDENCE?

If you call suppositions and votes in which a majority rules to be "evidence," then DSM is as full of evidence as a constipated elephant is full of fecal material. Yes. That's how DSM is modified. Get enough votes, it's changed. Bugger reality. Grab some rose-colored glasses and look again.

I give you this example: from Cloud's story: Continuing the expansion of diagnostic criteria, the new DSM will also include a controversial new diagnosis called “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD),” a label that can be attached to “children who exhibit persistent irritability and frequent episodes of behavior outbursts three or more times a week for more than a year.”

ahem.

Shrinkatry cuts the three middle steps

Anyone other than me have experience raising a 2-year-old? Teenagers? Apparently none of the shrinks do.

Thanks to this kind of pseudo-science we have a huge number of kids in school today on Ritalin, which is a whole 'nother blog.

Anyway, I am in favor of science that can change and as new information comes about, updates to meet the available facts. I am not in favor of science which operates like Congress with majority rule. Majority rule is what gave the world the idea the earth is the center of the universe, a flat earth,and whole bunch of other "approved science" which flies directly in the face of provable facts. While there is probably some good in DSM, the parts which are nothing more than bad witch doctors forcing emetics on their rational colleagues.

DSM ain't a tater. You can't cut the bad part out and cook the rest for supper. If part of the DSM is questionable, that puts the entire book into question as far as I'm concerned

I also believe there are some good psychiatrists out there, albeit I have never met one.

Because stupid is easy to understand

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I am reading a book which is a collection of short news items along the Dumb Crook News. The book does include plenty of dumb crook news, but also contains short quotes from the legendary politician Dan Quayle.

Quayle may indeed be an idiot, as evidenced by the sheer number of malapropisms he uttered and the fact he served in Congress. This, however, is belied by this: Quayle joined "Cerberus Capital Management, a multi-billion dollar private equity firm, in 1999 and is chairman of the company's Global Investments division. As chairman of the international advisory board of Cerberus Capital Management, he recruited former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney, who would have been installed as chairman if Cerberus had successfully acquired Air Canada" among other high profile jobs.

This got me to thinking. Every time Quayle uttered one of his infamous statements, he was headline news all over the world.

Maybe Quayle is a lot smarter than people give him credit for being.

Attacked for "cheesy grits" statement.

Think about it.

By uttering a seriously stupid statement, Quayle put himself and his apparent idiocy into the media, dominating it for several days.

Following me yet?

Ok, a hypothetical - Say I lose my mind and decide to run for office. You can bet I'll have a load of policies and plans which some people are going to hate, especially the media.

When it comes time to introduce one of these concepts, I'll get in front of a bunch of reporters and do something idiotic and introduce the policy. Which do you think is going to dominate the news?

Are you with me?

Try this one: Which is easier to wrap your brain around - The Fed's monetary policy or politician Todd Akin talking about "legitimate rape." OK, which one makes you more upset?

And who's zoomin' who? as Aretha once asked

Which one is really, truly and genuinely going to have significant and long-lasting impacts on your life?

Are you with me now?

Politicians are masters of diversionary tactics. I'm wondering if the very best ones are the ones we think are the most stupid. I'm wondering if the ones we think are the most stupid are the very ones we need to watch for reasons entirely opposite to what the majority of people believe.

It appears the great majority of people prefer ridicule to comprehension. Because, stupid is easy to understand.

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Crost my FB newsfeed today came this image:

Wellllll, it ain't exactly that simple.

I give you these real life examples:

Some time back I was talking with a community leader. The subject of jobs came up and I mentioned how a then-new industry in town had gone to just about an all-Hispanic workforce for the floor (i.e. the heavy lifting jobs). This plant had opened and hired all local and US natives, the vast majority being natives of this county.

Within six months, the only US natives still employed at the plant were upper management. The locals had mostly quit, a few were fired. Why?

The local folks came in late, left early, didn't bother to show up at all some days and complained vigorously about actually having to work.

I mentioned this to the community leader. He said he understood this, accepted it and felt it was right.

