Friday August 15, 2013...It is theirs, after all!

John Jay, the president of the Continental Congress, then first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, enunciated in the Constitutional Convention that "those who own the country ought to govern it". That has been the thinking of the Republican Party ever since they started.


In the past, the United States has sometimes, kind of sardonically, been described as a one-party state: the business party with two factions called Democrats and Republicans. That's no longer true. It's still a one-party state, the business party. But it only has one faction. The faction is moderate Republicans, who are now called Democrats. There are virtually no moderate Republicans in what's called the Republican Party and virtually no liberal Democrats in what's called the Democratic Party. It's basically a party of what would be moderate Republicans and similarly, Richard Nixon would be way at the left of the political spectrum today. Eisenhower would be in outer space.


The wealthy have reclaimed the nation and are running it the way they want it run. Of the wealthy, by the wealth and for the wealthy.

Wednesday July 24, 2013...Thought for today

I've given up on democrats and liberals. I've given up on electoral change. Public banking could be the straw that breaks the corporatist camel's back. North Dakota has had it for over 80 years. Many nations have it. There are a few states or cities that are getting close to instituting it.

Big corporations are the biggest threat to the future of the human race... period. The TPP Trans Pacific Partnership, will confer nation state status on corporations. Obama is pushing this and the congress is ready to let it happen.

Here in the US, the people must take their country back from the military/financial/medico-Pharma/Agra/prison/fossil fuel energy complex.

Sunday July 14, 2013...Zimmerman trial

I wasn't there, you weren't there - at the trial. The jury was there and heard all the evidence.

Many forget but the initial prosecutor refused to take this case because it was clear there was not the evidence to support charging Zimmerman. It turned out he was right. But political forces and people who suddenly had the bright lights turned on them were not going to care about true justice. Instead they dumped that prosecutor and found someone who would take this case.

The fact that the stand your ground law appears to have been abused in Florida may indeed be an argument that has validity and something that needs to be addressed. But it does not mean that George Zimmerman is guilty. In fact, he did not even use the stand your ground defense.
The fact that this case has revealed the gross misconduct of prosecutors across this country in over charging and over reaching could very well be a good thing; especially if something is finally done about it. But it does not mean that George Zimmerman is guilty.
The sad truth is that this was one of the most poorly handled cases we have seen in recent years.

By the time we got to the defense case, the prosecution had already conceded that it was Martin who was the aggressor, not Zimmerman.

Justice and the law dictated the verdict. That's what the trial demanded.

Sunday June 23, 2013...Different worlds

It's Sunday, June 23, 2013.

I was talking with Zachary, my grandson, this morning. I realized as we were talking that he was looking forward to the most of his life, and I was looking back on most of mine. We each had our own perspective of what was important, but it differed depending on the viewpoint. I've tried to counsel him about what was important, the things that I have learned in life that might affect him. He couldn't see the problems facing him as well as I could and will probably have to learn by trial and error like I did. I was hoping that I could share some of the things I had learned and help him to avoid some of the mistakes that I had made during my lifetime. But it seems that each of us can only learn from our own mistakes and can't effectively utilize knowledge impressed upon us by others. I will keep trying to convey solutions that I have discovered, and perhaps by repetition, and some of that knowledge will eke its way into his brain. I know the world is different now than it was when I was young and perhaps some of the things I learned won't be applicable in today's world, but I'm sure that some of those things I've learned can be used. Today's world is so instantly communicable and news is so up to the minute that everyone feels in direct contact with what's going on the world. In my youth. We learned so much of the news long after it had happened and felt a bit distant from the rest of the world. Our world was more local and the things that concerned us were within reach. Male took days to reach us and telephones were fixed to the household and we couldn't be reached when we were away from home. We had to be prepared to deal with any emergency without someone else's help. Now with the advent of cellular telephones, help is just a a few buttons away and no one feels completely isolated. In my day, and you had to carry maps to determine where you were in the world. Now most phones have GPS and you can determine where you are with the click. So now folks are more connected, but at the same time are more dependent on each other. We gave up some degree of our independence for the luxury of communication. My grandson's world's is quite different from mine when I was his age. There are advantages and disadvantages, but I hope he will develop some of the independent character that was so important in my day. The more dependent you become on society, the less able you are to deal with emergencies. And part of the planning for the future is to allow for emergencies that will develop. If our country ever has a cyber attack, and we somehow lose our generating power, we will need to be more independent, each one of us. So I try to prepare for an emergency hoping that it never occurs and try to convey my grandson, what knowledge he may need.

Wednesday June 19, 2013...When Whigs ruled

Oh, for the good old day when the Whigs were in power. Or when Lincoln was here or Teddy Roosevelt was here or Eisenhower was here. How did the Republicans come to be this bad?

Obstruction remains the Republicans' main political strategy. And their control of the House and the use of the filibuster in the Senate, enable them to cripple our governing process.

Helping people see that our governmental dysfunction is a deliberate choice the Republicans are making is a good starting place, building as it does on the concerns of citizens -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- over the stalemate in Congress. But that's just one piece in a very big picture that Americans need to see.

" Income and wealth inequality are wider than at any time in living memory, yet Republicans are helping to widen that gap.

" The country is still devastated by the aftereffects of a financial collapse, yet Republicans are working to prevent the restoration of the kinds of regulations that kept our financial system stable for seventy years.

" 97 % of the top scientists in the climate field agree that climate disruption may pose the greatest challenge in human history, and we're already seeing costly consequences, yet Republicans have made it party dogma that the scientists are wrong and that nothing, or little, should be done.

" Getting Americans back to work should be our top economic priority, yet Republicans block programs to add jobs while insisting on austerity policies that have thrown additional hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work.

When today's Republicans are out of power, they try to prevent anything good from being done. But when they were in power, they gave us a presidency (2001-2009) that was perhaps the most damaging in our history:

" two wars of choice, one under false pretenses;

" officially sanctioned torture;

" more assaults on the Constitution and the rule of law than by any previous presidency

" an economy in the worst shape since the Great Depression;

" the inflaming of divisions among Americans;

" hostility toward America among citizens of nations that have historically been our friends.

