Please! No body cameras for police.

Following the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, MO, there is a loud hue and cry for the police to wear body cameras. "If the policeman had been wearing a body camera, we would have known exactly what happened", they insist.

Wishful thinking.

The Staten Island event which preceeded the death of Eric Garner, is hard evidence that body cameras would never tell us "exactly what happened".

In this case, the media and many individuals are insisting that officer Daniel Pantaleo used a choke-hold on Garner resulting in his death. Pantaleo says he did not use a choke hold, the Grand Jury did not think he used a choke-hold, nor did Staten Island D.A. Dan Donovan.

I have watched that video several times and I find it impossible to determine exactly what Officer Pantaleo did... from the video.

Most often, "hidden cameras", dash cameras - even body cameras deliver a picture that is out-of-frame, out-of-focus, or, more commonly, simply at the wrong angle to show the details we seek.

I am reminded of the oft-used challenge to an official's call in an NFL game. In the chaos of a play, an official near the play announces what happened. From the far edge of the field, coaches believe they saw something else, so the call is challenged.

Then, the video of the play is reviewed, usually as shot by more than one camera, from more than one location, and probably always in slow motion. And remember, that video was shot by a professional cameraman using very expensive professional equipment.

More often than not, the call made by the official on the field is sustained.

In the Staten island case, that cell phone video might well lead to additional, unwarranted charges against Officer Pantaleo.

Could there be an inept official calling NFL plays? Yes, but rarely. Could there be a police officer using prohibited tactics and lying about it? Yes, but rarely.

The odds are with the NFL official - and the police officer. Not what we might see with a small, relatively inexpensive body camera.     

Reality IS color blind!

Looking beyond all the talk of discrimination, racism, white privilege and lists of other talking points by race baiters, and victim wannabes, we see concrete proof that it's all BS. Yet, these groups fail to see, or at least fail to acknowledge this proof.

A Black American can never get ahead in America they scream, but we just keep seeing Black Americans get ahead... way ahead!

It is tough for any American not born to privilege to win fame, and/or fortune. But there is a formula for doing it, and it works regardless of skin color, ethnicity, or any characteristic from birth.

That formula is open to all: Get an education; obey the rules; be dependable in your work place.

Consider Bobby Jindal, Nicki Haley, Suzana Martinez, minorities who are members of the most exclusive club in the world: State Governors... only 50 members among some 315 million Americans.

How about Dr. Ben Carson, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and dozens more highly respected, highly accomplished, successful black Americans.

Or, look to the world of sports, or of music, where ability means everything. No one is born with the ability to play an instrument, hit a baseball or shoot a basket. It takes lots of hard work, endless practice and a determination. But those efforts will not be denied because of minority status.

Both Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams were born dirt poor, were raised in those abominable housing projects. Success came to these black economists in spite of their race or their humble beginnings.

As a child, New Mexico Lt. Governor John Sanchez was so poor that when he wore holes in the soles of his shoes, his mother could not afford to have them repaired. She cut liners from cereal boxes 

Sadly, many young Americans are being taught there is no opportunity for them in America. They are urged not to be successful, as that would not be black enough. In other words, don't strive for good grades in school; don't dress and groom yourself for success: that would be "acting white". 

But, a white youth can fail just as quickly as a black one. Witness the young men who wear their trousers low on their hips. In many American jails and prisons, inmates are not permitted to have a belt, so their trousers hang low on their hips. Emulating a prison inmate is a good first step toward becoming one.

Success or failure come to those who seek it. Reality proves it.  

It takes love

to fight a war.

Many are wondering what happened to the Iraqi Army. The U.S. spent millions - perhaps billions - to train and arm them. But when they confronted a serious enemy, they abandoned their arms and fled. Should have been no surprise.

Engaging in battle with an "army" proven to give no quarter, one which honors no rules of war, or humanity, is not easy to do. In fact, it cannot be done unless - as Ayn Rand once wrote of selfishness - you would rather die than give up what your enemy seeks to capture.

Personally, I grew up on a farm in Missouri. We had ponds for swimming, patches of woods for endless fun climbing trees, meadows for hunting rabbits. I have looked in awe at the Grand Canyon; have skied in the majestic mountains of western America; have scuba dived off the coast of Florida. I love this land, my personal America.

I love our Constitution which guarantees freedom and rights to all. Those rights may occasionally be infringed by some politicians, but our system of free and fair elections usually corrects those errors.

