Where Do They Get It From?

An item in a recent newspaper and again on the TV news the same day both talked about the alarming percentage of kids in school who have stolen from a store and cheated primarily by plagiarizing from the internet. Where do they get it from?

I don't think the answer is a simple one, but then again, maybe it is. I think it's a combination of a whole lot of things but it starts at home. With all of the parents in the home working, there is no one there to nurture, protect, teach, and guide when the kids get home from school. So the kids play video games or watch TV programs that glamorize crime, violence, infidelity, backstabbing, and all other forms of cheating. If they happen to read the newspaper or watch the TV news they get similar messages from politicians, movie stars, TV stars, music stars, and athletes getting caught doing all sorts of unsavory acts. And when the parents get home from work, about all they have energy for is having a quick meal and getting the kids off to bed. They simply don't have the time or energy to sit down with their kids and put all of that "bad stuff" into perspective and talk with them about what is right and what is wrong.

So, home is where it starts with Mom and Dad providing little to no guidance. But the manufactures of video games, the media in general, and even our politicians at the highest levels; and the music, movie, TV, and sports stars are providing terrible examples of moral and ethical behavior. The conclusion has to be then that the problem is societal. Until our children's parents, our national leaders, our media, and our sports organizations take more responsibility for their own actions and the actions of their family members, our kids will continue believing it's OK to steal from a store and that it's OK to cheat in school.

Who Are They?

Who are the folks we see on TV at the close of the daily stock market sessions that are clapping and smiling while they ceremoniously ring the bell that ends the day? I can understand the clapping and smiling when the markets have shown an increase. But when the Dow has tanked 450 points during the day, I'm not sure I understand the exuberance. I would, I think, when my portfolio has shrunk 6% in one day, prefer a somber ceremony that shows some respect for my loss.

I guess one could interpret the exuberance on a down day as ignorance of what has happened or just plain rudeness. Or maybe those people are hedge fund investors who have gambled that the market will decline and have just made a ton of money on other peoples' losses and their exuberance is a kind of "in your face" thing. Or, maybe, they're just stupid. Whatever they are, it just doesn't seem appropriate to be clapping and smiling when the markets have declined.

The Issues, No. 60 - Bailout the Automobile Industry?

If the automobile industry is truly important to the economic well being of the country then maybe the government should provide some sort of financial assistance to help it recover. The problem is that it's hard, as it has been hard in accepting that the government needed to bailout the financial industry, to agree that an industry that has know it was having difficulties for some years now and didn't have a clue about how to compete with the foreign auto makers now needs our government to step in and save it. For those that believe in a free market economy, I think the emotional solution is that the industry should be allowed to fail because it did not create the demand for its products that it needed in order to survive.

The problem with not having our own automobile industry, however, could be quite costly, not only to our economy, but to our national defense as well. Aside from the fact that a failed auto industry would mean a tremendous loss of jobs, if we don't produce our own automobiles, we could be held hostage economically by the countries that sell them to us. And very simply, if we don't produce our own military vehicles and the spare parts required to keep them operating, we may not be as prepared as we should be to protect ourselves. Therefore, the government, from a purely practical standpoint, needs to do something to help keep the industry alive.

Maybe we don't need three big companies producing a thousand different models of vehicles and maybe the industry should be pared back to something that is reasonable. But we do need to have an automobile industry in order to ensure support for our economy and for our national defense. We just can't become totally dependent upon other countries for our motor vehicle transportation needs.

The Issues, No. 59 - Unregulated Capitalism Doesn't Work

It should be very obvious to all of us that our capitalist economy, unregulated and/or deregulated, didn't work. I'm all for capitalism. I think capitalism the very best motivator for individual and corporate progress and wealth. But it obviously falls apart when left unattended due primarily to greed which encourages corporations and the men and women who run them to gamble recklessly and ruin it for the entire country.

We all know by now that the credit practices of the mortgage lenders and our banks and credit card companies are what has caused our economy to collapse. Also, we all should know by now that the only way to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future is for our government to proactively provide oversight into business and financial practices and,where there are signs of possible trouble, stop whatever it is that's going on before it gets out of hand. The bottom line is that our economy needs government oversight. Too bad if that is socialistic. It simply needs oversight regardless of what it's called.

One area that needs a whole lot of new regulation is the stock market. It is just appalling to me that individuals and institutions are allowed to do short selling. It is also appalling that hedge funds are legal. Then there is after market trading which is another practice that should be illegal. It is one thing for individuals to buy shares in companies they believe are going to be successful which should be the basic activity of the stock market. When it turns into a high finance gambling casino, very much slanted in favor of the institutional investors and the wealthy, it then becomes what should be considered criminal. So government needs to clean up the stock market while it's overhauling the financial industry.

We've simply got to have our government deeply involved in watching and regulating what's going on in our economy. If we don't, we'll continue to have problems like we are currently experiencing. I don't care whether you are a conservative Republican or a liberal Democrat and I don't care either whether government oversight and regulation are socialist or capitalist. What I care about is a sound and prosperous America and I think, from our recent experience, that our government needs to step up and take control.

The Issues, No. 58 - Now's Our Chance

Election Day is next Tuesday, November 4th. It is our chance to let our politicians, particularly those in Washington, know just what we think of the job they have been doing. It's our chance to give all 435 Congressmen, 35 Senators, and the Republican administration their report cards.

For many of us it will be a time when we want them to know we are very disappointed in Congress and what it has done. We have two wars going on, a collapse of the mortgage market, and the resulting collapse of the financial industry all of which Congress is, at least, partially responsible for. So for those of us that feel Congress has let us down, next Tuesday is an opportune time for us to "throw the bums out" and vote for everyone who is challenging an incumbent. Of course, if you are satisfied with what your people in congress have done, you should vote for them.

For many of us it will be the time when we can say we are not happy with the way President Bush and his Republican administration led the country. So we can vote for Barack Obama and throw the Republicans out of the Executive Branch of the government. And, of course, if we are satisfied with what President Bush and his Republican administration has done, we should vote for John McCain.

The most important thing is that next Tuesday we vote. Maybe the most important responsibility we have as American citizens is to vote. It is our one opportunity every time there is an election to let the politicians who are up for election know what we think of their performance and our opportunity to get rid of those that aren't cutting it and replace them with those that might cut it. So, if you pass that opportunity up, you really have no business complaining about what you get. If you vote, at least you'll be able to say, "I tried". So, don't blow it! Get out there next Tuesday and vote.

The Issues, No. 57 - Why Obama Makes Sense

Election day is one week from today and I've been thinking a lot lately about which candidate will be the most effective President. I know I already said I will vote for Obama after the Republicans picked Palin as McCain's running mate, and I meant it. When I said it, however, I wasn't really convinced that Obama would be any more effective than McCain as our President.

My recent thought process tells me that, for a number of reasons, Obama will be more effective. First, with the country generally fed up with the Bush administration and it's Republican policies, I have to believe that, after the election, the majority in both houses of Congress will continue to be Democrat. A Democrat majority in Congress will obviously be more sympathetic to a President from the same party and therefore, change will be easier.

Second, I think Obama is more in tune with every day America. He hasn't been tainted yet by a career in Washington but he knows how it works and he knows what the American people would like to see changed. I think his positions on "pork" and lobbyists are more believable than McCain's only because McCain has been there long enough to do something about those issues and hasn't. So, I think an Obama administration will do more to try and get Washington working for all Americans than would a McCain administration.

There are other reasons too, why I believe Obama will be more effective but the last one I want to talk about is the man. I think Obama may be one of those people who, like JFK, has a magnetic quality about him that by its very nature commands respect and inspires others to rise to higher levels. And I think because of this, and the reasons discussed above, he will be the most effective President. And that's why Obama makes sense!

The Issues, No. 56 - Socialism in America

I find it somewhat amusing that the Republicans are calling Barack Obama a socialist. I think this notion came from his discussion with “Joe the Plumber” where Mr. Obama told Joe something like an increased tax on small businesses that earn over $250K would help to spread the wealth around.

I say, “So what! And who cares!” I doubt if the people who are making the accusation really understand what Mr. Obama was trying to say and/or understand what socialism is. And, if he is socialist in some of his thinking, what’s wrong with that? Weren’t a number of the programs created under FDR to get the country back on its feet during the Great Depression socialistic? Haven’t some of those programs, like our Social Security System, continued to exist as major parts of our economy?

Our country is currently experiencing a severe financial crisis. Our government is spending huge amounts of money to help our failing corporations to get back on their feet and the government, in return, has told some of those corporations it wants a piece of their ownership. That is socialistic because the government will now have some say in what these corporations do and how they do it, but it makes a whole lot of sense for the government to want something in return for its investment. And, don’t forget; the government is the people and so we the people who are spending money to bail these failed companies out are, for a change, going to get something for our investment.