Freiday June 14, 2013...The powers that be

TODAY'S GLOBAL POWER OLIGARCHY

This world belongs to all of us.

But I claim this field as mine.

I'll live in the castle and you all work and live in the fields.

You bring all your produce to me and I'll give each of you a basket of vegetables for your efforts.

As I build up wealth, I will build factories and your children can work in them for me.

With the increased wealth that I will amass with your labor, I can acquire more fields and more factories.

You can be thankful to me for providing you with a livelihood, as long as you can keep producing for me. Once you can no longer be a productive member of my organization, you are no longer welcome.

My children will start off with the accumulated wealth that I leave to them and they will be able to amass even greater wealth. That will leave the rest you with less, but that's your worry, not mine.

Eventually this system will result in a completely top-heavy society with all the wealth owned by only a few super rich and powerful people and the rest of us.

In 2006, a UN report revealed that the world’s richest 1% own 40% of the world’s wealth, and the world’s richest 10% accounted for roughly 85% of the planet's total assets, while the bottom half of the population – more than 3 billion people – owned less than 1% of the world’s wealth.

It's gotten out of hand already and getting worse each year.

Something needs to change.

Monday June 10, 2013...Standstill

Robert Reich analyzed the present situation.

On the Liberal side:
Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party now controls both legislative chambers and the governor’s office for the first time in more than two decades. The legislative session that ended a few weeks ago resulted in a hike in the top income tax rate to 9.85%, an increased cigarette tax, and the elimination of several corporate tax loopholes. The added revenues will be used to expand early-childhood education, freeze tuitions at state universities, fund jobs and economic development, and reduce the state budget deficit. Along the way, Minnesota also legalized same-sex marriage and expanded the power of trade unions to organize. 

On the Conservative side:
The biggest controversy in Kansas is between Governor Sam Brownback, who wants to shift taxes away from the wealthy and onto the middle class and poor by repealing the state’s income tax and substituting an increase in the sales tax, and Kansas legislators who want to cut the sales tax as well, thereby reducing the state’s already paltry spending for basic services. Kansas recently cut its budget for higher education by almost 5 percent.

Meanwhile:
The Tea Party has basically shut Congress down. Their refusal to compromise is working just as they hoped: No jobs agenda. No budget. No grand bargain on the deficit. No background checks on guns. Nothing on climate change. No tax reform. No hike in the minimum wage. Nothing so far on immigration reform. 
It’s as if an entire branch of the federal  government — the branch that’s supposed to deal directly with the nation’s problems, not just execute the law or interpret the law but make the law — has gone out of business, leaving behind only a so-called “sequester” that’s cutting deeper and deeper into education, infrastructure, programs for the nation’s poor, and national defense.

A great nation requires a great, or at least functional, national government. The Tea Partiers and other government-haters who have caused Washington to all but close because they refuse to compromise are threatening all that we aspire to be together.

Saturday June 1, 2013...Observations

The recovery isn't happening.  I'm afraid the next downturn could be very bad.

Official unemployment hovers around 8 percent, but if you count the people who are forced to work part-time, or who have been dropped from the rolls because they’ve been looking for a job for a month or longer, the numbers jump to anywhere from 15 to 23 percent of the population.

During the downturn, 78.7 percent of the jobs lost were either mid-wage or high-wage jobs like paralegals, carpenters, nurses, and accountants. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, three out of five newly created jobs are part-time, low-wage jobs with little opportunity for advancement.

Roughly one in ten families, and one in four children, remained dependent on food stamps.

Corporate America might be recovering, but working people aren’t. For corporate America to recover, the rest of us have to take a pay cut or lose our job, our pension, our health insurance, our home, our time with our family. Recovered profits aren’t trickling down to create decent jobs or pay workers back for concessions.

Saturday May 18, 2013...Thoughts of today

Thoughts of May 18, 2013

I get tired of being against things. It leaves you in a negative mood when all you can complain about are things that upset you. I get tired of politicians who were against something all the time. I want to be for something. I want politicians who are for something. I want politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who are positive in what they want to do. They will mention some of the things that are wrong but they will also speak of the things that can be done to correct the situation. It seems so many of the Republicans are against anything but you don't hear what they are for. I know that many of the Republicans are against Obama care but I don't hear a positive replacement for that. I know that many of the Republicans are against the EPA and OSHA but they don't spell out how they would replace those entities. They complain about waste and the government and they somehow believe that private enterprise could replace that more efficiently but they offer no example of when that has happened. We've seen the privatization of much of the military, particularly in the support area. But I'm not sure that they received any money by hiring this out to private enterprise and lobbied acquaintances. When we privatize some of our services there is no incentive for that service to be more efficient or cost less in fact just the opposite occurs because the more it costs the more they make. When I was in construction you made more money from the changes to the contract then you made from the original contract. So right now the emphasis is on performing the work through private enterprise instead of public employees which presents a method to reward lackeys. And we very seldom punish our suppliers for not being cost-efficient. In fact they end up making more money correcting the errors that they themselves brought on.

But here I am being negative again and that isn't what I meant to do. I think I am just like the majority of the American citizens who have been waiting now for several years for Congress to act. We want some positive steps taken to help our economy to help our jobs. Instead always gotten delaying actions in and balking against doing anything productive. They want to point fingers at each other instead of moving forward with plans for the future. Meanwhile the average citizen is losing ground. Homes are worth less than they used to be, and jobs are more scarce, education costs more, food costs have risen, health care costs have risen, payee has stagnated and all Congress can do is block each other. Congress seems to be only responding to the wealthy backers. Corporations and banks seem to be controlling our country and the wishes of the citizens are ignored. Even our Democratic president, who talks a good talk, doesn't follow through for the common man. Something will have to change.

Right now politics is controlled by the wealthy and we are offered only those candidates who can obtain monies from the wealthy in order to run their campaign. So our choice is to take their left hand or the right hand with no other option. We lose going in. Now that the wealthy also control the courts and corporations are now recognized by the courts as having personal rights and the ability to pump money into politics we can only look forward to more and more of the same. Meanwhile certain wealthy individuals or organizations control the news media and we only get the filtered news that they wish us to have. Much of the news is biased and opinionated and often controlled by the whims and decisions of the wealthy. Many people still believe that the news as presented on the various channels but they don't know that the news has been selectively chosen for certain desired effect. I'm not sure when the public will wake up discover that we've lost control of our own country.