I have a marvelous relationship with an extended family. I would not want to live at the price of having any one of them captured, raped, tortured, executed. I would go to war with anyone posing a grave threat to my family, or my America. Millions of Americans feel the same way. It is hard for us to understand anyone who would not fight for family, for their country.

But consider the Iraqi soldier. He grew up under Saddam Hussein, he witnessed countless atrocities by his government. That government was overthrown by the Americans. A democracy was established, which also proved to be corrupt. Now that government has been replaced.

It is very difficult to be loyal when you don't know what's coming next. Better to quit the fight and go home, hoping you can protect your family from whatever comes.

Going into battle is a very scary thing. Training and arms is not enough. You have to love what you are fighting for.

Stupid is as Obama does

In the past few days, I have read different opinions of Barack Obama's intelligence, submitted by competent observers: He is said to be very smart. He is said to be stupid. I believe the latter.

Why would Obama keep his academic achievements a secret? Because he did not achieve.

Why would Obama ignore the advice of experts? Because he is so bound by his ideology (whatever it is!) he cannot accept advice that does not conform.

Why does Obama (apparently) ignore the advice of his political advisers? They got this dummy elected to the world's most prestigious office - twice! Does anyone believe these top-drawer political minds told him (with approval ratings in the 30% range) to stand up three weeks before an election and say his policies will be on the ballot? That assertion will doom the candidacy of some Democrats

Who does have his ear? Those billionaire donors? Valerie Jarret? Michelle? Can't be Biden. That old fool insults our allies, then has to go on an apology tour.

Our own military experts, active duty and retired; our friends and allies in the region; all tell him the urgency of  the ISIS threat, and what must be done. He does nothing.

Our founders visualized the coming of a really bad president. They provided by giving us impeachment as a tool. But they didn't visualize a timid Congress.

They made it possible for a president to resign, as did Richard Nixon when his own party leaders urged him to do so. But Democrat party leaders seem willing to see the nation destroyed before they will risk destroying their brand.

In my lifetime, America has taken some severe blows, but always recovered. Can we recover from Obama's presidency?

Our first test comes on November 4.

Unredeemable people

The world is now aware that fighters for The Islamic State in Syria and Iraq are murdering people in frighteningly brutal ways. Beheadings, crucifixions, firing squads. Often after a spell of rape and torture of their victims.

Now there is an ugly, new twist: westerners - Americans, Brits and other Europeans, are rushing to join them.

Why? It can't be for the money. IS isn't paying their fighters that much. And, there is a significant chance they will die at some point during their adventure.

It would appear there is a single reason - they want the freedom to murder people. If they commit a murder in their home countries, they are sure to be caught and punished. Commit a murder fighting with IS, and there is no immediate price to pay.

I graduated from the U.S. Army's Infantry Basic Training School and was taught all the Army could teach (short of actual combat) about killing. Still I abhor the sight of a wounded, bleeding person.

Military combat is terrible, but it isn't always personal, savage. I asked one combat Veteran of the Korean War how many Chinese he thought he had killed. He said he had no idea... there were many kinds of weapons in play, everyone was shooting, many Chinese were falling.

With IS, however, you grab a fellow by the hair and whack at his neck with a dull knife until his head is severed. Or, you nail a child to some kind of cross. You make your captives kneel before you and shoot them in the back of the head, one by one.

The person who would leave the United States and travel to the middle East to participate in that activity is not a human. They are not redeemable. Like a rabid animal, they must be destroyed.

Thoughts

It was a thousand years ago when western Europeans, mostly Christians, got their fill of Islamic conquest and decided to push back. They took the fight all the way to the Holy Land. Unfortunately, they quit before the goal of ridding the world of Islam was complete.

Perhaps they were distracted by Columbus' discovery of the New World. In 1519, Spanish Conquistador Hernan Cortez led an expedition to present day Mexico in search of riches for Spain. (Gold often trumps religious fervor.)

But Cortez encountered the Aztecs whose priests ripped the hearts out of living captives and even from their own children, as a sacrifice to their "gods". Cortez realized that no good could come from such beliefs and set about to destroy the Aztec "religion". This time the job was successfully completed.

Had it not been, Aztec priests would still be murdering innocents and, most surely, Western politicians would be calling it a Religion of Peace.

Once again, Europe is in a position where Muslims are "invading" their countries as immigrants. Like the founder of Islam, the pedophile Muhammad, these immigrants relentlessly push for the acceptance of Islam.

In Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, Muslims are exhibiting savagery as brutal as were the Aztecs. Convert or they will behead you. But, today there is no Hernan Cortez. Western politicians insist that the brutality comes only from "radicalized" or "extreme" practitioners of Islam. Islam, they tell us, is a religion of peace.