I don’t think it’s so bad to have a socialistic type of approach to solving some of our country’s problems, particularly when the problems are as severe as the current financial crisis. I don’t think it is such a bad idea to increase the taxes of the wealthiest people if it will help the people who are hardest hit by the financial crisis and are struggling to keep their heads above water. And finally, I don’t necessarily think socialism is bad. Great Britain has, at times, had Democratic Socialism as has Germany and those countries have not done so badly, nor have their people. Out of control capitalism, which got us into our financial crisis and Communism which is kind of an extreme branch of socialism, are both less desirable than the socialism we have and are using now to help us recover financially.

What's Going On?

The stock market is taking another plunge today, apparently because of poor quarterly earnings reports from a number of companies, which one would expect in normal circumstances but I'm not sure these are normal circumstances. Because of the financial crisis, the government has put in place, at least huge amounts of money, and even some plans that are already operating, to fix the problem. So, I can't understand what's going on. I guess we just don't trust the government and even though it appears the crisis will be resolved, we still are acting out of irrational fear. Or are we?

This may be a total stretch of the imagination, but is it possible there is some hanky panky going on that is causing the financial crisis to continually worsen? Is the stock market being manipulated by political forces that may, for instance, want to help ensure that the Republicans don't win the presidency after eight years of President Bush and his policies that led to the collapse of the financial markets? Is the mostly liberal media fueling the fear and mistrust that is causing the market to continue to decline, hoping somehow to convince people to blame the financial crisis on the Republicans and vote Democratic?

Whatever it is that is causing the problem just doesn't make any sense. The pieces are in place to correct the problems, including plenty of money. All I can conclude is that something(s) that may be politically motivated or something I just don't understand is continuing to drive the stock market down. It will be very interesting to see what happens after the November 4 elections.

The Issues, No. 55 - Extremism and the 2008 Presidential Race

I'm in Naples, Florida this week visiting my Mom and my sister. Naples is a bastion for mostly wealthy conservative retired business people who have come here principally from the mid-west. So, the area has been, as one would expect, basically Republican in its leanings. Shortly before I arrived, the local newspaper, "The Naples Daily News", announced, much to the chagrin of many of its subscribers, that it was endorsing Barack Obama for president.

Ever since, the newspaper, which prints lots of letters to the editor every day, has been flooded with and has printed a number of particularly venomous letters that express very extreme feelings about Mr. Obama, the Democratic Party, and "The Naples Daily News". People have indicated they are cancelling their subscriptions to the paper, which has betrayed them and our democracy by supporting a socialist who is intent on destroying America. They have talked about Mr. Obama's background and his associations with terrorists and Reverend Wright. In other words, they have totally trashed Mr. Obama and everything he has ever done or everyone he has ever touched or spoken with or listened to. One would think he is the devil who, if given the chance, will destroy us all. I personally find all of this amusing on one hand but frightening on the other.

I can't believe that wealthy, educated, successful American people, or any people in America for that matter, can have such extreme feelings about anything, let alone one of the two candidates for President of the United States. Barack Obama loves the United States just as much as John McCain. He just has a different view about what needs to be fixed and how to fix it. You don't have to like him or the approach he wants to take to fix things, but you are not too bright if you think because he believes differently than John McCain that he is a bad person. And, obviously, the same thing is true for those who think ill of John McCain.

If both candidates believed the same thing and had the same approach to everything, there wouldn't be any point in having two people running for President. And, isn't it a great thing about our democratic society that we can have people disagreeing with one another, at the highest levels of our society, without one of them being shot or sent off to a prison camp somewhere for reeducation? So, come on Naples, Florida, and the rest of you political extremists everywhere,
get over yourselves and recognize that whoever is elected is going to do their best for the country, even if what they do is different from the way you would like to see it done. And, if you still feel so strongly about something, run for political office yourself.

Impatience, Greed, and Fear and the Financial Crisis

Yesterday afternoon as I was sitting in the waiting room of a doctor's office, I picked up a March 2008 issue of Forbes magazine. While going through it I came across an article (I can't remember the author) that made a positive case for impatience and greed. Today, before I entered the blogosphere, I found an article, from the New York Times on my computer's home page written by Warren Buffet about when to be greedy and when to be fearful.

In the Forbes article the author said that both impatience and greed are, by themselves, good to the degree that, without them in society, there would be little progress. Impatience to have something better drives innovation and drives us to take actions that might improve our lives. Greed is what drives us to take actions that will benefit us financially. In other words, if we were to simply maintain the status quo we would never see never see any improvements in our lives.

Unfortunately, as we have seen in the recent months, unchecked impatience and greed worked poorly together to cause our current financial crises. People who were impatient to have a better home, took on loans they could not repay and the greed of the lending institutions that made all of those bad loans simply got out of hand and the bottom fell out of the financial market. When that happened, and it's continuing today, fear set in among many investors and they sold their stocks which further depressed the financial markets.

Warren Buffet said today he is now buying stock because he said, "A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors." So, he says he is using other peoples' fears to his advantage because he can now buy stocks at a bargain because fear has driven the prices down. And, he says, "Fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation's many sound companies make no sense. Most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now." So, to Warren Buffet greed, at least in the circumstances he has described, is a good thing.

I think the important thing to be gained here is that controlled impatience and greed are motivators that move us forward and are good for society. Fear, on the other hand, is unhealthy for the fearful, and, in the case of the current financial crisis, has magnified to the point where it is unhealthy for all of us. And I think what Warren Buffet is really telling us is that it's not rational for us to be fearful, that the markets will come back, and that our fear will only contribute to the wealth of others, like him, who will take advantage of it.

The Issues, No. 54 - Tax Breaks for Businesses

Particularly with the current financial crisis, in large part caused by corporate greed, it is difficult for most of us to agree that businesses should be provided with tax breaks. I think we all are afraid that any tax breaks we give, particularly to large corporations, will only benefit the corporate executives whose outrageous salaries and golden parachutes are already way out of sight and out of control.

I personally believe that we, as a nation, need to provide tax breaks for our businesses, primarily because our businesses are our employers and our innovators. As our employers, businesses can afford to hire and pay the wages and salaries of more people if they don't have to pay as much taxes. Innovation leads to new business opportunities that lead to new and more employment opportunities and less taxes, again, could mean a company could spend more money on innovation.

Hopefully, with the combination of the collapse of our economy and the government bailout that will help them get back on their feet again, our corporations will reform many of the current practices that caused the economy to collapse, either through their own efforts or through new government regulation and oversight. Once we have businesses again working responsibly, I believe they should be given tax breaks only because those tax breaks will benefit us all in that they will help tremendously to stimulate our economy.

The Issues, No. 53 - National Health Care

Because my family is currently experiencing it, I believe now, more than ever, that if any part of our medical care needs to be nationalized, it is when a person's medical situation requires institutionalization in a hospital, nursing home, or an assisted living facility, or the person requires around the clock attention by a professional care giver in their home beyond the time and dollar limits established by a private medical insurer or Medicare. These situations are financially catastrophic for most families, including families that may be considered to be upper middle to lower upper class as far as income is concerned.

We all know how expensive it is to stay in the hospital and fortunately, if one has a good health insurance plan, most of the hospital charges are paid for by insurance up to a certain amount. For individuals over 65 who are Medicare subscribers and who have secondary insurance coverage, their medical and rehabilitation charges are essentially covered for 100 days for each separate occurrence. But a person who has a condition that continues beyond the dollar or time limits is subject to having to pay for everything. In the area in which we live, the average rate for a nursing home is about $260 a day. That's $7,800 per month. The average cost for an assisted living facility may be $3,000 to $3,500 less than a nursing home, but who among us has an extra $4,000 to $8,000 available each month to pay for it beyond the normal monthly expenses we already have?

Unless a person is wealthy, after they have expended their life savings, many are forced to go on Medicaid. Medicaid will pay for everything, but only after a person's resources have dwindled to practically nothing. And what happens to the spouse when that happens? It's just not a pretty picture. Long term care insurance, which is a relatively new concept, will help many of us in the future with these expenses but long term care insurance is expensive too and may only cover an individual for two or three years. I would guess that most people who are eligible for long term care insurance are not buying it because of the expense.

So, what are we as a nation going to do? Well, how about if we all bite the bullet and institute a national long term care addition to social security that will provide long term care coverage beyond what private insurance and Medicare currently cover. The unpleasant part to this proposal is that we would increase every person's social security contributions by 1 to 3 percent. Not many of us will like that when everything is fine and it's not needed but I guarantee that when the time comes that it's needed, those affected will very much appreciate that because of it they do not have to exhaust their life savings and become destitute before something like Medicaid takes over for them. And, because of it they will be able to continue to live their normal lives.