Every once in a while you have a Bernie Sanders pop-up or an Elizabeth Warren which gives a spark of hope but their voices often get drowned out by the cacophony of the machine politics. Something will have to change and hopefully soon.

Sunday May 5, 2013...Survivors

Life Expectancy	Age
Calendar period	0	10	20	30	40	50	60	70	80
White males
1850	38.3	48	40.1	34	27.9	21.6	15.6	10.2	5.9
1890	42.5	48.45	40.66	34.05	27.37	20.72	14.73	9.35	5.4
1900–1902	48.23	50.59	42.19	34.88	27.74	20.76	14.35	9.03	5.1
1909–1911	50.23	51.32	42.71	34.87	27.43	20.39	13.98	8.83	5.09
1919–1921	56.34	54.15	45.6	37.65	29.86	22.22	15.25	9.51	5.47
1929–1931	59.12	54.96	46.02	37.54	29.22	21.51	14.72	9.2	5.26
1939–1941	62.81	57.03	47.76	38.8	30.03	21.96	15.05	9.42	5.38
1949–1951	66.31	58.98	49.52	40.29	31.17	22.83	15.76	10.07	5.88
1959–1961	67.55	59.78	50.25	40.98	31.73	23.22	16.01	10.29	5.89

So someone born in 1941 could expect to live an average of 63 years.

But if that person survived till age 40 he could expect to live till 70.

At 70 that person can expect to live till about 80.

These later survivability numbers have held fairly consistent over the last century. Once you survived childhood diseases and youth accidents, you had good life expectancy.

This was true when social Security was first established and still true.

It's nice to be a survivor and to hope for a few more good years.

Thursday May 2, 2013...DOZENS

Today was my son-in-law's 47^th birthday. 

I started thinking of “dozens”.

He is approaching his 4^th dozen birthday and I'm approaching my 6^th dozen birthday.

A person is lucky to get 7 dozen years and some even get 8 dozen, but not too many.

The first dozen years go by slowly as we learn to speak and walk and run and sing and pass through grade school. By the end of my first dozen years I was through 7^th grade and through Cub Scouts and ready for high school.

The second dozen years go by more quickly as we pass through high school and have our first love and learn to drive and to work and to share with others. Some of us go on to college while some go into military and others begin to work. Some of us get married and start our families.

The third dozen years find us buying our first home and establishing our work history, raising our kids, finding our path through life. Some of us end up changing our paths with divorce or changing jobs or changing locations. The years are passing much quicker.

The fourth dozen years find us more mature and looked upon more as leaders in our groups. Our children are growing up and finding their way into life. We are starting to look ahead towards our future retirement. Our bodies are starting to give us a little more trouble as we have worn them with little regard for the passing years. The years pass by almost before we realize them.

The fifth dozen years are the winding down years in our professions. Our families have grown and left and we find little room for change at this point in our lives. We are more accepting of the situations we find ourselves in and are contemplating retirement.

The sixth dozen years find us retired and a little less healthy. We have learned much over the years and have much more wisdom than we had earlier, but our opinion carries less weight in the community at large. The past dozen years have brought tremendous technical changes in our world, but we have memories of simpler times and find the modern times a bit bewildering. Where did the years go?

We are still the young people we once were, in our minds, with much more wisdom to share, but our bodies are not keeping up with our mental facilities. We now know that the end approaches and that we won't leave a lasting legacy for the future generations, but we will try to set an example for our children and grandchildren to follow.

The seventh dozen years are mellow years with little expectation and more enjoyment of the simpler joys. We have done our best and have made it this far and now we can enjoy the sunsets and the breezes and not worry about the future we won't see. The present is enough and the years have flown by far too quickly with many unnoticed. The memories are good and those memories that once hurt are now diffused with the glow of years gone by. We remember only the good and have no bitterness for what might have been.

It has been a good life and I enjoyed the experiences. Each dozen had its own flavor and contributed to the mix.

Friday, April 12, 2013...Who can you turn to?

WHO CAN YOU TURN TO WHEN NOBODY'S LISTENING?

Once again, the President is turning his back on the base, caving in to Congressional right-wingers and corporate special interests.

The administration’s undermining of civil liberties, scant action on climate change, huge escalation of war in Afghanistan, expansion of drone warfare, austerity policies serving Wall Street and shafting Main Street, vast deference to corporate power. . . The list is long and chilling.

From this spring onward, a wide range of progressive groups should be prepared to work together to effectively renounce Obama’s leadership.

This spring, there’s a lot of work beckoning for progressives who mean business about gaining electoral power for social movements; who have no intention of eliding the grim realities of the Obama presidency; who are more than fed up with false pretenses that Obama is some kind of ally of progressives; who recognize that Obama has served his last major useful purpose for progressives by blocking a Romney-Ryan regime from entering the White House; who are willing to be here now, in this historical moment, to organize against and polarize with the Obama administration in basic terms; and who, looking ahead, grasp the tragic folly of leaving the electoral field to battles between right-wing Republicans and Democrats willing to go along with the kind of destructive mess that President Obama has been serving up.

A song by Tony Bennett:

“And maybe tomorrow I'll find what I'm after
I'll throw off my sorrow, beg, steal, or borrow my share of laughter
With you I could learn to, with you what a new day
But who can I turn to if you turn away?”

Thursday, April 11, 2013...Things to come

ONE THING LEADS TO ANOTHER.

THE FALL OF THE SOVIET UNION OPENED UP COMMUNIST CHINA FOR CORPORATE EXPANSION, WHICH ENDED UP ELIMINATING THE MIDDLE CLASS IN THE UNITED STATES AND EVENTUALLY REDUCING IT TO A THIRD WORLD POWER (AFTER THE UPCOMING CRASH). THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET HELPED SPEED UP THE TRANSFER OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND GLOBALIZATION OF ALL TRADES AND PROFESSIONS. INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM HAS BEEN REPLACED BY FINANCIAL CAPITALIZATION AND BANKS RULE GOVERNMENTS.