WTF?

He explained to me the people do not want and will not take factory floor jobs. They want (and presumably deserve) inside jobs in the air conditioning.

I suggested these people then need to pay their dues working the line before they can get promoted.

No, he said. We're not willing to work that way.

WTF?

Some of these folks now on the line at this local factory are making more than $30K a year, which is awesome pay in one of the poorest counties in Georgia.

And this one - http://growinggeorgia.com/news/2011/08/probationers-to-help-fill-south-georgia-farm-jobs-again-in-fall/. Most of the probationers didn't make it through the summer either. All their talk about wanting a job fell flat when they actually had to work. I could not find the link, but I recall reading a story of a news crew who shadowed probationers on a farm in Sumter County. Only one was still working after lunch.

The others complained vigorously, had to take smoke breaks, answer cell phones and so on.

OK, so both these stories deal with manual labor, not skilled labor. The central point remains-

Businesses which say they cannot find "workers with the necessary skills" aren't just complaining about the lack of people with training and education. They are complaining about people who think every job needs to come with Silicon Valley perks like free cappucinos, skateboarding down the halls, couches to lounge on and so forth. We have a generation of people who view work as playground, not a place to get busy and start being productive.

That is the real problem. You may disagree. if you do, get out and talk to the people who run business and industry. Ask them about workplace ethics.

Like Herman Cain or not, this man is an example of the kind of people this nation was, to some degree is, and needs to be. Until people get the idea that hard work is necessary, Mr. Krugman et al and going to continue to suffer from delusions of entitlement.

Lemmings are smarter than that

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lemmings don't really plunge en mass off cliffs into the water to drown. They, unlike people, are smarter than that.

People are quite willing to follow the leader into a mass suicide. Blind, unswerving and fanatical devotion is nothing much new. Of recent times consider Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, Barack Obama.

(Aside - Ye presidential supporters and haters of Bush, please list for me 5 policies started by Bush which were not continued by the current president. Yeah. )

Historically, the record of humanity is packed with people who are willing to plunge off a cliff in "support" of a leader.

Most animals don't act that way. Some cetaceans, for reasons we don't understand, do. I suspect they are Reboobicans or Damnocrats.

The looming plunge du jour is the Fiscal Cliff which has some people worried. Not me. Not in the slightest.

In the first place, this "fiscal cliff" is an artificial creation of Congress. No action by a legislative body is permanent except for a decision to disband.

In other words, the "fiscal cliff" was created by Congress. It can be magically dispelled, negated, vanished, deleted, postponed or otherwise removed by an Act of Congress.

I say magically and I mean it. It is magic.

You are welcome to disagree. I ask you to explain it then.

Your explanation must eventually come down to one simple fact. Congress created this situation. Congress can decide to fix the situation.

You may say that is not magic. I disagree.

This how the fed works

The convolutions, contortions and distortions of Congress cannot be explained completely, fully and totally. Cannot. You can get "experts" in any field to discuss Congress and get diametrically opposing views. They can even use math to prove their points.

Congress conducts mysterious ceremonies with secretive rites and lots of invocations and WHOA! Stuff happens.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I agree. But with Congress, there ain't no technology involved. It's nothing more than a group of people in an arcane ritual after which things happen.

Unless Hari Seldon steps out of hiding, I will continue to insist it is magic. But even Hari had to rely on the paranormal eventually.

So there is no fiscal cliff looming. It is an illusion created by magicians to divert American attention from the real issues at hand. It can be dispelled by the magic of Congress or by anyone who's really willing to look through the holographic projection.

The problem is Americans prefer illusions. This "fiscal cliff" is going to be used as an excuse to continue this road to perdition which we are rightly zooming down in our Chinese-made grass-woven carrying apparatus and the vast majority of people are gonna buy it.

I'll bet you 80 percent of the nation cannot remember the last "fiscal cliff" of a few years ago and how the nation got through that. Three years from now, this bit of magic will be forgotten as well.

Having traveled recently to Washington State and back via planes, I went through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screening twice.