The Issues, No. 52 - Congress and the Spending Bills for Fiscal 2009

Congress has had a tough year. It has had to contend with the financial crisis, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the upcoming elections for 35 Senators, all 435 Congressmen, and the President. Congress was so busy, in fact, that once again it did not pass the Fiscal Year 2009 spending bills for the government on time. Instead it passed a huge continuing resolution that allows government agencies to spend at fiscal year 2008 levels through March of 2009.

The fact that Congress was busy during the recent months probably didn't have as much to do with it not passing the 2009 spending bills as the fact that the Democratic Congress didn't want to fight with President Bush over spending issues during his last months in office. But whether Congress was busy or whether it wanted to avoid confrontation with President Bush doesn't really matter. Maybe the most important thing Congress has to do is to fund the federal agencies and it just can't ever seem to do it on time. Year after year Congress passes continuing resolutions to keep government going because it can't pass the spending bills on time. And every year this situation is disruptive to the government agencies who have to cut back, in many instances, on services they provide to the American people.

I think this behavior is unacceptable and I think the American people should demand that their representatives in Congress take care of their business on time. The example that Congress sets by its failure to carry out its most important function on time is terrible. We and especially our children get the message from it that it's not important to do anything we are supposed to do when we are supposed to do it and that we can just take some token form of action that will just have to do until we feel like getting around to it. Maybe this very type of behavior is a reason why we are in the financial mess that we're in. Maybe if Congress had paid attention to the warning signs when it first got them, the whole financial mess could have been avoided. But undoubtedly there were political reasons why Congress didn't act sooner and the country ends up suffering because of it.

Congress is in desperate need of a wake up call. We can give it to them in the upcoming November elections by not voting for any incumbent Senator or Congressman. We can phone their offices, write them letters, send them email, or show up at their offices and let them know that we want them to do what they are supposed to do and we want them to do it on time. I think it's time we let Congress know that we want them to work together for America, that we don't want them playing partisan politics, and that we don't want them working solely for their own career advancement.

The Issues, No. 51 - Individual Investors

It appears to me that a large number of individual investors are reacting to the current financial crisis with panic and fear and I find that to be quite amazing and even a little depressing. I would like to think that Americans are smarter than to react to swings in the stock market with panic and fear. The American stock market has historically gone up and down and so the current downturn is no more than a natural occurrence that will end shortly and begin once again to rise after the corrections are in place and the panic has abated.

I think, not surprisingly, that the big downturns in the stock market are always caused by out of control greed in one sector of the economy or another. And, I think the correction is always engineered and financed, to some degree, by the government. But the greed, until it eventually causes a downturn, is what all of us individual investors ride on while it lasts. Then, when the downturn comes many of us act as if we had been betrayed by the companies we have invested in, we panic, and sell all of our stock, but probably not until it's value has declined significantly. So, for those that panic and sell, they end up with little or no profit, no shares of stock, and they are a cause for the market to continue to decline. And, when the market again begins to rise, they are the very people, who wait until they are sure the rise is going to last and then buy stock again when the price is high. If they had just left their stock alone when the market started to rise again they already would have the number of shares they had before the fall and would benefit from the rising prices. So, patience, in this case, rather than panic, is definitely a virtue.

I think everyone needs to realize that participation in the stock market is gambling. When we buy stock we are gambling that it's value is going to increase and that we will make some money. And isn't gambling a form of greed? Investment gurus have been advising people forever not to put all of their money into stocks but rather to spread it around. No one should put more into the stock market than they can afford to lose but on the other hand, not too many people who have invested wisely in the stock market have lost a whole lot in the long term. It's the people who are trying to get rich quick and risk too much on individual stocks who end up getting hurt the most. But for most of us small investors, who have money in IRAs or 401Ks that are in mutual funds, fear and panic is not going to help our situations. Patience will prevail and, in the case of the current financial crisis, our accounts will recover eventually. We have to keep in mind that we haven't actually lost or gained anything until we sell.

The Issues, No. 50 - The Stock Market

Our stock market is way out of control and I think that it needs to be altered significantly if we want it to remain a viable and contributing American institution. The current financial crisis and the continuing drop in the market demonstrates that something seriously wrong has been allowed to go on for a long time that is causing severe harm to the country as a whole and to small investors who rely on the market for their retirement incomes and their financial security.

I think what has happened is that the institutional investors who control what happens in the stock market have acted irresponsibly and without regulation or oversight. Institutional investors are in control of huge amounts of stocks. According to WikipediA, "Institutional investors are organizations which pool large sums of money and invest those sums in companies. They include banks, insurance companies, retirement or pension funds, hedge funds and mutual funds. Their role in the economy is to act as highly specialized investors on behalf of others. For instance, an ordinary person will have a pension from his employer. The employer gives that person's pension contributions to a fund. The fund will buy shares in a company, or some other financial product. Funds are useful because they will hold a broad portfolio of investments in many companies. This spreads risk, so if one company fails, it will be only a small part of the whole fund's investment."

Most of the above behavior is good in the ideal but WikipediA goes on to say "Institutional investors will have a lot of influence in the management of corporations because they will be entitled to exercise the voting rights in a company. They can engage in (an) active role in corporate governance. Furthermore, because institutional investors have the freedom to buy and sell shares, they can play a large part in which companies stay solvent, and which go under. Influencing the conduct of listed companies, and providing them with capital are all part of the job of investment management." These are the behaviors that are a scary to me.

I'm not sure that it should be up to institutional investors to determine the fate of a company or meddle in a company's affairs. Sure they represent large numbers of shareholders who are essentially owners of the companies but they are investment managers who represent many stockholders. They are not the stockholders themselves. Their job should be to invest their client's money in stocks that they believe will provide a good return and not manipulate companies or not be a determinant as to whether a company stays solvent or goes under. I believe these to be the kinds of behaviors that have contributed significantly to the current financial crisis.

So when you add to the problems of investment companies' influence in the companies in which they invest, the out of control credit they allowed to happen, the margin buying they allowed, and the outrageous salaries and "golden parachutes" they awarded themselves, it all amounts to the institutional investors investing, and controlling the market, not for their clients, but for themselves. I think our government needs to step in and regulate the institutional investors' power to influence the management of companies in which they invest and to stop the credit practices that have caused the current crisis.

The Issues, No. 49 - Presidential Debates

One thing that struck me about last evening's Presidential Debate, and all of the other presidential debates I have ever seen, is that the debaters don't appear to be very "Presidential". Instead they appear to be petty, vindictive, and downright nasty in their attempts to illustrate how they are different from their opponent. Those are not the qualities I want to see in my President. I want to see a person who is confident, cool, and one who can debate the issues and their solutions without attempting to assassinate the character of their opponent. I want to decide who to vote for based on what issues they believe are important and how they would propose to tackle those issues not on how well they can attack their opponent.

Also in the debates, it is irritating to me that the candidates don't ever quite seem to answer the question that is asked. Instead they go off and expound upon something they want to talk about which often is to offer a defense or rebuttal of something their opponent just accused them of. I think this behavior is somewhat embarrassing and it makes me uncomfortable that a man or woman who is trying to become the President of the United States can't answer a direct question with a direct answer.

Of course they also lead us to believe that when they are elected they can and will do everything they say they will do. Anyone who understands how our government works knows that the President can't just do whatever he wants. The President is the chief executive of the Executive Branch of our government. He basically is charged with running the operating agencies of the government according to the legislation under which they were created and funded. He can't do anything new or different entirely on his own initiative. New and different stuff requires legislation that is first introduced, discussed and debated, and then passed by both houses of Congress and then finally signed by himself before he can do anything.

I guess to sum it all up, I would say that the debates do nothing to help most of us determine who we want to vote for. Instead they show us which candidate is the nastiest and which is the best at not responding to a question. The debates are not only embarrassing and irritating, they are also insulting to me as an American voter. Why do I want to vote for anyone who cannot answer a simple question, and instead responds with a personal attack on his opponent while tooting his own horn about his past record and how he is now going to be the savior of the country. I'm more inclined to conclude that until we find someone who is above the pettiness and the viciousness we see in these debates, our country is in trouble. And as a final note, I have definitely concluded that politicians don't necessarily make good Presidents.

The Issues, No. 48 - Farm Subsidies

For the life of me, I just can't understand farm subsidies. Maybe they made some sense when farms were small and subsidies were used to prevent farmers from giving up their farms in times of drought or other disasters that ruined their crops. Maybe back then we needed to pay the farmers in order to keep farming going so that America would have the food it required.