Thoughts expressed on the internet:

What happened economically because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of the high speed internet is that it made it possible for Western corporations (corporations in the United States, Europe) to arbitrage labor across national borders.

In other words, when the Soviets collapsed, it had a big impact on thinking in Communist China and Socialist India. Their response to the failure of the Soviet Union was to open their vast, underutilized labor to Western capital. So the corporations found out that they could produce for their home market offshore in India or China, dramatically drop the labor cost, and thereby dramatically increase the profits flowing in capital gains to shareholders and in performance bonuses to executives.

So the collapse of the Soviet Union began the arbitrage of of labor, and it ended up separating Americans from the production of the goods and services that they consume. The economy has been dead in the water ever since, and the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan tried to substitute - for the missing growth in consumer income in employment - consumer indebtedness. So we had the rise in consumer indebtedness, the real estate bubble, the various financial frauds, and the ongoing financial crisis as well as increasing unemployment.

The manufacturing goods were produced offshore and sent in. What the high speed internet allowed the corporations to do was to offshore the production of professional services, such as software engineering, information technology; and now, of course, research, design. They could hire people in India to do this work, and they could send it in on the high speed internet, and so we have seen the employment for Americans in rapidly growing fields such as software engineering and information technology simply dry up. The work is now done offshore and sent in on the internet. So the consequence of Soviet collapse was to destroy American manufacturing jobs, and to destroy professional service jobs that had always been the ladder of upward mobility for American university graduates.

"Don't look for a job that can be outsourced by the internet." Even radiologists are being outsourced.; so if you get an x-ray, they send the results to India to have a radiologist in India do it instead of an American doctor doing it.

It's certainly the case that innovation follows manufacturing. If you're not manufacturing things, you're out of touch, and you don't know what to innovate, or how to innovate. if you're not making things, you don't know what to innovate. You get out of touch with technologies. You become a Third World Country. We now see from all the surveys that increasingly, American corporations innovate outside the country where their offshore plants are.

So if the American manufacturing worker costs $22 an hour (with all the benefits, and so forth), and the Chinese at the time this started cost 25c an hour, you have an amazing labor cost difference. And so they look at this and they say: "Well, wow! We could really drop our cost of production by producing with this Chinese labor, because instead of twenty-five bucks an hour, it's twenty five cents." That's what we mean by labor arbitrage. They just say, "OK, we're not hiring these Americans, we're going to hire the Chinese." That's labor arbitrage. The job offshoring was undermining employment opportunities in the United States, and certainly had stopped the rise in consumer income.

The main function of globalism is to de-industrialize high-wage countries that are developed.

The other main result of globalism is to turn lesser developed countries that had viable agriculture and were self-sustaining, to turn them into monocultures; supplying like one crop for global markets, and then that makes them -- first of all, that destroys the economic-social systems there, and people now are dependent on food imports. The big farms, of course, haven't room for much of the population that used to be on sustainable farms. So globalism is a wrecking force of amazing power to wreck. It doesn't do anything good except for shareholders of big corporations and their managers, or chief executives.

So there's no longer - governments don't represent the people anymore. In Europe, they represent the very powerful private banks, and they're going to be sure they don't lose any money; so that shareholders in the banks are being made whole by, in the case of Cyprus, seizing some share of the bank deposits of depositors. And what they did in Greece, they cut wages and salaries, they cut pensions, they cut social services, they sold off public assets like water companies to private companies, who then doubled the price, and then that way the suppressed the living standards of the Greek people in order to pay off bankers, so that the shareholders of the banks didn't lose any money.

"The Right is correct that government power is the problem, and the Left is correct that private power is the problem. Therefore, whether power is located within the government or private sectors cannot reduce, constrain, or minimize power. " And you talked about how the Founding Fathers had a solution, that it didn't work, and now we've got accumulation of new dictatorial powers in the Executive Branch in the name of protecting us from terrorists, and with deregulation's creation of powerful corporations to big to fail.

the two political parties. But they're not necessarily identified with Right Wing and Left Wing. What happened to the Democrats was the offshoring of the manufacturing jobs destroyed the power of the labor unions and the ability to finance the Democratic party. See, the Democrats were financed by labor, the Republicans were financed by business, and so there was countervailing power. They could contain one another. Neither side could go too far away from some sort of balance. But when the unions lost all these manufacturing jobs, and former cities which were powerhouses in manufacturing just dried up and disappeared, the Democrats then had to go to the same sources of financing as the Republicans. So now, both parties are dependent on the same financing, and this then has made it easy for the corporations to control both parties!

What's happening though is that it's failing. It doesn't work for the industrial countries, it works for China, who gets all the offshored production, and so American GDP becomes Chinese GDP, and American jobs become Chinese jobs, and American consumer income becomes Chinese consumer income. What's happening is the balance of power in the world is shifting completely away from the West. It's washed up.

So, the more trade agreements that Obama and any President signs, they're basically accelerating the transition of power to China And India and other former third World countries, but they're the rising countries now - the BriC countries.

The Chinese manufacturing force is 112 million. The American force is Eleven million. Eleven!

Is it possible if we could find and elect a leader who said "My first step as the new President is to cancel these global trade agreements." Would that be possible, if they were able to stand up to all these different people?

It can't happen for the reason that right now it serves the interest for the power, so they're not going to overturn it. Now, when it becomes apparent that we've destroyed ourselves, you can't get the power back. You think the Chinese are going let you all of a sudden let you overcome this? No. They'll hold the upper hand. They're not going to say "OK, let's now destroy ourselves the way the Americans destroyed themselves." I think it's all over with for the West. I don't think they can come back, and so what we're going to be in is a period of transition in which the West becomes no longer the ruler of the universe. It will be slowly declining. In fact, the collapse could be sudden.

