Picking a President from Honorable Men

as i see it...Both candidates for President seem to be honorable men. The Incumbent is a family man with a beautiful wife and two wonderful daughters. The challenger has an equally lovely wife and five well brought up sons.. And though they have different backgrounds and experiences, demonizing either man seems both hysterical and uncalled for.

The incumbent, Mr. Obama began his career as a "neighborhood organizer" which I assume means he helped low income people apply for state and federal aid programs. He then ran for and was elected to the Senate, where he quickly ran for and was elected President.

At this time I want to say that 150 years after the Civil War, it was time in 2008 that America elected an African-American President. The next step would be to elect a woman to our highest office. (Hilary?)

The Challenger, Mr. Romney began as a businessman, who built a $Billion business from nothing, then worked on and saved a massively corrupt and financially ruined International Olympics. Then he became the Republican Governor of wildly Democratic Massachusetts and balanced four state budgets. Then he began running for President.

Again, both men are honorable products of their experiences. But what is the BIGGEST problem facing whoever wins the November election? THE PROBLEM IS THE ECONOMY!! and how to cure it and bring America back to a competent leadership role, WITH NEW WELL PAYING JOBS for our kids and their kids.

Beyond the crazy emotions on both sides, the recriminations and vilifications we hear and are frankly sick of on the campaign trail, the man whose resume speaks loudest to his ability to fix the problem is the challenger, MR. ROMNEY

Money For Defense

as i see it..we do need to spend billions of dollars to keep us safe in a dangerous world. I get that. But how much will ever be "enough"? I was listening to Allan Simpson the other day, who in his very long time in the Senate was very much a backer of Defense Spending. But then we had numerous wars going on including Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. But by the end of 2014 we should be all but out of those places. And OK, there are bad people in other places around the world that we should be ready to defend ourselves against, I'm thinking N. Koea, China, even Russia. But we (the American taxpayer) spend more on Defense than the next 20 countries combined, and most of those are our "Allies". If not our Allies, who are we preparing to fight? How much of the spending is truely needed? But woe be the politician who suggests cutting the Defense budget. When we stop military spending we cut off American jobs, and those jobs have been spread so nicely over the country (especially in the districts of powerful politicians). Cutting Defense even when we have more than we will likely ever need is the "3rd Rail" of American politics. Before he left office, President Eisenhower (somewhat of a military man himself) warned us against the growth of the Military Industrial Complex that would get so big, so neccessary to our lives, that it could never come under control. Maybe we have arrived at that point. I hope not.

So what should whoever wins the White House and Senate do next year? Cut the Defense Budget to only TWICE the amount of the next largest spenders. After the HOWLING,renting of garments, and nashing of teeth, tell the Pentagon to figure out the best way to spend that much. Then fully fund Medicare, Social Security, and begin to pay down the National Debt.

Redistribution of Income

as I see it...though it's easy to say "I want more and I want someone else to pay for it", eventually the costs of what we want comes down to us, directly or indirectly. For example, if property taxes are raised renters wind up paying for them, and that makes sense since the renters are the ones living there (or the business that is operating there). The alternative to passing the cost of things to the people who consume them is a killing of the "golden goose" and a diminishing of the total produced for all of us. If the landlord cannot pass the cost to the people or business existing in his rental property, a simple question of profit or loss directs that he no longer offer the space to his tenants.

In a democracy like ours, when hard times come, people can lose a sense of "I can do that as well as he can, and I too can be prosperous" and instead shout that "we want the government to take away what they have, and give it to us." and they vote that way. The problem is that "they" generally have earned what they have by providing things that "we" need or want. And if they are not incentivised by prosperity they don't go through the pain and risk of providing. Nor would you or I do it.

The Soviet example should make it clear that incentives work for the betterment of society as a whole.  I have asked my students who have good grades if they would work as hard if I took their points away from them (say 30% a la the "Buffet Rule"), and gave it to their "not as productive" fellow students. Not surprisingly the gave a resounding NO.

We already have a system of income distribution called the "Progressive" Income tax. And we have a history of being a loving and generous people. But lets be sure not to strangle the golden goose.

Ok GOP, It's Time to Get Along!!

as I see it...It has been an energetic and freewheeling campaign season, but the question on the Republican side has been answered. My candidate has always been a joining of the BRAINS of Newt, the CONSERVATISM  of Santorum, the pure ZEALOTRY of Ron Paul, married to the BUSINESS BACKGROUND of Mitt. The problem is that only one can be the candidate. As intelligent as he is, Newt has too much personal baggage for the American people to elect him to the top job. I'd like to see him serve in a new Republican administration in some powerful advisory capacity, like Sec of "What is Really Wrong and How Do We fix it". Ron Paul looks like the Leprechaun King and though he may be right on many of his stands, he scares people. I'd like him to become the "Sec. of NO" (an idea I give credit to Dave Berry for coming up with) Essentially, when ever anyone in government comes up with an idea that expands the roll of government, Ron will look for it in the Constitution, and if it's not there he says "NO", and that's the end of it. So that leave Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Wait a minute!!! That could be the ticket!! As a precedent, Reagan and Bush Senior said a lot of bad things about each other in the primaries, and yet became a good team that many people look back on as one of the best times in our history. Santorum can bring the backing of the conservatives in the party and disaffected democrats and independents to the polls. And he is young enough to wait for eight years for his turn. So there you have it!! You read it here first!! Romney and Santorum!!