Scriptures from Muhammad's Quran, however, tell us differently.

An evening with an ancestor

Think of one of your long gone ancestors. Imagine they could come back to spend one evening with you. What would you most like to show them?

My paternal grandfather died in 1937. I remember him when I was a child. If a small airplane flew overhead, he would look up at the sky and mutter, "I'd just as soon he flew over someone else's house!". I think it would be great fun to take him aboard a Boeing 747 jumbo jet. How may he react?

My father died in 1968. Dad had a very curious mind. And he had an unyielding urge to solve problems quickly. If he heard a new squeak or rattle when he drove his car, he would want to pull over onto the shoulder and try to find the source.

He had the same sense of urgency for learning the correct meaning of new words, and kept one of those huge unabridged dictionaries at hand. How I would like to demonstrate the internet for him. Not only could we find the meaning of a word lightning fast, we could hear a speaker correctly pronounce the word... something his great dictionary could not do.

Arab contributions

Long, long ago, before Islam, Arabs made important contributions to the civilized world. They devised a number system that was hands down better than Roman numerals.

It was an Arab shepherd boy who discovered he could stay awake by chewing coffee beans! Wow, do I appreciate that!

But today, it would seem, the Muslim Arabs spend their time dreaming up new ways to kill innocents. After World War II and the Korean War, civilized nations went to great lengths to protect against invading or attacking armies.

But, a small group of Muslim people-haters, dreamed up a way to kill innocents: by hijacking our own airliners and flying them into office buildings. Okay... a new threat revealed. So civilized peoples quickly developed security measures for airline travel.

Now what have the Arab Islamists done to attack Israel? They build an elaborate network of tunnels reaching deep into Israeli territory, so they can suddenly pop out of the ground and slaughter unsuspecting civilians. Or they kidnap innocents, knowing that civilized people place great value on every innocent citizen. Kidnap one Israeli citizen, even one soldier, and you have a valuable bargaining chip.

How sad to see minds twisted  by hate.

Boycott

Every week or so, it seems, someone suggests we boycott someone - some business entity - because of a disagreement with the ideology of the business' owners.. I never participate in one of these boycotts, because I think they are un-American.

You might look at it this way: What if the proposed boycott is against someone who holds beliefs closely aligned with your own? (Can you say Chick-fil-a?)

If you are an adherent to the First Amendment, you must hold that Americans' free speech is protected. The Supreme Court of the United States memorably stated “[i]t is firmly settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.”

Assuming the business is offering a product or service you want or need; a quality product or service at a fair and competitive price. You may not punish that business because the owners hold political views contrary to your own, and still say you will obey the U.S. Constitution.

That does not mean that, at the time of your purchase, you cannot express your disagreements. Remember, however, that if you are talking to a sales clerk, they will probably wonder what the heck you are talking about!

The genius of Facebook

I am still not sure how Facebook works, but it is easy to see why it works, and it is a stroke of genius. Genius that has earned founder Mark Zuckerberg over three billion dollars a year, for a decade. Three billion. That is one million dollars, three thousand times over! Each year!

Having just made Facebook connection with a couple of old friends, we are expressing our gratitude to Mr. Zuckerberg. In all reality, the connectability of his web site is not the point of his genius.

Imagine, for example, people praising television for providing us commercials to view. For the most part, we hate the TV interruptions for commercials, yet think of the amount of money spent to get you to sit in front of your TV. All that expensive programming, expensive studios, towers, etc.

Or, imagine our being overjoyed to open our mailbox and find it is crammed full of advertising flyers. Did you ever stop to think how much it costs to print those things, then address them, and finally, pay the postage to get them crammed into your mailbox? Surely the cost doesn't make you hate them any less.

But with Zuckerberg's invention, we are delighted to add our eyes to his web site, and we urge our friends to do the same.

You say you never thought of Facebook in the same class with TV commercials or advertising flyers? That's the genius.

Zuckerberg has designed Facebook to attract as many "friends" as possible. It beckons your friends, and their friends, and their friends friends... all around the world. Each pair of eyes carefully counted to prove to advertisers the "reach" of their ads. The greater the "reach", the greater the charge.

Even television promotes Facebook... for free! TV News programs invite their viewers to join them on Facebook and become part of their broadcast. That is amazing! That is part of the Zuckerberg genius!

Thoughts

The big hassle over Hobby Lobby's employer-provided health insurance is a farce. No employer is required to provide insurance. That practice began as an effort to avoid wage and price controls.