The dollar is one of the biggest bubbles in history. The Federal Reserve is creating over a trillion new dollars annually, but the demand for dollars is not rising by a trillion annually. And so, sooner or later, this has to affect the price of the dollar, that is, the exchange value. And we already see the important nations moving to decouple from the dollar.
We have the BriCs: this is China, Russia, Brazil, India, South Africa. Altogether now, that's probably about half the world's population. And it's probably half of the traded goods (laughs). And so they're setting up a system in which they settle their trade with one another in their own currencies. The dollar is no longer used as a reserve currency. They're setting up their own version of an IMF. They're just going to bypass all the Western institutions. We see in China and Asia the rise of an Asian currency bloc, which is being organized around the Chinese currency. We see deals with Japan and China to settle their trade with one another in their own currencies.
So the demand and use for the dollar is about to rapidly constrict. We'll have a situation where the Feds are not only creating a trillion new dollars more than the demand is growing, but the demand will be shrinking! And so the thing will blow up. And when the dollar bubble pops, so does the bond market bubble, the stock market bubble. We will have the biggest economic catastrophe in the history of the world, and there is no solution. The United States will go from being a so-called superpower to a nothing!
It could happen at any time. It's a perfect storm that the idiot policy makers have created because they don't serve the public interest, they serve a few rich bankers. The whole thing has been keyed toward protecting the banks that our deregulation policy allowed to get to big to fail. Not only that, but the public officials, the Secretary of the Treasury, the FED, the financial regulatory agency heads, they're all the former bankers themselves, all their proteges. You have a situation where the class that caused the crisis is running the solution, and the solution is to keep the banks from having any pain; what it does to the rest of us is not their concern.

Because the people running the policy are not individual rich people: they are the very large financial institutions. They may finance billionaires in some scheme a billionaire has, but the power is Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America. It's these financial institutions, they have financialized the economy. Industrial Capitalism is over and done with. We have Financial Capitalism, and what they do is, they organize a whole economy so that all the surplus is drawn off in interest paid to banks. You can see it happening in Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Cypress and spreading into other countries of the world. One day, soon, it will happen in the United States.

Saturday March 2, 2013...Sequester

Just Dumb Mar 1, 2013 | By ThinkProgress War Room Sequester: “A Fancy Word for a Dumb Idea” That’s what the President of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, called the sequester — and he’s absolutely right. Republicans have once again shown that they’ll do almost anything to protect the wealthy and special interests like Big Oil — no matter the cost to the rest of us and to the economy. This time, they have allowed devastating across-the-board spending cuts to kick in. Just yesterday, the Senate voted on a balanced plan to replace this year’s indiscriminate cuts with a mix of targeted cuts and new revenues from ending loopholes for the very wealthiest Americans and corporate special interests. This plan got 52 votes and should have passed but Republicans blocked it by insisting on a 60-vote margin. It’s clear that Republicans would rather impose painful spending cuts that will hurt the economy and millions of Americans than end a single tax loophole for the wealthy and special interests like Big Oil and Wall Street. As a reminder, here’s a list of things Republicans apparently prefer to happen instead of eliminating wasteful giveaways in the tax code: 70,000 kids will get kicked off of Head Start 10,000 teacher jobs will be at risk 7,200 special education teachers, aides, and staff could be cut Nearly 140,000 fewer children will receive life-saving vaccinations Up to 373,000 seriously mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children could go untreated 2,100 fewer food inspections will take place Tax returns and refunds will be delayed The long-term unemployed will see their benefits cut by about 10 percent Nearly a billion dollars in loans to small businesses cut It could take several hours to get through security at the airport More than 100 airports might have to simply close down Our military leaders have said it would weaken our national security The Secretary of Homeland Security said the cuts will make it harder to protect the country from a terror attack and that the border will be less secure Not all these things will happen overnight, but they will happen. And the longer the sequester goes on, the worse things will get. Worse yet, unless a permanent replacement is agreed to, these painful and damaging cuts will continue for nine years. BOTTOM LINE: Instead of standing by and watching as our economy and millions of Americans are hurt by these irresponsible and devastating cuts, Republicans need to agree to reduce our deficit with the kind of responsible, balanced approach that three-quarters of Americans prefer. Their reckless behavior got us into this mess in 2011 and now it’s time for them to come back to the table and help get us out of it before the worst impacts of these indiscriminate cuts happen. Evening Brief: Important Stories That You Might’ve Missed Draft State Department report says the Keystone XL pipeline is environmentally sound. How sequester cuts to the IRS might raise the deficit. President Obama: marriage equality should be the law of the land. Happy 100th Birthday, Big Oil tax breaks! VIDEO: The GOP constantly pretends we haven’t already cut trillions in spending. Sean Hannity launches Islamophobic attack on Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN). Austerity fail: European unemployment hits record high, again. Another day, another extreme anti-abortion bill enacted by the GOP. Don’t worry, the next manufactured crisis is just over three weeks away!

Wednesday January 16, 2013...WHO OWNS THE EARTH?

WHO OWNS THE EARTH?

How did the supposed owners of this earth acquire this planet? What historical event gave them title to all of the bounty and production of this planet?

History would say that mankind grew from a beginning couple, whether ordained by God or by natural evolution. It would imply that they and their descendents would have claim to the land and what it produces. Since we are all descendents of that beginning, we can claim a portion of the earth as ours. Somehow, over the centuries, some of us have acquired more than their portion of the earth and feel that they can do anything they want with it. The rest of us are left with diminished proceeds.

In our technical world, we are all dependent on each other for our basic supplies. None of us is completely independent from society. We need the roads, and the power lines, and the airways, and the food production, and the clothing manufacture, and the auto manufacture, and a myriad of other necessities to maintain our lifestyle. We, as fellow human earthlings, need each other cooperating and working together to ease our way through life. Each person in our society is necessary to the others in order to maintain our society. Without the truck driver, we wouldn't have access to the food and goods we need. Without the fuel supplier, the truck driver couldn't do his job. Without the road builder the fuel supplier couldn't deliver his product. Without the food grower, the road builder couldn't feed himself. Without the food processor, the food grower would be overwhelmed with product. Without the truck driver, the food processor couldn't ship the food. We are all necessary to each other and equally important to our society.