Today, with the majority of farm products in America produced by the large corporate farms, subsidies don't make much sense. Subsidies appear, more than anything, to be a government attempt to control the business of farming. The government pays farmers to grow crops or not to grow crops and through its control of what is and is not grown controls prices for farm goods and thus prevents the market forces of supply and demand from being the true determinants. So America gets what the government wants it to have and at prices the government wants it pay.

To some degree, it may be good that we don't necessarily have to pay what we might have to pay in a free market situation but I think, in the case of farm subsidies, we are paying more than we think we are because we, the American taxpayers, are paying for the subsidies. And, I suspect there are a whole lot of "farmers" out there getting paid for not farming who are simply living a good life from their subsidies or taking their subsidies and working other jobs to pay for their fancy cars and big houses.

I think farm subsidies need to end, at least as we know them. I don't want our government controlling business in our country. I don't want our government paying anyone to do nothing or paying anyone (other than government employees) to do what the government wants them to do. I think if any aspect of farming needs, or could use a subsidy, it is in agricultural research not agricultural welfare or agricultural bribery.

The Issues, No. 47 - Free College

A friend of mine suggested today, while we were watching a piece on the local TV news about how expensive it is to send a kid to college, that maybe college ought to be free just like our public schools. At first I thought the idea didn't make much sense because the tax payers would end up paying for it. But then, after we talked about it for a couple of minutes, I thought it made a lot of sense.

Our kids already go to public schools, from kindergarten to grade 12, free. Obviously it's not free because we pay for it in our federal and state taxes but it's essentially free and it includes what would be called "tuition and books" in a private school or a college or university. In other words our kids go to public schools and their classes and the books they are required to have are free.

Wouldn't it make sense if we simply extended the free classes (tuition) and free books to college undergraduate and graduate level classes. Colleges and universities would still maintain their entrance level requirements but kids who are accepted by the institution would have their tuition and books payed for by the taxpayers. If they are accepted by an institution away from their home, they, or their parents, would still have to pay for their room and board in either school facilities or in private facilities.

I'm not sure how much more we would have to pay in taxes but I don't think it would be that significant. The major benefit would be that everyone who could get him or herself accepted into college would be able to go. No one would not be able to go because they couldn't afford it. The individuals would obviously benefit because they would be able to earn more after their education and the nation would benefit also because we would have more people with college educations contributing to our society. It just makes a lot of sense to me for us as a society to pay for our children to get as much education as they can without them having to worry about going in debt or not being able to afford to go to school after high school.

The Issues, No. 46 - I Wonder

Although I'm not a fan of the war in Iraq, I am puzzled by the figures our politicians and others bandy about when talking about how much it costs. Lately I've been hearing $10 billion per month and I know that's a lot but I wonder what it actually means.

Here's where I have a problem. If the majority of the forces we have deployed in Iraq are forces that, if we weren't having a war, were stationed at military installations in the U.S. or other places in the world, shouldn't "they" subtract the monthly cost for those units from the $10 billion dollar figure? And doesn't that cost include wages, benefits, food, clothing, housing, tanks, rifles, trucks, jeeps, and all of the other equipment the troops have with them that they would also have with them wherever they are? I'm sure some of the $10 billion is extra because there are extra troops in Iraq beyond the peacetime troop levels and there are extra costs associated with deployments overseas, but to imply that the war in Iraq is costing us $10 billion extra every month is incomprehensible and maybe irresponsible too.

I suspect the $10 billion figure is a figure used, primarily by politicians, the anti-Bush and anti-war media, and other individuals who are opposed to the Iraq war as one justification for ending the war as soon as possible and/or to discredit the Bush administration. I guess that kind of thing is done all the time but I don't particularly like it when our politicians and our media are irresponsibly stretching the truth to further their own interests.

I think the war in Iraq is a serious matter for the men and women who are serving there and for their families and they deserve the truth and the respect of all of us. The truth may have been stretched in order to convince Congress to get us into the Iraq war but let's not compound the situation by stretching the truth to get us out by telling our troops how expensive they are and how their mission there is such a financial burden on the country. That is just plain disrespectful. We need our politicians, whatever party they belong to, and our media to be honest and truthful about what is going on and to show us all, and particularly the men and women of our armed forces, the respect we and they deserve.

The Issues, No. 45 - Two Points That Need to be Repeated

In the last couple of postings I have made the points that greed has led to our current financial crisis and that ignorance has so far kept us from passing bailout legislation to solve the crisis. I think these two points require additional discussion.

The out and out greed of our financial institutions has been the major cause for our financial meltdown. But it's not the only cause. A very large contributing cause has been the out and out greed of the American people who undertook home loans they knew they could not repay and ran their credit card debt up to the point they could not even make the minimum monthly payments. Sure the financial institutions encouraged people to take on the debt, but no one made anybody do it. So, we just can't blame the financial industry without assuming some of the blame ourselves.

When the financial institutions finally collapsed and we had a real crisis, it appears that ignorance set in preventing a measure, at least initially, to solve the problem. People got mad that the financial institutions failed and didn't want to do anything to help them and their grossly overpaid executives recover. What is particularly amazing to me is that the majority of the members in the United States House of Representatives, went along with their angry constituents and voted to defeat the proposed bailout legislation. I guess I can excuse the ignorance and shortsightedness of the American people; they just got mad and maybe didn't have a grasp of the devastating effects no action on the part of Congress would have on us, as individuals, and on our economy as a whole. But I just can't find any excuse whatsoever for Congressmen who are supposed to be our leaders and are elected, at least to some degree, to protect us when something as bad as this crisis occurs.

Our representatives in Congress, especially in times of severe national crises, need to rise above our ignorance and do what is right for the country and forget about the votes and campaign contributions they might lose. They need to step up and tell their constituents when they are wrong and do the right thing even if it may cost them their careers in Congress. We need representatives in Congress who are above our individual anger and ignorance of the issues and who can look at the big picture and take action that is best for us and the country, and not necessarily what's best for them and their political careers.

The Issues, No. 44 - The Financial Crisis and the American People

Yesterday I talked about the irresponsible members of the House of Representatives who voted against the bailout legislation on Monday. Today, after looking at a couple of national polls on the subject and seeing that the majority of Americans who responded to the polls are also against a bailout, I have concluded that, if those people are truly representative of all the American people, we, as a nation, are truly in deep trouble. Of course I could be missing something here, but I don't think so.

It's OK to be mad at the fact that the financial industry, because of greed and mismanagement, caused its own problems. It's OK to be mad at the fact that our government leaders didn't pay more attention to the situation and nip the problem in the bud before it got out of hand. And, it's OK to be extra mad because now you and the rest of the American taxpayers are being asked to bail the industry out. But, it's not OK to not fix the problem just because you are mad and want to punish the bad guys!

As a matter of fact, you may be part of the problem too, if you have run your credit card debt up so far that you can't even make the minimum payments and/or you are in a situation where you can't make your mortgage payment because it escalated as the contract that you signed said it would. Nobody forced you into those situations. You got into them for essentially the same reason the financial industry is in trouble ----- you were greedy and you wanted stuff you really couldn't afford! So now, instead of being all righteous and sanctimonious and blaming others for your problems you need to take responsibility for your own actions and realize that the government bailout is absolutely necessary for our nation's, a good part of the rest of the world's, and your own personal financial well-being.

And for those of you who are opposed to the bailout because you think you are financially sound and don't believe you should be asked to shoulder any of the burden to help a failing industry, I think you better look at the consequences of not doing the bailout. Your 401K that you are relying on for your retirement income may dwindle to nothing. You may not be able to borrow money to buy a new car or fix your roof or send your kid to college or do any number of things you need to do. So, you also need to think beyond your anger and look at what no action here will do to your own financial picture.

For all of us, this entire situation is a terrific example of how we, if only we were smart enough as individuals and would take responsibility for our own actions, could prevent this kind of crisis. We should know when we can't afford something we want and we should be smart enough to not be tempted by our own greed and desire, which in this case, the financial institutions have preyed upon. The situation is also a good example of how our Congress needs to be more vigilant about what's going on in the country and put the brakes on practices that they know are harmful to our society regardless of the possible loss of votes or campaign contributions.

The Issues, No. 43 - Defeat of the Financial Bailout Plan

I think the timing is perfect, particularly for the members of the House of Representatives who yesterday, in their infinite wisdom, voted against the plan to bail out our troubled financial institutions. Those individuals have, in my opinion, shown their ignorance and their contempt for the people they represent and thus have very clearly demonstrated their inability to serve effectively in the Congress just in time for their bids for reelection in the upcoming November elections.