It is hard to believe the extent of the disconnect between the Obama Administration and the American Public. When a majority of Americans believe the country is on the "wrong track", is it still a "Government by The People"?

Why is there support for the Palestinians by Americans? Even American Jews? After Japan struck the U.S. at Pearl Harbor, in 1941, The U.S. engaged in a war with Japan and demanded unconditional surrender. After Islamists struck a blow at the American homeland on September 11, 2001, the U.S. declared war on Afghanistan and rooted out the stronghold of the enemy. But, when Hamas rains rockets on Jewish civilian targets, Israel faces condemnation for defending itself.

Why are there such gross misinterpretations of recent Supreme Court rulings? Like The Constitution itself, the SCOTUS rulings are easily understood by any literate American. Yet, people who surely know better, twist the meaning to the opposite of what The Court says.

What is it called when someone shoots down an airliner with 280 passengers and 15 crew members, killing all aboard? If true, it is murder, 295 counts. Let's see if Mr. Putin and Mr. Obama can do the right thing and bring someone to justice.

 

Adorable or Abominable

The offspring of most living creatures are adorable. Young cubs of the big cats are cute and cuddly. Unlike their parents, they pose no threat to humans. The same is true of essentially all mammals. And for reptiles and amphibians.

Tadpoles may be an exception, but as soon as they become frogs, they're cute. Very young marsupials may start out ugly, but as soon as they acquire their identifying fur coat, they are adorable.

Sea turtle hatchlings, scrambling from the sand to the sea, are also cute. Even fish fingerlings are miniature versions of the adults of the species.

But, what is true for all these creatures, is not true for birds. Featherless baby birds are well endowed with ugliness. Even when they fledge, most birds are awkward looking to say the least. It isn't until they are full grown adults that birds acquire their beauty.

And many birds are the most beautiful of all living creatures. No mammals acquire the colors of our most beautiful birds. With the exception of a few tropical frog species and a few tropical snakes, all reptiles and amphibians are green. Sort of.

We live in a fascinating world!

People

Now past the midway mark in my tenure as an octogenarian, I've decided I really like people. I know there are some bad apples around, but they are a very small per cent of the population.

The vast majority of people are enjoying the promised life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Trying to get ahead, looking out for family and friends. Happily I have reached the stage where ethnicity, skin color, religious belief or formal education mean nothing. Any prejudices of my youth have faded away, and I can enjoy all people.

Years ago I read that most people are yearning to engage in a friendly conversation. I have watched my wife prove this to be true. She'll go to the store and strike up a conversation with the other lady mulling her produce choices. Then she'll chat with the next customer in line for checkout. She'll engage the cashier in a chat. All these people smile and happily respond. It's like they were hoping someone would talk to them.

I also once learned not to react to people. Don't let someone else determine your attitude. Never become a grouch because you've met a person acting like a grouch. Give them the same big smile and friendly greeting. It will make you feel good.

Liking people, just because they are people, can be rewarding. Try it!

The way I saw it

How is it that we fought a bloody war with Japan, which then became a quite successful nation and an ally to boot, while for all of our efforts in Iraq, they are now headed for civil war and disaster?

I paid a brief visit to Japan in 1947, when MacArthur was in the process of transforming the Island nation. No, I had no privilege to inside information. In fact, I was probably the least important American to ever visit Japan.

But I saw Japanese digging in garbage cans for food. Japan was a nation squeezed dry by the wartime generals seeking to dominate all of Asia.

Japan, with their ancient customs and deified Emperor was about as far removed from America's way of doing things as possible.

But, unlike in Iraq, where we seemed hurried to declare them a sovereign nation, MacArthur had no such plans for Japan. First, he had demanded unconditional surrender to end the war. Then he proceeded to set up a democratic government.

In Iraq, we heard hedging assurances that their new constitution would not necessarily look like the U.S Constitution. In Japan, MacArthur said "You will do this the way I tell you, period." In a reasonable time, Japan's economy was growing and the Japanese people forged ahead.

In Iraq, the freed Iraqis had no idea how to live as free men, and no one stayed to make them do it right. People were saying, "we gave the Iraqis a chance at freedom, now it is up to them." Someone might give me a chance to fly an airliner, but that doesn't mean I would even know how to start the engines.

In Iraq, we thought we could build an Iraqi army and they would defend their country. In Japan, MacArthur said forget about a new Japanese army. First build a successful government and we will later talk of your defense. That was nearly seventy years ago!