Does any one person own the Earth? Does that person own the air that we all breathe? Or the water that quenches our thirst? Does that person own the rain? How about the oceans? What about the Earth itself – does one person own the land that we all share? The earth was here before man came along and will be here after man has gone. It is like the air and the water and the oceans – here for us all to share while we live. We can see that continents move and sea levels rise and fall. Where there is land now, there was once ocean and where there is ocean there was once land. Rivers change their courses and lakes form and dry up. Where once there was farm there is now a river and where there was once a forest is now a desert. Nothing is forever. We, as descendents of that original couple have the use of the land and the air and the water, for now, but it belongs to all of us and needs to be preserved for those of us who will follow.

How can 400 Americans own more of this country than half of our citizens - 150 million Americans?

Does that mean that America is more theirs than ours? Do they get to make all the decisions? Do they own our political system and our corporate structure? Is each of these 400 Americans actually worth more than 375,000 of us? Can they get by without us? Can we get by without them? What can we expect in the future?

Tuesday January 15, 2013....Remembering the Cold War

It's been a while.  A lot has happened.  Presidential politics and election.  Debt crisis.  Unemployment.  Mortgage crisis.  Healthcare debate.  School shootings.  TPP.  XL pipeline.  Fracking.  And a host of other problems.  It makes one nostalgic for earlier days.  Here is an article talking about the differences between now and then.

Eight Things I Miss About the Cold War

Fifty Years Ago, College Was Cheap, Unions Were Strong, and There Was No Terrorism-Industrial Complex

By Jon Wiener

At a book festival in Los Angeles recently, some writers (myself included) were making the usual arguments about the problems with American politics in the 1950s -- until one panelist shocked the audience by declaring, “God, I miss the Cold War.” His grandmother, he said, had come to California from Oklahoma with a grade-school education, but found a job in an aerospace factory in L.A. during World War II, joined the union, got healthcare and retirement benefits, and prospered in the Cold War years. She ended up owning a house in the suburbs and sending her kids to UCLA.

Several older people in the audience leaped to their feet shouting, “What about McCarthyism?” “The bomb?” “Vietnam?” “Nixon?”

All good points, of course. After all, during the Cold War the U.S. did threaten to destroy the world with nuclear weapons, supported brutal dictators globally because they were anti-communist, and was responsible for the deaths of several million people in Korea and Vietnam, all in the name of defending freedom. And yet it’s not hard to join that writer in feeling a certain nostalgia for the Cold War era. It couldn’t be a sadder thing to admit, given what happened in those years, but -- given what’s happened in these years -- who can doubt that the America of the 1950s and 1960s was, in some ways, simply a better place than the one we live in now? Here are eight things (from a prospectively longer list) we had then and don’t have now.

1. The president didn’t claim the right to kill American citizens without “the due process of law.”

Last year we learned that President Obama personally approved the killing-by-drone of an American citizen living abroad without any prior judicial proceedings. That was in Yemen, but as Amy Davidson wrote at the New Yorker website, “Why couldn’t it have been in Paris?” Obama assures us that the people he orders assassinated are “terrorists.” It would, however, be more accurate to call them “alleged terrorists,” or “alleged terrorist associates,” or “people said by some other government to be terrorists, or at least terroristic.”

Obama’s target in Yemen was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was said to be a senior figure in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. According to the book Kill or Capture by Daniel Klaidman, the president told his advisors, “I want Awlaki. Don’t let up on him.” Steve Coll of the New Yorker commented that this appears to be “the first instance in American history of a sitting president speaking of his intent to kill a particular U.S. citizen without that citizen having been charged formally with a crime or convicted at trial.” (Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, whom no one claims was connected to terrorist activities or terror plots, was also killed in a separate drone attack.)

The problem, of course, is the due-process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits “any person” from being deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” It doesn’t say: "any person except for those the president believes to be terrorists."

It gets worse: the Justice Department can keep secret a memorandum providing the supposed “legal” justification for the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen, according to a January 2013 decision by a federal judge. Ruling on a Freedom of Information lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the New York Times, Judge Colleen McMahon, wrote in her decision, “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.”

It's true that the CIA has admitted it had an assassination program during the Cold War -- described in the so-called “family jewels” or “horrors book,” compiled in 1973 under CIA Director James Schlesinger in response to Watergate-era inquiries and declassified in 2007. But the targets were foreign leaders, especially Fidel Castro as well as the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba and the Dominican Republic’s Rafael Trujillo. Still, presidents preferred “plausible deniability” in such situations, and certainly no president before Obama publicly claimed the legal right to order the killing of American citizens. Indeed, before Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. regularly condemned “targeted killings” of suspected terrorists by Israel that were quite similar to those the president is now regularly ordering in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, Yemen, and possibly elsewhere.

2. We didn’t have a secret “terrorism-industrial complex.”

That’s the term coined by Dana Priest and William Arkin in their book Top Secret America to describe the ever-growing post-9/11 world of government agencies linked to private contractors charged with fighting terrorism. During the Cold War, we had a handful of government agencies doing “top secret” work; today, they found, we have more than 1,200.

For example, Priest and Arkin found 51 federal organizations and military commands that attempt to track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks. And don’t forget the nearly 2,000 for-profit corporate contractors that engage in top-secret work, supposedly hunting terrorists. The official budget for “intelligence” has increased from around $27 billion in the last years of the Cold War to $75 billion in 2012. Along with this massive expansion of government and private security activities has come a similarly humongous expansion of official secrecy: the number of classified documents has increased from perhaps 5 million a year before 1980 to 92 million in 2011, while Obama administration prosecutions of government whistleblowers have soared.

It’s true that the CIA and the FBI engaged in significant secret and illegal surveillance that included American citizens during the Cold War, but the scale was small compared to the post-9/11 world.

3. Organized labor was accepted as part of the social landscape.

“Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of their right to join the union of their choice.” That’s what President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1952. “Workers,” he added, “have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers,” and he affirmed that “a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society.” He caught the mood of the moment this way: “Should any political party attempt to… eliminate labor laws, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.” “There is,” he acknowledged, “a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible... And they are stupid.”

You certainly wouldn’t catch Barack Obama saying anything like that today.