The very sad part of it all is that those individuals who voted against the bailout are absolutely right in that the proposed legislation is, in a lot of different ways, a bad piece of legislation. Just for a start, it's socialistic and therefore legislation that, in a perfect world, should not ever be necessary or considered in our democracy. However, there is right, and then again, there is right. By being right in this particular instance, these Congresspeople have defeated a measure that would ultimately help the financial well being of their constituents, many of whom are currently having severe financial problems because of the financial crisis.

The true "right" in all of this should have been to pass the legislation and allow the financial institutions to recover with constraints on their future activities that would prevent future failures. Although it is highly distasteful in our society to bailout companies that have failed due to their own malfeasance, when it affects the financial well being of so many Americans, it is simply necessary that our government step in and make things right again. Isn't it implicit that our government protect us from all things harmful? Didn't FDR and the Congress enact what otherwise would be distasteful and socialistic legislation to bail us out from great depression that followed the stock market crash of 1929?

I believe those individuals who voted against the bailout plan yesterday are individuals who, by their own shortsightedness, don't deserve to be reelected to Congress and I would urge all of you to vote for their opponent, or simply not vote for them at all, in the November elections. I personally believe the bailout legislation to be very distasteful but nevertheless, I believe it to be necessary to get America, and a good part of the rest of the world, back on its feet. A Congressman who stands on his or her principles and insists on being what he thinks is right, regardless of the consequences, I don't believe deserves to be a Congressman.

The Issues, No. 42 - Terms of Office for Judges

Our federal district court and circuit court judges as well as our federal Supreme Court justices are appointed for life by the President. I am not sure about the terms of all of the state and local judges, but I believe the majority of them are either elected or appointed for specified terms. Whatever they are, I don't like the idea of life appointments.

I talked previously about the fact that I am not in favor of political appointments of judges but neither am I in favor of judges, particularly politically appointed judges, being appointed for life. I think, just as I believe with our Congressmen and Senators, that it is important to limit judges to a defined term. I think if they are in office too long they forget why they are there and what they are there for and, just as seems to happen with our people in Congress, they get caught up in partisan politics, power games, and ego trips and loose sight of the ideals of justice in America.

As I said in "The Issues, No. 41", I believe judges should be elected on their merits. In the case of our federal judges and our Supreme Court Justices and any other federal, state, or local judges who may be currently appointed for life, I believe they also should be elected on their merits and I believe they should serve terms of no longer than six years. I also believe they should be limited to one term only and not be allowed to succeed themselves in office. I don't believe being a judge, anymore than I believe being a Congressman or a Senator, should be a career. Those jobs should be a person's temporary voluntary opportunity and commitment to improve life in the United States and not a personal career choice. We need to constantly have new judges who have recently come to the bench from real life experiences and have not been tainted by politics or life too long away from mainstream America.

The Issues, No. 41 - Selection of Judges

Currently there are three basic methods of selecting judges in the United States; selection, election, and merit selection. In the selection method, usually a state Governor or, in the case of Federal Judges, the President, selects the judges and then have to have some approval by the state or federal legislature. In the election method, judges are nominated by a political party and run as a candidate of that party. The problem I have with these two methods are that they are both political. In the selection method the Governor or the President select judges who are from the political parties they represent. In the election method, the aspiring judges have to run and campaign for election as members of a political party and they have to raise money, make speeches, and make political campaign promises just as other politicians seeking election have to do. Both the selection and election methods are political and therefore compromise judge's independence and impartiality because he or she is not necessarily free of economic and political pressure.

The merit selection method, according to the American Judicature Society, "is a way of choosing judges that uses a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and non-lawyers to locate, recruit, investigate, and evaluate applicants for judgeships. The commission then submits the names of the most highly qualified applicants (usually three) to the appointing authority (usually the governor), who must make a final selection from the list. For subsequent terms of office, judges are evaluated for retention either by a commission or by the voters in an uncontested election". About two thirds of the states select, at least some of their judges using the merit selection method. Although I believe this to be the better of the three selection methods it still has an element of politics in that the appointing authority, who is a politician in most cases, will select the candidate that most closely represents his and his political party's philosophy.

I personally think the best way to select judges is to combine the merit selection and election methods. Why not use "a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and non-lawyers to locate, recruit, investigate, and evaluate applicants for judgeships" and then place the names "of the most highly qualified applicants (usually three)" on the ballot so that the voters can elect them. The judges resumes can be provided by the media, the commission, or the League of Women Voters to the voting public well before election day and/or a commission representative can hand out the resumes on election day at each polling facility. This method takes politics entirely out of the selection process and the resulting judges will not owe allegiance to anyone or any group.

The Issues, No. 40 - Judicial Sentences and Plea Bargaining

I think that the sentences that I read about in the newspaper oftentimes seem to make little sense. It seems to me that a person convicted of murder can sometimes get less of a sentence than a convicted burglar or a convicted rapist can get less of a sentence than a person convicted of possession of drugs. It all leads me to believe that the goal of the courts is not to administer justice but to clear the docket for the judges and reduce the population in our prisons.

From my limited experience visiting a courtroom, all of which has been in either traffic court or small claims court, there is a whole lot of deal making going on. I read also that there is a lot of deal making going on in the more serious cases as well. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.

I don't like the idea of plea bargaining. If someone is suspected of committing a crime, they should, if found guilty in a court of law, be subject to the most severe penalty possible. In my mind the determination of their sentence should not involve a deal they have made to lessen the sentence. I don't think, for instance, a deal that is made to lessen a sentence if the accused agrees to provide additional evidence, lessens the severity of the crime the individual committed.

As I said in an earlier posting, the United States needs to get serious about dealing with convicted criminals. If judges dockets are overbooked we should hire more judges and maybe have trials around the clock in our courtrooms. If prisons are overcrowded, for the time being, we should build more prisons or expand the ones we have. Maybe we could take the gyms, the libraries, and the recreation lounges and convert them into cells. But the main thing we need to do is discourage crime by making sentences severe enough and making our prisons places that no one wants to go to by making them truly penal institutions where prisoners are punished and not pampered. If we get serious, maybe there will be less crime thus freeing up dockets and reducing the prison population. And, I don't believe plea bargaining will do anything to help in these endeavors.

The Issues - No. 39 - Frivolous Lawsuits

I upsets me that a woman can buy a take out cup of coffee at McDonald's, get in the passenger seat of a car driven by a relative, spill it on her lap and burn her legs while the car is pulled over and she's trying to add sugar, sue McDonald's because the coffee was too hot, and get over a $1,000,000 settlement in a court of law. Give me a break! Doesn't she have responsibility for her actions and the resulting injury she caused to herself? Because of her, McDonald's lowered the temperature of its coffee everywhere there's a McDonald's in the entire world just so someone else couldn't sue them because the coffee was too hot. And that, together with the $1,000,000 plus they had to pay to that poor woman, probably contributed to a rise in McDonald's prices. So, because of this totally frivolous lawsuit, now you can only get a cup of warm coffee at McDonald's and it costs you more than a hot one did previously. Ridiculous! How about the magistrate judge in Washington, DC who tried and continues try to sue a dry cleaning establishment for millions of dollars over a lost pair of pants. At least so far that one hasn't gotten very far.

I think there is something wrong with our system of justice when people are allowed to sue for something that they caused themselves. I think judges, in these situations should have the leeway to throw that kind of stuff out and, in cases where a jury is involved, judges should be allowed to throw out or temper what a jury decides. It seems that what often happens in these kind of cases is that a person, who was injured due to his/her own mistake, will sue a company whose product is involved. Their lawyer will convince them to have a jury trial and then appeal to the jury that the company is far better able to pay for the medical, emotional, and economic costs (such as loss of income) than the injured person. Juries have a tendency to side with the poor individual over the big rich company and thus award atrocious amounts of money to the poor injured person. So, the jury awards $1,000,000 and who do you suppose gets a great big chunk of that money? If you guessed the lawyers, you're absolutely right.

And that's another problem. Lawyers make huge amounts of money from these lawsuits and so it's in their best interest to take these kind of cases on. They get some poor injured idiot to file a suit against a big rich company, get some ignorant jury that will side with the poor injured idiot against the big rich company, and get rich from it all. It's just not right and judges ought to be allowed or required to throw these cases out or limit the awards made by juries. I would like to see something done to change the law or the legal procedures to prevent anyone from suing in cases where they caused the damage to themselves or their property. In our society people need to take responsibility for their own actions, not rewarded when they do something stupid.