Why would we not follow such a successful pattern in Iraq? Because American politicians are so eager to prove they are smarter than their predecessors. They are going to do it differently, come hell or high water. Then they make excuses when their policies fail.

Eric Cantor Defeated.

Several have called Cantor's defeat an "earthquake". Others are speaking of a disarray in the GOP. It is as though a Congressman seeking his eighth term should never be defeated. Actually that is the point of primary elections... to ask the voters if they wish to continue to be represented by this man. What's so earth-shattering about their saying no?

This is the way America works. It gives us a chance to get rid of the guys who are not doing their job. It also means we will occasionally lose a really good man (or woman).

Is it such a shock that the primary voters wanting a change actually got out and voted? Or,that the voters who supported Cantor stayed home on election day? A disappointment, perhaps, but no great surprise.

Primary election day was June 3 in my county. Only 13% of registered voters bothered to vote. My guess is that similar numbers applied in the Virginia election. That is the sad part. Because so many voters ignore primary elections, we are allowing a very small minority to determine who our candidates will be in the general election.

I have an idea: create a lottery every election. Let the governmental entity holding the election create a lottery pot, contributing 1¢ for every voter casting a ballot. When all votes are counted and the election certified, draw one name from all who voted, and award them the pot. If there are 100,000 voters, the pot would be $1,000.00 - not enough to break the county, or city, but enough, perhaps, to attract voters. And voters might encourage their neighbors to vote... to enrich the pot.

Just Watch!

In the summer of 1937, when I was inching toward my ninth birthday, my grandfather, for whom I was named, was dying from cancer. One afternoon, the adults in the family were gathered around his bedside, when he summoned me. I loved my grandfather, a tall, gentle man. That demeanor belied the rough and tumble life he had led.

Born in 1862, before the Civil War had reached most of the bloodiest battles that would be fought, he grew up in Kentucky, then followed the frontier to Texas, and later to Oklahoma, where he participated (unsuccessfully) in the run for land in the "Cherokee Strip".

When I reached his bedside, there were hugs, and conversation which I no longer remember. Then, my grandfather said he had something he wanted me to have, and he gave me his gold pocket watch.

When I was sixteen, I carried the watch for some time, but eventually the mainspring broke and I put the watch in a drawer for safe keeping.

In 1968, my father, like my grandfather, died from cancer. Upon his death, my mother gave me my Dad's gold pocket watch. I placed that watch in the drawer with my grandfather's watch, and there the two watches have lain for forty six years. Somehow I had it in my mind that neither of the watches worked.

Recently, I became acquainted with a man who is a professional horologist, i.e., a watchmaker. I had called him to repair my grandfather clock, which task he completed in about five minutes. I was so impressed, I asked him if he would take a look at a couple of old pocket watches.

He confirmed that the mainspring was broken in my grandfather's watch. We are now trying to find a replacement main spring for a watch made in 1904. Then, the horologist examined my father's watch and showed me that that watch was not broken and seemed to be running normally.

I am astounded that after forty six idle years, that watch now keeps perfect time. I set that watch by the Official U.S., N.I.S.T. Time Clock, and re-check it each morning. To my great surprise if keeps time to the second!

As a former broadcaster, that degree of accuracy is important to me. My friends are often amused at my insistence on accuracy in a timepiece. What amuses me is that once all gentlemen carried a highly accurate watch. Another surprise is that both my Levi and my Wrangler blue jeans, and even my cargo shorts are still made with a watch pocket!

The hard truth about wages.

My current city of residence is contemplating a minimum wage of $10.10 per hour. Is it a coincidence that this is the exact same figure President Obama is pushing as a minimum wage? Of course not. Our local government is dominated by Democrats who place allegiance to political party above all else. This action is nothing more than a declaration of their love for and loyalty to a Democrat president.

So, what's wrong with a minimum wage of $10.10? Or $11.11? Or $9.09. Or any other amount? It is wrong because price fixing is unfair.

When someone employs a worker, they are agreeing to a swap: a certain amount of money for a certain amount of work. It is a fair square trade. How does it make sense for a government, with the full force of law, to set a minimum for one side of that trade? Why not a minimum for the other side?

Imagine a "minimum work law". Suppose we write the law to require a minimum of forty eight hours of work, for an unspecified weekly wage. No one would consider that to be fair.

Setting a minimum wage is never the end of the argument. A business must make a profit to stay in business. If wages are raised to an unprofitable level, one of three things will happen: 1. The business will close its doors. 2. The business will raise its prices (if competition permits). 3. The business will develop a way to operate without the expensive employees.