Back then, American unions were, in part, defended even by Republicans because they were considered a crucial aspect of the struggle against Communism. Unlike Soviet workers, American ones, so the argument went, were free to join independent unions. And amid a wave of productive wealth, union membership in Eisenhower’s America reached an all-time high: 34% of wage and salary workers in 1955. In 2011, union membership in the private sector had fallen under 7%, a level not seen since 1932.

Of course, back in the Cold War era the government required unions to kick communists out of any leadership positions they held and unions that refused were driven out of existence. Unions also repressed wildcat strikes and enforced labor peace in exchange for multi-year contracts with wage and benefit increases. But as we’ve learned in the last decades, if you’re a wageworker, almost any union is better than no union at all.

4. The government had to get a warrant before it could tap your phone.

Today, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act (yes, that repetitive tongue twister is its real name) gives the government vast powers to spy on American citizens -- and it’s just been extended to 2017 in a bill that Obama enthusiastically signed on December 29th. The current law allows the monitoring of electronic communications without an individualized court order, as long as the government claims its intent is to gather “foreign intelligence.” In recent years, much that was once illegal has been made the law of the land. Vast quantities of the emails and phone calls of Americans are being “data-mined.” Amendments approved by Congress in 2008, for instance, provided "retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that assisted the Bush administration in its warrantless wiretapping program," which was then (or should have been) illegal, as the website Open Congress notes.

There were several modest congressional attempts to amend the 2012 FISA extension act, including one that would have required the director of national intelligence to reveal how many Americans are being secretly monitored. That amendment would in no way have limited the government’s actual spying program. The Senate nevertheless rejected it, 52-43, in a nation that has locked itself down in a way that would have been inconceivable in the Cold War years.

It’s true that in the 1950s and 1960s judges typically gave the police and FBI the wiretap warrants they sought. But it’s probably also true that having to submit requests to judges had a chilling effect on the urge of government authorities to engage in unlimited wiretapping.

5. The infrastructure was being expanded and strengthened.

Today, our infrastructure is crumbling: bridges are collapsing, sewer systems are falling apart, power grids are failing. Many of those systems date from the immediate post-World War II years. And the supposedly titanic struggle against communism at home and abroad helped build them. The best-known example of those Cold War infrastructure construction programs was the congressionally mandated National Defense Highways Act of 1956, which led to the construction of 41,000 miles of the Interstate Highway System. It was the largest public works project in American history and it was necessary, according to the legislation, to “meet the requirements of the national defense in time of war.” People called the new highways “freeways” or “interstates,” but the official name was "the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways."

Along with the construction of roads and bridges came a similar commitment to expanding water delivery systems and the electrical and telephone grids. Spending on infrastructure as a share of gross domestic product peaked in the 1960s at 3.1%. In 2007, it was down to 2.4% and is assumedly still falling.

Today the U.S. has dropped far behind potential global rivals in infrastructure development. An official panel of 80 experts noted that China is spending $1 trillion on high-speed rail, highways, and other infrastructure over the next five years. The U.S., according to the report, needs to invest $2 trillion simply to rebuild the roads, bridges, water lines, sewage systems, and dams constructed 40 to 50 years ago, systems that are now reaching the end of their planned life cycles. But federal spending cuts mean that the burden of infrastructure repair and replacement will fall on state and local governments, whose resources, as everyone knows, are completely inadequate for the task.

Of course, it’s true that the freeways built in the 1950s made the automobile the essential form of transportation in America and led to the withering away of public mass transit, and that the environment suffered as a result. Still, today’s collapsing bridges and sewers dramatize the loss of any serious national commitment to the public good.

6. College was cheap.

Tuition and fees at the University of California system in 1965 totaled $220. That’s the equivalent of about $1,600 today, and in 1965 you were talking about the best public university in the world. In 2012, the Regents of the University of California, presiding over an education system in crisis, raised tuition and fees for state residents to $13,200. And American students are now at least $1 trillion in debt, thanks to college loans that could consign many to lifetimes as debtors in return for subprime educations.

In 1958, in the panic that followed the Soviet Union’s successful launch of Sputnik, the first satellite, public universities got a massive infusion of federal money when the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) was passed. The Department of Education website today explains that the purpose of the NDEA was “to help ensure that highly trained individuals would be available to help America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields.” For the first time, government grants became the major source of university funding for scientific research. The Act included a generous student-loan program.

With the end of the Cold War, federal funding was cut and public universities had little choice but to begin to make up the difference by increasing tuitions and fees, making students pay more -- a lot more.

True, the NDEA grants in the 1960s required recipients to sign a demeaning oath swearing that they did not seek the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, and that lots of government funding then supported Cold War military and strategic objectives. After all, the University of California operated the nuclear weapons labs at Livermore and Los Alamos. Still, compare that to today’s crumbling public education system nationwide and who wouldn’t feel nostalgia for the Cold War era?

7. We had a president who called for a “war on poverty.”

In his 1966 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Baines Johnson argued that “the richest Nation on earth… people who live in abundance unmatched on this globe” ought to “bring the most urgent decencies of life to all of your fellow Americans.” LBJ insisted that it was possible both to fight communism globally (especially in Vietnam) and to fight poverty at home. As the phrase then went, he called for guns and butter. In addition, he was determined not simply to give money to poor people, but to help build “community action” groups that would organize them to define and fight for programs they wanted because, the president said, poor people know what’s best for themselves.

Of course, it’s true that Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” unlike the Vietnam War, was woefully underfunded, and that those community action groups were soon overpowered by local mayors and Democratic political machines. But it’s also true that President Obama did not even consider poverty worth mentioning as an issue in his 2012 reelection campaign, despite the fact that it has spread in ways that would have shocked LBJ, and that income and wealth inequalities between rich and poor have reached levels not seen since the late 1920s. Today, it’s still plenty of guns -- but butter, not so much.

8. We had a president who warned against “the excessive power of the military-industrial complex.”

In Eisenhower’s “farewell address,” delivered three days before John F. Kennedy’s inauguration, the departing president warned against the “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” He declared that “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” The speech introduced the phrase “military-industrial complex” into the vernacular. It was a crucial moment in the Cold War: a president who had also been the nation’s top military commander in World War II was warning Americans about the dangers posed by the military he had commanded and its corporate and political supporters.