The Issues, No. 38 - Prison

I think our country's prison/penitentiary/penal system has strayed a long way from what it should be. There no longer seems to be much penal in it and about all it seems to do is to temprorarily remove criminals from the rest of society.

For many criminals, prison life is the best life they have ever had. They get three meals a day, they are warm in the winter and cool in the summer, they have a bed to sleep on, they have free medical care, they can play ball and work out, they can go to the library and study or take classes, they can watch TV and play pool, and they can do any number of other things they couldn't do before prison.

It seems to me that convicted criminals, particularly convicted felons, by the nature of the crimes they have committed, have lost their rights and should be punished first and foremost and then, if possible, rehabilitated too. I don't think prison should be a nice place for them and I think prison should be so bad that prisoners will not want to return when their sentences are completed or they are paroled.

Prisoners should have to get up early and go to work all day doing something difficult and unpleasant; something that might even benefit the rest of society like operating a recycling facility, a landfill, or a dairy farm. I'm sure the powers that be could come up with lots of things they could do. I don't think prisoners should have TVs, basketball courts, pool tables or libraries, and I don't think they should have much time to interact with one another. Life in prison should be hard and unpleasant; it should be punishment. And prison rules should be strictly enforced and violators dealt with swiftly and severely.

Rehabilitation should be some part of prison life also and should be mandatory. Classes could be offered at night to teach basic reading, writing, and math skills and classes could be offered in auto mechanics, carpentry, plumbing, electrical work, and any other trade. Mentally and emotionally unstable prisoners could attend individual or group therapy sessions. When the rehabilitation period is over, prisoners need to go back to their cells for lights out and bed with no TVs, cell phones, radios, or stereos. Prisoners don't need to be given any free time.

If you believe as I do that we need to reform our prison system and bring punishment back to prisons, you need to let your representatives know. Our prison system today is a joke and a mockery of justice as well as a complete waste of tax dollars. I believe the system can be changed to make prisons work for us rather than just a temporary dumping ground for our criminal element.

The Issues, No. 37 - Execution

Today I'm going to make a foray into the world of our criminal justice system and I want to begin with the death penalty and specifically execution of criminals sentenced to death. There has been a whole lot of controversy in the last few years about executions, particularly lethal injections, and how they might be painful for the person being executed and therefore inhumane. My response to that is who cares how painful it is and why not make it as painful as possible?

For some nut case criminal who has murdered, raped, tortured, or otherwise maimed someone else and been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law by a jury of his/her peers, I am very happy if they have to suffer a little pain when they are being executed. What I really don't like is the fact that they have lived in a prison, probably for a few years after their conviction, and been given three square meals a day; free medical care; been able to play basketball and work out in a fully equipped gym; been able to watch TV, play pool, and have visits from their friends and relatives; and get a law degree and maybe even write a book while their lawyers are trying to get their sentence reduced.

So when the time for execution comes, I hope it hurts. I hope that animal feels something similar to what their victim(s) felt. And I hope there is a little extra pain there for the victim's family and maybe even some for the American taxpayers who have been supporting this jerk in prison. I really don't care about humane for these people and I don't understand anyone who does.

The Issues, No. 36 - United States Foreign Policy

The United States is the world’s leading country and it’s also the only country in the world that is composed of people from every other country in the world. As such, I think we have a responsibility to the rest of the world. We also are dependent on other countries in the world for resources that we don’t have and so we have a responsibility to those countries in that regard as well. But I think our responsibilities should only go so far.

I don’t think we have the responsibility to force other countries to be like us or to adopt our beliefs. And I don’t believe we need to have a war with a country that hasn’t done anything to hurt us or one of our allies, regardless of how we feel about them or what they believe. I do think we have the responsibility to speak up to countries that are repressing their citizens or threatening their neighbors and I think we can try and influence them through foreign aid, trade agreements, military support agreements, and peer pressure from our allies and organizations like the United Nations.

Whatever we do we need to be careful that we do not punish the people of a country by, for instance, withholding foreign aid that may provide food or medicine when we are attempting to influence the country’s leaders to treat their people better. What we want to avoid at all costs is military intervention, or war, and I think our country’s military and political leaders have been too quick to go to war ever since World War II.

I don’t think we ever needed to have a war in Korea. I don’t think we needed to have a war in Viet Nam. And I don’t know why we are having wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. I suspect that the military wants to have wars because that is what they train and prepare for and that is how they demonstrate how good they are. I think some Presidents think a war is something they need to have on their resumes and I think our Congress, because it has the authority to approve a war, needs to do a far better job of curtailing the perceived career enhancing desires of the military and the President when it comes to approving anything that is going to cost American lives.

The Issues, No. 35 - Cell Phones and Driving

I can't imagine why our local, state, and federal governments don't do something to outlaw using cell phones while driving a car. It's bad enough that some people eat, drink, do their hair and makeup, and even read while driving, all of which also should be outlawed, but the use of cell phones has gotten out of hand. Law enforcement people know their use is dangerous, government leaders know it's dangerous, politicians know it's dangerous, and yet no one does anything about it.

We've got 16 year olds, who have no experience driving, who think they're indestructible, out there driving around the way teenagers do making calls and texting in addition to all the other non driving things they do while driving. But we've also got a whole lot of adults who think they know how to do it safely making calls and texting also. And I guarantee that none of them will understand the consequences of what they are doing until they kill, maim, or otherwise seriously injure other people.

It's just plain common sense that when you are driving a car you need to pay attention to your driving. Anything else you do is a distraction and the slightest distraction when you are going at high speeds, or any speed for that matter, may cause you not to be able to react when you need to in order to slow down, stop, or otherwise avoid a collision. When people in our country are doing things that endanger the lives of others, it should be the responsibility of government to make those things illegal. And whose rights are violated anyway when a person on their cell phone causes an accident in which someone else is killed? I think it's time for our governments and politicians to take their heads out of the sand and do something about this very dangerous practice.

The Issues, No. 34 - The Economy

I think in the beginning of our country, our economy was basically to be one in which anyone could participate and that competition and the economic forces of supply and demand would be its regulators. Government's role was to be one of minimal interference and to assist the economy to grow and prosper by ensuring these basic principles were not violated.

Over time government has increased its involvement in our economy through more and more regulation to the point where government today is pretty much the controlling influence. A great deal of this regulation is/was necessary to avoid another stock market crash and depression. The problems in the mortgage and credit industries are bad enough. But recent government takeovers/bailouts of Fannie May, Freddie Mac and AIG are scary. The government shouldn't have to take this kind of action in a responsible economy. It did, this time, particularly because of the far reaching effects on all Americans the failure of these institutions would have. Hopefully it works and hopefully the stock market won't crash and we won't have another depression.

What all of this demonstrates is that the economy, if left to its own devices, does not act responsibly, and greed and unreasonable, irresponsible risk takes over until the economy crumbles. What this means to me is that the government needs to learn again from these recent events and regulate the economy to prevent this type of failure in the future. I don't like it but I believe human nature is at play here and that even in our democracy, irresponsible human nature needs to be tempered by government regulation.

The Issues, No. 33 - Guns

The right to bear arms guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the Constitution is a very controversial issue in our country today. In 1791 when the Second Amendment was drafted, conditions in America were considerably different than they are today. People required weapons to hunt and kill animals for food and people who didn't live as closely as we do today were more susceptible to being robbed and/or raped or murdered by outlaws. Also law enforcement wasn't as good or as prevalent as it is today, communication was more difficult (there was no telephone and no 911), the police didn't have automobiles, and the Revolutionary War had only been over for 8 years. So, in 1791, it made very good sense for people to have weapons. Today it doesn't.

In today's United States, I have a hard time understanding why anyone, other than a policemen or a person in the military, needs to have a gun. I know some people like to hunt and some like to shoot at targets but those are the only reasons I can think of to have a gun and those reasons don't represent needs. For the majority of Americans that own guns I think their rationalization is they have them for the protection of themselves and their families. But if no one other than the military and the police were allowed to have guns, there would be no reason for anyone to have a gun for protection. And, our American society could very easily get along without hunting and target shooting if it meant we would all be safer.

I think the Second Amendment is a good example of where the Constitution needs to be amended to reflect the current conditions in the country. We don't need to have guns. If we have them, people are going to continue to shoot other people when they are angry with them or when they are committing crimes. There just is no need for them. If you agree, let your representatives know. Otherwise they will continue to accept money from the National Rifle Association and back any legislative action that is favorable to its interests.