Already we are seeing some restaurants install computer stations at tables, allowing customers to order without a waitress. That is simply the latest version of sales by machine. As a teenager, I worked for a company that operated cigarette vending machines. The company sold truckloads of cigarettes... no sales clerk... no cashier.

Each of the above enumerated events will result in the loss of jobs. The minimum wage may help a few, but that help will come entirely at the expense of other employees, and often also of the consumer.
 

Fire Shinseki? Why?

To fire the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, Eric Shinseki, over the current scandal spreading through the Department would serve only one purpose: to provide the satisfaction of punishing someone.

It would assure that nothing would be done toward solving the problem. It would embroil the Senate in a big confirmation struggle to approve a replacement Secretary..The problem is not management...it is government... probably all three branches.

Long ago, in an effort to protect Civil Service employees from being used as political pawns, the Congress made it almost impossible to fire an under-performing employee.

Then, to reward organized labor for supporting one political party, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) were permitted to set up work rules designed to drain any remaining incentive from Department employees. Betsy McCaughey, former Lt. Governor of New York, says "For AFGE, the VA is a jobs program. The union wants more patients, bigger VA budgets, and more staff, never mind what ailing vets need."

You cannot fix this system. The government should sell every V.A. hospital. Yes, there are many good employees among the current 300,000 work force. Under professional, private administration, the former V.A. hospitals would eagerly retain those good employees.

Then, give the Vets proper health care. Several systems have been suggested. It should be possible to agree on one of the choices.

Politics of group destruction.

Larry  Elder is one of my favorite commentators. Larry holds forth for three hours daily on KABC , an L.A., AM radio station at 790 k.c. Also, I think you can hear his program on line.

More importantly to me, Larry also writes a opinion column. In this week's column, Larry takes white race-card hustlers to task. As Larry points out, these people - largely Democrat office holders - accuse "Republicans" of being racists. Almost without exception, these accusers do not give names. They make the most vile accusations, but never actually tell us whom they are accusing.

The objective, of course, is to keep assuring minority voters that they, the Democrats, are protecting them from the racist Republicans. Which Republicans isn't important. They just want the minority voters to mark a straight Democrat ballot in the next, and every election.

When Bill Clinton sensed that Republicans were accusing him of misdeeds, and giving his full identity, he screamed against "politics of personal destruction". Perhaps this explains why the current white race-card hustlers do not name whom they accuse: include all Republicans in one big swipe and it is not "personal destruction".

There is a lesson to be learned here. When any American, but especially journalists, hear an accusation of racism, they must demand a name. Never permit someone to make accusations in anonymity.

And, if they do give a name, insist they spell out a time and place to substantiate the claim.

Gender inequality in pay.

The firing of new York Times Editor Jill Abramson somehow set off a new round of debate over gender inequality in pay.

It is said that Abramson was paid less than her male predecessor, or less than her male replacement. I forget which.

The whole idea of gender inequality in Abramson's pay is most puzzling because it is being offered by some otherwise smart people. Do these pundits truly go wacko when they discuss wages, or are they simply trying to sell a wacko idea?

There are some lines of employment where gender inequality in pay would be truly wrong. "Piecework" immediately comes to mind. You cannot pay one gender more per widget made. But there are many more examples where unequal pay for equal work is likewise wrong.. Being Editor of a major newspaper is not one of them.

You may remember "The Peter Principle", formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter in 1969. The Peter Principle held that everyone who is promoted up through the ranks, will eventually reach their "level of Incompetence". That is, they will eventually reach a job level in which they cannot perform.

We are told that Abramson was, indeed, promoted up through the ranks. Perhaps she did reach a job description for which she was not competent. Maybe she reached that level sooner than her predecessor. Hence, she never reached his pay level.

As to her replacement, equal pay does not apply here, either. You have to find someone you believe is qualified for the job, and, is willing to take the job! Not an easy trick. If you find someone with successful experience at an equal newspaper, she or he is probably happy in that job and is well paid. It may take a significant increase in pay to lure them away. Gender is not a factor.

Also, wages are a cost of doing business... and must be treated as such. Compassion and sentimentality don't count! That's the hard part for most folks to swallow.

Free Speech? Not always!

In 1828, Arthur J. Stansbury expressed concern that so few Americans "had even a tolerable acquaintance with their Constitution". If alive today, Mr Stansbury would scarcely believe that in the ensuing 186 years, this problem has only worsened.