Woohoo! TSA porn!

I was not impressed. But then I generally am not positively impressed by the things the federal government does. Negative impressed every time I read about what the federal government does, yes.

Flight out, I went through the full body screener. It dinged. Of course.

I stood in front of a TSA agent who eyeballed me from a foot away. Never laid a hand on me. He passed me right through after I took my hat off and showed him the inside of it.

The tote bag I carried went through a second time after taking the Kindle out. Zipped right through.

Coming back, it went right through the first time.

Coming back the full body screener was shut down. As I prepared to step through the metal detector, I told an agent "It's gonna ding."

It did.

He asked me if I had any metal implants. I don't. He suggested I take my suspenders off and try it again.

I took my galluses off and they went through the X-ray machine. I went through the detector without a hitch.

We had a fist-bump (am not kidding) of celebration when I passed this time.

Frankly, I go through tighter security (and looser) getting into the prison where I preach.

On the flight out, being me, I set about figuring out a few things.

I peg a 95 percent chance I can get a working gun into the cabin of a commercial airliner if I'm working by myself. Chances to 97-98 percent with an assistance. Chance of successfully getting a gun onto a plane with three people, so close to 100 percent as makes no never mind.

I also figured out how to get a knife on board.

National Remove Your Rights Agency, rather

I note I did not take a gun or a knife on the plane when Jesse & I went to Washington. I shipped 'em out west UPS and shipped 'em back FedEx.

The problem is the security protocols were created by man. Anything a man creates, man can finagle, dodge, get around or otherwise defeat. There can be no absolute security as long as a person has freedom of mind and to a lesser extent, freedom of the body. The Matrix movies come to mind here. But that's a whole 'nother subject.

Simple fact is, I betcha I can get a gun on a plane. The more people I have helping the higher the rate of success gets. Given a dozen or more people working with me, there's no chance I could not get a gun on a plane.

And that's all the details yer gonna get from me about this.

I do add on the flight from Atlanta to Minneapolis, I did not give into the urge to do a Freddie Mercury impress and sing "I don't wanna die." But I seriously wanted to.

A few words about TSA screenings...

Having traveled recently to Washington State and back via plane, I went through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screening twice.

Woohoo! TSA porn!

I was not impressed. But then I generally am not positively impressed by the things the federal government does. Negative impressed every time I read about what the federal government does, yes.

Flight out, I went through the full body screener. It dinged. Of course.

I stood in front of a TSA agent who eyeballed me from a foot away. Never laid a hand on me. He passed me right through after I took my hat off and showed him the inside of it.

The tote bag I carried went through a second time after taking the tablet device out. Zipped right through.

Coming back, it went right through the first time.

Coming back the full body screener was shut down. As I prepared to step through the metal detector, I told an agent "It's gonna ding."

It did.

He asked me if I had any metal implants. I don't. He suggested I take my suspenders off and try it again.

I took my galluses off and they went through the X-ray machine. I went through the detector without a hitch.

Frankly, I go through tighter security (and looser) getting into the prison where I preach.

On the flight out, being me, I set about figuring out a few things.

I peg a 95 percent chance I can get a working gun into the cabin of a commercial airliner if I'm working by myself. Chances to 97-98 percent with an assistance. Chance of successfully getting a gun onto a plan with three people, so close to 100 percent as makes no never mind.

I also figured out how to get a knife on board.

National Remove Your Rights Agency, rather

I note I did not take a gun or a knife on the plane when Jesse & I went to Washington. I shipped 'em out west UPS and shipped 'em back FedEx.

The problem is the security protocols were created by man. Anything a man creates, man can finagle, dodge, get around or otherwise defeat. There can be no absolute security as long as a person has freedom of mind and to a lesser extent, freedom of the body. The Matrix movies come to mind here. But that's a whole 'nother subject.

Simple fact is, I betcha I can get a gun on a plane. The more people I have helping the higher the rate of success gets. Given a dozen or more people working with me, there's no chance I could not get a gun on a plane.

And that's all the details yer gonna get from me about this.