The Issues, No. 32 - Sarah Palin

So far I've been staying away from the current presidential race but I feel like I just have to comment on John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate. Before I do comment however, I want to share with you that up until recently I have been pretty much a conservative when it comes to politics and that I have more often than not voted for Republicans. In recent times I have become more and more disillusioned by the Republican Party, mostly because of its alliance with the religious right and its anti-abortion, anti stem cell research, and pro gun stances. So, in the current presidential contest, I have been kind of in the middle but maybe leaning somewhat toward Barack Obama. I think, though, that the Sarah Palin selection may have clinched it for me and that I now will definitely vote for Mr. Obama. Here's why.

I think that John McCain selecting Sarah Palin has many negative connotations. First, I think it is a slap at women. It may appear to be a brilliant choice to select a moose hunting hockey mom Governor but in the end isn't it a slap at Hillary Clinton, the other women of Congress, and women everywhere to select a woman with so little worldly political experience? Second, I think it says that McCain and the Republicans think the Vice President is a do nothing job that just about anyone could do so it can be used solely to provide bling and glitz to garner votes. So, they selected a former beauty queen, who just happens to have a little political experience, to provide the window dressing that McCain sorely needs.

There are other negatives but the final one I want to mention here is that I believe Palin's selection, amounts to disrespect for our founding fathers, the Constitution of the United States, and the American people. Sarah Palin's selection, to me, is one that does not reflect the seriousness of the job for which she has been selected and makes a mockery of politics and the offices of the President and the Vice President. And, I think her selection is also disrespectful to Ms. Palin herself because she is being used, not for her knowledge and experience, but only as a piece of advertisement to draw attention to John McCain.

I have always looked at Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates as people that should be looked up to, who are above the muck and the mundane of life, who can calmly make the decisions required to lead our country based on their knowledge and experience, and whose very presence commands respect and admiration. I'm not sure that, with the selection of Sarah Palin, I have any confidence in John McCain and the Republican Party. They have lost my vote. I'll be interested to see what happens on election day.

The Issues, No.31 - Natural Disasters and Personal and Government Responsibility

The United States seems to have its fair share of disasters. We have mud slides, fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and other disasters. In many of these events, some people lose their lives and others lose their property. In most instances where there is loss of life and/or property, government and charities step in to provide some form of relief to help survivors sustain themselves until they can get back on their feet and, in many instances, to help them rebuild their homes and businesses. In most instances also, people from all over the country pitch in to provide assistance to the affected people in many different ways. It is truly a beautiful thing that our entire country seems to rally together whenever disaster strikes.

Of course there is another side to the story of natural disasters that involves personal and government responsibility. Of course we can't precisely predict when a natural disaster is going to occur but there are some things that we can predict and do something about as individuals and government(s) to mitigate the costs of recovery. A good example is Hurricane Katrina and the City of New Orleans. The portions of New Orleans that were flooded were areas that were twenty or so feet below sea level and flooded because the man-made levees that were built to keep the water out failed. Among the relief that is still being provided is a rebuilding and strengthening of the levees and a rebuilding of the homes that were destroyed. It seems to me that by doing this, we are just asking for it to happen all over again, and it probably will. I would think that the people who lived in the flooded areas should take some personal responsibility, at least for the future, and move to higher ground. It seemes to me also that the government(s) involved are wasting money by restoring those areas and that their money and efforts would be better spent in relocating the affected folks and helping them rebuild in a safer place. The same thing goes for people that live along rivers that flood frequently, or people that live where there are fires or mud slides every year, or people that live on the coast of Florida, or in the areas where there are frequent tornadoes, or even people that live on the ocean side of the San Andreas fault.

To spend a lot of government and charitible money and human effort to continually rebuild and restore areas that are destroyed in natural disasters where the chances are high of the disasters happening again, doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense either for individuals to insist on continuing to live in those areas. After the first time, I think the people who live in those places who insist on returning, should understand that they won't be bailed out a second time. And I think that the government(s) involved should spend their money, time, and effort in assisting people to move to safer places rather than restoring places and peoples' homes and business that will surely be destroyed again.

The Issues, No. 30 - Stem Cell Research

Stem cell research is another moral/religious issue that is closely related to abortion. Stem cell research requires the extraction of cells from a human embryo. As a result, the embryo will die. The pro lifers believe the embryos should be protected because they are human lives.

According to WikipediA, "A portion of stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are to be destroyed, or stored for long periods of time, long past their viable storage life. In the United States alone, there have been estimates of at least 400,000 such embryos. This has led some opponents of abortion, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, to support human embryonic stem cell research." For much more information, search the internet for "stem cell controversy".

I think it is a shame that there are those who would oppose stem cell research. It has such great potential for improving the lives of individuals who suffer with terrible afflictions. It seems a wonderful thing that if an embryo that is to be destroyed anyway or stored past its viable storage life can be used for such good, we should embrace the practice rather than condemn it for misguided moral/religious reasons.

Therefore, I suggest, if you are not sure about the issue, that you do some research. Look at all of the good that can come from it and how those embryos can be used for such great purposes rather than simply being destroyed. If you come away convinced that it is the right thing to do, let your representatives in Congress know that you support it and that you want them to do whatever they can to ensure that stem cell research continues including providing the necessary funds.

The Issues, No. 29 - Change the Drinking and Driving Ages

There have been a couple of items in the local newspaper lately related to changing the legal ages for drinking alcohol and driving. One was an article that described an effort by a group of about 100 college and university presidents, called the Amethyst Initiative, to encourage debate about lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18. The idea is that if drinking is legal for 18 year olds, the binge drinking they do, because it's now illegal for them and harder to obtain, will decline as will the resulting accidents, crime, and destruction caused by their drunkeness. I personally agree that it is worth having that debate.

The other item that I was particularly taken with was a letter to the editor that expressed the notion that the driving age should be raised while the drinking age should be lowered. A search of the internet indicated that this is not a new idea, but I think it makes a whole lot of sense. If the drinking age were lowered sufficiently, our kids would learn to drink responsibly and in moderation, maybe even at home with supervision from Mom and Dad. And, particularly because it would no longer be illegal for them, the thrill of getting drunk because it's illegal, would disappear. At the same time, if the driving age were raised, there might just be far fewer automobile accidents involving drunk kids. So, the notion of not allowing kids to drive until they have become accustomed to drinking responsibly and in moderation makes a great deal of sense.

Most proposals I've seen have suggested lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 and raising the driving age from 16 to 18. This would let them drink and drive at the same age which I think is dangerous. I like raising the driving age from 16 to 18 but I think I might prefer lowering the drinking age to at least 16 to give kids a couple of years experience with legal drinking before they get behind the wheel of a car. At any rate, I think we in America need to face the fact that kids are going to drink whether it's legal for them or not and that our best defense against them maiming and killing themselves and others in alcohol related automobile accidents is to not allow them to drive until they know how to handle alcohol responsibly.

The Issues, No. 28 - Sex Education

Except for the fact that many parents seem to have a very hard time of providing their children with accurate information about sex, I believe that in a perfect world, sex education should be provided by parents rather than the schools. However, because a whole lot of parents do a lousy job of it, I believe the schools need to provide it only because there are serious health as well as unwanted pregnancy issues involved that affect our society as a whole.

Parents who demonstrate love, affection, and respect for one another in their day to day living can do a great deal to educate their children about healthy and caring relationships. Those same parents can probably be more effective than a non-family teacher in providing education on sex and intimacy just because they are parents who love and care about their children. So, even though I believe the schools should provide sex education, I also believe that parents who are capable should provide it also as reinforcement so their children know they are concerned that their kids are getting the right message.

Beside the fact that many parents don't, can't, or won't do it, the major reason the schools need to provide sex education is to help kids to avoid sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and unwanted pregnancies. It's a natural thing that no matter what parents or the schools teach them, most kids, when they reach puberty, and their hormones are raging, are going to experiment at some point and in some way with sex. If the schools and parents can, at least, educate kids about how to be safe and why they need to be safe, then we may see a decline in STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

The bottom line here is that I believe that sex education needs to remain in the schools. I believe also that "comprehensive" rather than "abstinence-only" sex education should be provided (search the internet for "sex education" and look at WikipediA for explanations). I also believe that those that teach it should be well trained in the subject, thorough in their presentation, able to communicate well with young people, and I believe they should avoid moral issues at all costs. I think if I were a parent of a school age child today, I would want to review what the schools are going to teach my children about sex and then augment and back it up with additional facts as well as my own beliefs and concerns. I think sex education is extremely important for the health of our nation and the well-being of our children.

The Issues, No. 27 - Homosexual Marriage

I just returned home from a week in Florida. Florida has a proposition on the ballot in November to amend the Florida Constitution to ban same sex marriages and further to prevent judges from overturning the law. To me, this is yet another example of attempts by misguided, uninformed, and just plain mean individuals to force their moral/religious beliefs on the rest of society through legislation.