Recently we have heard many protests that freedom of speech has been denied. Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers NBA team made some comments in a private telephone conversation, which was later made public. Many screamed "What happened to Free Speech?"

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, in an interview, made remarks which drew a flood of criticism. Bundy supporters demanded to know what has happened to free speech.

In both of these instances, free speech is alive and well. The Constitution rules that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". Only government can violate the Constitution by depriving citizens the right of free speech. The NBA, the media and all others are excluded.

In the preface to his Elementary Catechism on The Constitution, Stansbury wrote of the Constitution, "...when its principles are simple, its features plain and obvious, and its brevity surpassing all example, it is certainly a most reprehensible negligence to remain in ignorance of it."

A casual observer can identify two reasons for American's lack of Constitution knowledge. First, the Constitution is hardly taught in American schools. Second, there have been constant efforts to read new meanings into the Constitution. It's enough to confuse the most wary.

One could fill a book with all the various interpretations of the First Amendment., which, in reality, is only 45 words. The First Amendment deals with religion in a mere 16 words. But it has been expanded to prevent the hanging of a picture of Jesus in an elementary school, the display of a cross erected on public land as a memorial to military heroes, and on, and on, and on.

One wonders when a Federal Judge will have backbone enough to apply the Constitution as it was written... not as it has been "expanded".

If you would like to increase your knowledge of the Constitution, Download Stansbury's catechism; or download the entire Constitution and read it for free; purchase a pocket-sized copy from "The Heritage Foundation", or one of several other sources. I have read the entire Constitution while sitting in a doctor's waiting room, waiting for my turn to see the doctor. If you want some background, or an expansion into why the Framers wrote as they did, Hillsdale College offers free online courses on the Constitution.

In the meantime, try to refrain from joining those shouting about citizen's rights which they do not realize we do not have.

Methinks Thou Doest Protest Too Much

Something like that cometh from Hamlet, via the pen of William Shakespeare. But it has literally inundated us since.

The current deluge followed the outing of NBA team owner Donald Sterling. In a private conversation with his girl friend, Sterling made it perfectly clear that he did not want to have a public, personal, social relationship with dark skinned persons. And that he was asking the same of his girl friend.

The deluge was from everyone with a platform, denouncing Sterling's comments as outrageous, hateful, disgusting, etc. The vast majority of them have, indeed, protested too much.

There is no evidence that Sterling discriminated against blacks in the matter of employment. In fact, the NAACP was about to award him with recognition for generosity to the black community. Now, it seems. the NAACP has withdrawn their offer of recognition, admitting it was all about the money. But, have they returned the money?

As basketball great Kareem Abdul Jabbar said, it was disgraceful for the girlfriend to purposefully make public that personal conversation. Listening to it made him feel like an accomplice to a crime.

Sterling is being punished severely for remarks made in confidentiality. Of all those persons using their megaphone to denounce Sterling, I wonder how many have close, personal relationships with dark-skinned people? How many white men would share their girlfriend's time with a black man?

Or, to put the shoe on the other foot, how many black men would wish to share their lover with a white man?

Donald Sterling has been generous with his money, but has offered little to admire character-wise. Yet, as Christ commanded in John 8:7, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." In this case, at him! Be honest. Have you never privately disparaged someone with words you would not use in public?   

Sticks and stones

may break my bones, but words can never harm me.

Oh, yeah? Tell that to Mitt Romney, Todd Akin, or any one of numerous other political candidates whose words were twisted against them.

And, pity the guy who incoherently stumbled his thoughts aloud when a microphone was jammed in his face.

Such was the case with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. Bundy obviously grew up on that ranch in Nevada. Also obvious is his complete lack of knowledge of the conditions of slavery in America. His mental pictures are those of slaves in humble but happy conditions, widely dispersed by slave owners.

Literate, thinking Americans today shutter at the thought of one person owning another. And, perhaps, we have a mental vision of a slave being whipped, or otherwise punished by a brutal owner.

Surely those conditions were more rare than were idyllic scenes of family happiness among slaves. And who would believe this more readily than a rancher who showers care on his horses, recognizing that he could expect more work from a healthy, well-treated animal. (Again, we shudder at the concept of any human being compared to a well-treated animal. A concept which was surely a reality.)

Now rancher Bundy sees black families trained to be dependent on the largesse of government. He hears of the chilling per cent of black babies being aborted. He hears of the disproportionate number of young black men in prison. He mentally compares these facts with his imagined view of well-treated slave families. Stack all those thoughts into the head of a somewhat inarticulate man who likes to talk. Give him a microphone to a national audience and you have a recipe for disaster.