Defining Marriage...

as i see it...The people, both gay and straight, who are fighting for what they are convinced is the right thing, should ask themselves if what they want is a solution to the problem or is the goal of the exercise the glory and intrinsic reward of continuing the fight. What do each of the sides want? The gay community is determined that they be legally entitled  to have their relationships accepted by the greater society, under the mantle of "Marriage". They want to be treated equally, with the same rights to legal partnerships that straight people enjoy. The other side is equally determined that "Marriage" is the most sacred union, and that it is described by God as being between a man and a woman. And frankly, no one would say that gay and straight unions are "the same thing". And is the union of two men "the same" as a union between two women? Obviously not.

So how do we address the problem, without having peoples heads explode? Let me offer a solution: First let's abolish the legal definition of "Marriage". Puff!! it no longer exists. Then let's look around at things that are of equal standing, yet are called something different - Places of worship!! First, we have Christian "churches", Jewish "synagogues", "mosques,""temples" "halls" and any number of other religious establishments. Every town in America has some combination of them, and few people object.

So, let's call the various different unions by other names!! We can call unions of women and men "1". We can call unions of men and men an "A". And unions of women and women could be called "Purple". Different, but legal unions. Nothing to fight about!! (The unions my cousin Arnold still has, with a different woman every night, would still be called "Sleezy and Irresponsible").

What do you think??

God, and Loving, and Learning...

as i see it...This year, in December, I'm going to be sixty years old. And frankly it comes as a surprise. How did that happen, we were just 18? And where did all these aches come from? (lol) But I have learned some things about life, the first of which is There is a God, and he loves me, and whether you believe it or not, he loves you, as well. In fact, though it would be great to learn that my father was Bill Gates, the creator of the world of computers and software, it's far better to know that my father is the creator of the UNIVERSE.Yep, that's my DAD!! Since I invited God into my life when I was 18, we've walked together through hard times and times of joy, and I've enjoyed long-term friendships (some since middle school and high school), the perfect soul-mate for me, and a thrilling ride through life.(Don't get me wrong, I'm only sixty, and I have a long way to go..but so far, so good.)

Another thing I've learned about life is that the road to personal happiness runs through generosity,through giving. What we get in life is some length of time, our love and affections, and to some degree a level of wealth. The trick is to give it away, to share our love and generosity with others , and the universe as God has created it, conspires to give it back to us, multiplied. It's true, what goes around does come around. And you really do reap what you sow.

Sadly, most churches have corrupted God right out of their programs. When Jesus sent them out into the world, his apostles had only the sandals on their feet and perhaps a staff. Now we have huge beautiful buildings, stained glass windows, and the first thing on the agenda on Sunday, during so called "worship" services, is the amount of money in the building fund, the operation expenses of the church and the reason they need an extra collection this Sunday. What are they worshiping?? In His day, Jesus referred to the religious leaders as evil vipers, more fit for Hell than the sinners. The "Churchifieds" (my term) of today will hold hands and pray loudly around a table in a restaurant, send their children off to build a church in Mexico (after major fanfare and much congratulations about how wonderful and loving they are) and yet refuse to visit a relative in the hospital because that makes them feel "uncomfortable", ("I was sick and you visited me?? didn't I read that??") And don't they love to share how holy they are, how they are of service to their community, and how others fail so often and so badly, "poor dears, tsk, tsk".

When asked by the leaders of His time what all the scriptures boiled down to, Jesus said it was simple. Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. What that means could be complicated and written up in the dissertations of biblical scholars, or simplified into this: If you fell in love with another person, that hunky guy, or lovely woman, you'd be interested in them, you'd start by finding out about them. It's not that different with God. You can get a copy of your own Bible, steer clear of organized religion, start with the Four Gospels, and learn about Him. Concentrate on what Jesus himself said. (Though the Churchifieds would howl, I'd avoid the books after the Gospels, cuz by that time Jesus is in Heaven and things begin to get "organized".)  The second half "Love your neighbor as yourself" can again be complicated out of all reason, or kept simple. How do you treat yourself? I am very quick to rationalize why what I did was reasonable under the circumstances. "I needed to speed down the freeway because I was late, and my students are waiting, and that's noble, right??" But let someone else go flying past me and he's a "safety hazard, and where's there a cop when you need one?" What if we worked as hard forgiving and looking for the good things in others, as we so quickly do for ourselves? What if we did?

What we Should learn in High School...

as i see it...Students today must spend approx 185 instructional days per year, and they must earn a prescribed number of credits (can be different according to state or school district.) to be awarded a diploma. And I will address the curriculum in another post. However there is a "3 Step Program", that the successful student is learning, but which they might never hear articulated. And the Program, if understood and followed, will get them great grades in both high school and college, advance them in their work/career, and even help them get along with their parents. and here it is: Step1) Find out who is in charge and what they want. Step2) Do it. and Step3) Get rewarded. Tah-dah!! (And once you are the one in charge, the listing is similar. 1) Make sure everyone knows you are in charge. 2) Tell them what you want. and 3) Reward those who do it.)

In almost every situation, at least in school, work or even the home, someone has been empowered to direct what happens. And usually they have been given the opportunity to hand out goodies that those subordinate to them want to receive. This simple plan, however, leaves no room for the usual whining and complaining that dogs most unsuccessful endeavors.  And maybe that is exactly what the successful students are learning.