What could it possibly matter to anyone else whether two men or two women marry each other. It's one of those things that a person might find objectionable for themselves, but if it is, they simply don't have to do it. If someone else wants to do it, who cares? It's no one else's business! Same sex marriages don't hurt anyone, they don't threaten anyone, and the people involved generally don't try and convince heterosexual individuals to become homosexuals.

Homosexuals are a part of life. They are simply individuals who are built the way they are for any variety of reasons. Most of them can't help what they are any more than you can help what you are. Most of them are not bad people and many of them are smart, caring, good people who are contributing to society. They are not bad because they are homosexual and they don't deserve to be punished. And, there is no reason why they should not have the same protections legally, financially, and every other way that married heterosexual people have.

The proposition in Florida is an issue that is not a legal issue and therefore should not be on the ballot. Similar propositions and laws in other states need to be eliminated also because they are not issues our legislatures should be involved in. I don't want my representatives making laws that hurt anyone. If you don't like homosexuality don't become one and don't associate with them.

The Issues, No. 26 - Abortion and Right to Life

Another sensitive and divisive issue in our country is abortion and the right to life. As I said yesterday, I believe that abortion is a matter of personal conscience and, therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why anyone can get so concerned about it that they want to march on Washington and lobby their representatives to legislate against it.

My personal belief is that as a practice of birth control, abortion is wrong but in situations where the mother's life is in jeopardy or a young teenager is not ready for a child, I think it's justified, if the teenager and her parents agree. The rest of us may not like that decision, but the rest of us don't have to live with that decision, and it's really none of our business.

I would be very upset if the right to lifers succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal. If that were to happen, the practice of abortion would still continue but return to the situation of non-medical people performing the procedure in unsanitary conditions causing serious illness or injury. So, no matter how I personally feel about abortion, I realize that the practice will continue whether it's legal or not, and I would much prefer that it remain legal so that whenever it is performed it is performed by medical professionals in sanitary conditions.

It seems to me that although this is a very sensitive issue, we must be reasonable about how we deal with it and I believe that the Roe v. Wade decision was a very reasonable legal decision. If you don't like abortion or your religion says you shouldn't have one, you don't have to have one. But just as we discussed yesterday, don't ask me or anyone else to believe what or how you believe. And, don't ask my representatives in Congress to force me to believe what you or he/she believes either.

The issues, No. 25 - Religion and Politics

Yesterday I talked about religion and how I believe it to be a destructive rather than a constructive force in society. Today I'm going a little further and talk about how I don't believe religion has any place in American politics or in our government.

WikipediA says, "Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other" and "The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of the British philosopher John Locke. According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution."

Today we have a number of politicians and at least one political party that appears to be desparately attempting to inflict its religious beliefs on our society by its stances on abortion and "family values" which are religious/moral issues which I believe to be items of "individual conscience" and should be left entirely out of the political arena. It is a real turn off to me when a politician, who represents all kinds of Americans, spouts off about his/her own personal religious beliefs and attempts to convince others that they should believe in them also. I believe the "religious right" which is backed by religious leaders of various religions, works with and attempts to influence politicians to include thier spin on issues before Congress and this is a direct violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state.

I expect my politicians to be moral and conscientious individuals who care about America and who are interested in making America better. I don't expect them, however, to be influenced in their legislative decisions by religion or what any religion thinks. I also don't want them to put their own religious beliefs above the beliefs of their constituents. And, I don't ever want a politician or a piece of legislation to tell me what and how to think about anything.

The Issues, No. 24 - Religion

I may be stepping on a lot of toes today but I'm going to risk it. I have concluded over the years that religion is pretty scary and dangerous and totally irresponsible. Today's religions seem only to exist for the benefit of the religious leaders and offer very little, if anything, constructive to society and the world.

Religions are divisive and intolerant of others. Every religion believes it is the only true religion and that if you are not of that religion you are somehow a lesser being and/or you are going to go to hell, or even as some of the extreme Muslims believe, you should be killed. Religions scare their members into behaving and believing according to what the religion dictates. Some even require that their members give large percentages of their incomes to the church and that one is a bad person and unworthy if they don't.

Religions have historically caused more trouble in the world than any other kind of institution you can imagine. Just look at the crusades in the middle ages, the problem between the Catholics and the Protestants in Northern Ireland, the situation between the Israelis and the surrounding Arabs, and the current religious based terrorism going on in the world today. None of it makes any sense, it's all because of blind faith and ignorance, and a whole lot of people have been and are being hurt for nothing.

Although I can't see any reason for keeping religion around in today's world, I would say that if the different religions wants to succeed, they must come out of the dark ages and support the world community by working to promote peace, tolerance and understanding through education of their members and their outward actions. They could be a positive force in the world, if they wanted to. I'm not convinced, however, that their leadership has the desire or the intelligence to do it.

The Issues, No. 23 - Medicare, Health Insurance Providers, and the Medical Profession

From a recent tragic family experience, I am convinced that the medical profession is bilking Medicare and health insurance providers for everything it can get. And Medicare and the health insurance providers seem to go along with it because they pretty much pay what they're billed, without question.

In the first place, I don't understand who establishes the amounts that can be billed for each procedure, doctor's visit, medical item, or prescription drug. Whoever it is doesn't appear to have a grasp on reality because these amounts are totally exhorbitant for practically everything. Secondly, the medical profession seems to think that a patient on Medicare with secondary insurance is ripe for the picking because they seem to oftentimes bill for things they don't even do. They'll bill $60.00 for a doctor's visit in the hospital when the doctor did little more than stick his head in the room and say, "How are you?" What's sad about this is there isn't anyone policing this activity. Most of the time, if the charges are within the guidelines, Medicare will pay what is billed. The medical profession knows exactly how much they can bill and how much they can get away with and, believe me, they are getting away with robbery. They also know that it is difficult for a patient to contest a charge and that 99.99% of the patients won't contest anyway because they aren't paying for it out of their own pockets.

It's no wonder Medicare is such a costly program and it's no wonder health insurance is so expensive. It's no wonder also that doctors make so much money. They are simply robbing America to satisfy their own greed. And even though Medicare covers the medical expenses of older Americans, it still is a huge mess that desparately needs to be fixed before the medical profession ruins it for everyone.

The medical profession has a responsibility in our Democracy too. I think we should be able to get good medical care at reasonable and realistic prices. And instead of a medical profession that seems to exist for the benefit of the medical profession we need to have a medical profession that exists for the benefit of the patient.

Labor Day and Gustav

Today is Labor Day and also the day Hurricane Gustav has invaded the Gulf Coast and is churning its way inland. So, all I'm going to do today is wish you a Happy Labor Day and, for those of you in the path of Gustav, I wish you the very best for your personal safety and the safety of your homes and property.

The Issues, No. 22 - "We the People"

In addition to the President, Congress, the media, and corporate America which we have talked about previously, "we the people", who are the recipients/beneficiaries of everything the President, Congress, the media, and corporate America does, also have a profound responsibility in our democracy. And, like the others, we could do much better.

We, probably more than the people of any other nation on earth, have the ability to not only vote for whom we want, but we have the ability to let our representatives know, as often as we want, what we think and what we want them to do, without worrying about any form of retaliation. Unfortunately, most of us waste these opportunities and do not vote and do not ever contact our representatives to let them know what we think or want them to do.

A whole lot of us don't seem to care much about politics or what's going on in the country as long as everything is OK for us. We just assume that the elected officials will do what's right and will not do anything that will hurt us or our futures. If we have a complaint, we usually only discuss it with our spouses, our parents, the people we work with, or our friends --- or, in other words, people who can't do anything about it. Even if we think we might contact a representative, we might be afraid that there will be some form of retaliation and so we do nothing.

We simply have a wonderful opportunity to partner with our elected officials, to share our thoughts with them, and to help them make our country better and we don't take advantage of it. One of the purposes of the American Dream Machine is to encourage you to get involved; to vote and to share your thoughts and ideas with your elected officials. You have a great stake in this country and your thoughts and ideas are as good, and maybe better, than the thoughts and ideas of your representatives. But, if you don't let them know, they'll never hear them.

As I've said earlier, it's very easy to contact the President, your representatives in Congress, your Governor, and your state and local representatives. You can call them, write them, or email them. And most of them will send you a response. It also will not take you any time, to speak of, to do it. I've also suggested that you might just contact them and tell them you are involved in the American Dream Machine at http://americandreammachine.blogspot.com/ and that you would like them to look at and do something about the issues you are interested in. I truly believe you owe it to yourself, and maybe even to your country, to contact them all. If enough of us do it, we can truly be partners with them in making America better.