Ike was prompted to give the speech because of his disputes with Congress over the military budget. He feared nuclear war and firmly opposed all talk about such a war being fought in a “limited” way. He also knew that, when it came to the Soviet Union, American power was staggeringly preponderant. And yet his opponents in the Democratic Party, the arms industry, and even the military were claiming that he hadn’t done enough for “defense” -- not enough weapons bought, not enough money spent. President-elect Kennedy had just won the 1960 election by frightening Americans about a purely fictitious “missile gap” between the U.S. and the Soviets.

It’s true that Ike’s warning would have been far more meaningful had it been in his first or even second inaugural address, or any of his State of the Union speeches. It’s also true that he had approved CIA coups in Iran and Guatemala, and had green-lighted planning for an invasion of Cuba (that would become Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs disaster). He had also established Mutual Assured Destruction as the basis for Cold War military strategy, backed up with B-52s carrying atomic bombs in the air 24/7.

By the end of his second term, however, Ike had changed his mind. His warning was not just against unnecessary spending, but also against institutions that were threatening a crisis he feared would bring the end of individual liberty. “As one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization,” the president urged his fellow citizens to resist the military-industrial complex. None of his successors has even tried, and in 2013 we’re living with the results.

...But there is one thing I do NOT miss about the Cold War: nuclear arsenals on hair-trigger alert.

Our Cold War enemy had nuclear weapons capable of destroying us, and the rest of the planet, many times over. In 1991, when the Cold War ended, the Soviet Union had more than 27,000 nuclear weapons. According to the Federation of American Scientists, these included more than 11,000 strategic nuclear weapons -- warheads on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched missiles, and weapons on bombers capable of attacking the US -- along with more than 15,000 warheads for “tactical” use as artillery shells and short-range “battlefield” missiles, as well as missile defense interceptors, nuclear torpedoes, and nuclear weapons for shorter-range aircraft. We learned in 1993 that the USSR at one time possessed almost 45,000 nuclear warheads, and still had nearly 1,200 tons of bomb-grade uranium. (Of course, sizeable Russian -- and American -- nuclear arsenals still exist.) In comparison to all that, the arsenals of al-Qaeda and our other terrorist enemies are remarkably insignificant.

Tuesday November 27, 2012...What a Waste

Since the 2001 invasion, 2,158 American troops have been killed, 294 this year alone. Over 18,000 soldiers have been wounded, many with permanent injuries. Thousands of combat veterans are suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI).

A Newsweek article published in 2006 reported that, “The intelligence community generally agrees that the number of true A-list Al Qaeda operatives out there around the time of 9/11 was no more than about 1,000, perhaps as few as 500, most in and around Afghanistan.”

Although most of those directly responsible for 9/11 have either been captured or killed during the 11-plus-year war, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden, and numerous Al Qaeda members have also been killed, much of this lost membership has been replenished by new recruits, and has spread internationally. A Wall Street Journal article published last year revealed that as of September 2011, Al Qaeda’s numbers were between 200 and 1000.

So 2,158 Americans killed and 18,000 wounded and the number of Al Qaeda members has remained at 1,000. Why did all those young men have to die? What was accomplished in the longest war in American history? WHAT A WASTE! Why are we still in Afghanistan and what are we accomplishing?

Sunday September 30, 2012...Scary thoughts

The feds have actually ordered over 1 billion rounds of ammo in 2012 alone. They received 750,000,000 in March and are awaiting another 450,000,000 arriving soon. All in conjunction with large-scale orders for riot gear, bulletproof checkpoint outposts with red and green stoplights, human shaped paper practice targets, and other crowd control and containment equipment.

There is no conspiracy theory here.  The federal government is expecting either a catastrophic financial collapse that could provoke nationwide food riots and all out civil unrest, another civil war, or even Armageddon. All in the very near future. Some theorize that the mass purchase of ammunition is an attempt to hoard as much as possible from the American public whom the feds believe may be in preparation for civil war right now. 

High-level, reliable sources inside Homeland Security claim the agency is preparing for a massive civil war in America. The DHS source states that the federal government foresees and prepares for a massive civil revolt.

 

 

For more details, see this article 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Homeland-Security-s-Intent-by-Jack-Swint-120821-433.html

Let's hope that this is all some kind of bizarre mistake and that they really aren't planning for insurrection.

Saturday September 15, 2012...Still at war

Eleven years later, we are still at war.

In America, 35 million people are hungry or do not know where their next meal is coming from and 13 million of them are children. Who benefits from the "War on Terror"?

Since America's intervention in Afghanistan, the heroin trade has exploded, doubling opium production. Afghanistan is now the source of 90% of the world's heroin. This dovetail's nicely with America's "War on Drugs."

In 2011 overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market. Russia was second, with $4.8 billion in deals. Who benefits from the War on Terror and who benefits when America threatens war?
Over half of the sales, or $33.4 billion, consisted of arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

107,000 veterans are homeless on any given night.

What of the $2 billion dollars per week we are spending on war in Afghanistan? What would $2 billion per week look like in our devastated communities, in our schools, in creating jobs or in caring for our elders?

Sunday June 10, 2012...Scorched-earth?

One of two major political parties in America is engaging in scorched-earth economic policies that are undercutting the economic recovery, possibly on purpose, and is forcing job-killing austerity measures on the states. And they have paid absolutely no political price for doing so. If anything, it won them control of the House in 2010, and has kept win Obama's approval ratings in the political danger zone. It might even help them get control of the White House.

Sadly, this will probably continue after the next election. If Obama wins, the Republicans will continue the same strategy in order to win the next congressional race. If Obama loses, the Democrats will likely us the same strategy against the Republicans.

In either case, the nation loses. The only way that Congress will settle down and get something done about job creation and unemployment will be if one party wins big enough that they have enough control to defeat the filibuster and have a majority in congress as well as the presidency. With the way the people seem to be divided, due to the manipulation of the money brokers, this scenario is unlikely.

Welcome to the coming depression. Hold on to your hats, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Wouldn't it be nice to have adults running the country?