At no time did Cliven Bundy express hatred of black or Hispanic Americans. At no time did he demonstrate a feeling of superiority over any minority Americans. To the contrary, he demonstrated disapproval of the way these Americans are treated.

Cliven Bundy is not the racist he has been portrayed to be. He is a simple man, ignorant of the kind of language deemed acceptable in modern America. No sticks or stones in play here. But this inarticulate, well meanng, man has been badly beaten with a misinterpretation of his own words.

Holy Days

Here we are, Good Friday for Christians, Passover for Jews. Holy Days for millions of believers around the world. The target of derision for some non-believers.

It would seem that humans have always had beliefs of omnipresent superior beings. And, those beliefs have been a subject of great controversy. Men have gone to war over religious beliefs. Others have extended great acts of generosity and kindness because of such beliefs.

Some have believed in multiple Gods; the God of the mountain; the God of the sea, etc. In modern times, most believe in (or deny the existence of) a single God. And those beliefs are nuanced in many ways. In America, we hold those different beliefs to be a personal right, protected by law. Sadly, however, differences in religious beliefs still foster resentment. People grow from childhood with such strong religious beliefs, they find it impossible to understand, or in some cases to even tolerate, a contrary belief.

Years ago, great thinkers wrote essays covering both the history of their people, and their moral codes. At some point in history, men chose what they considered the best of those writings and assembled them into what today are regarded as holy scripture, The Jewish Torah; The Christian's New Testament; The Islamist's Koran; The Tipitika of Buddahism, etc. These are the rule books of modern religions.

People cling tenaciously to every word of their preferred writings, often interpreting the same writings in very different ways. Let's examine known facts. None of these writings were written in English. Certainly not modern English. All were written before the existence of printing presses or copy machines, All have been translated numerous times.

A few years ago, in the early days of The Tonight Show on NBC, a group carried out an experiment to test the reliability of translating material from one language to another. A panel was assembled from persons with bilingual abilities. Each person was fluent in two languages. Speaking in English, the first person whispered a joke into the ear of the next panelist.Speaking a second language, that person whispered the joke to the next panelist. This panelist translated the joke into a third language and whispered it into the ear of the next panelist.

I no longer remember the progression of languages, but let's say it went from English to Spanish, to French, to German. The last panelist then told the joke aloud in English, after which the first panelist told the joke in English, exactly as they originally heard. It was immediately obvious that the meaning of the joke was entirely lost in the process. Not a scientific study, but interesting, all the same..

Let us accept that "The Bible" was copied, and/or translated faithfully, to the best of each scribe's ability. But we also must accept that the meanings of words or phrases change over the years. Some hold today that the term "virgin", once applied to any young woman. Only in later years did the term come to mean someone who has never experienced sexual intercourse. The interpretation you choose has a major impact on the story of the virgin birth.

Or, consider the verse at John 3:16, in the New Testament. Some hold that the English phrase "whosoever believeth in Him should not perish" means you must believe that Jesus Christ arose from the dead and ascended into heaven. That he, therefore, is the Son of God, and you accept him as your personal Savior. This belief assures that after death, you, also, will be resurrected and go to heaven.

Some hold that "believeth in Him" means that if you follow his teachings, and live your life accordingly, you will have a happy and rewarding life.

Of course, there are those who believe that God's will guided the hand of every translator, every scribe, and the English writings today are literal truth. That, too, requires a measure of faith.

There are, also, those who do not believe in Heaven or Hell, or the existence of any Superior Being. We call them atheists. Most simply go about their lives, accepting believers as a fact of life. But some cannot leave it at that. They insist upon blocking believers from practicing acts of their faith. Religious tolerance is not a part of their belief system.

Some believers are also short on tolerance. These people scoff at religious beliefs contrary to their own, as they denounce atheism as evil.

Unfortunately, we have no universally accepted proof of modern day religious beliefs, so disagreements persist. Believe or deny. It is your preference. The only thing that is evil is the lack of tolerance for your neighbor's beliefs.    

Salesmanship applied to foreign policy

There's an old salesman's trick that has worked effectively for decades and continues to work today.

I simply call it the "give it - take it back" technique. You start by giving someone something they might like to have. Then, you spend some time making them really want it. You detail all the benefits of your product, enhancing them every step of the way.

When your potential customer's mouth is really watering for your product, you regretfully take it away.

Let's say you are selling replacement windows. First visit with your customer to learn what they consider their problem... drafty windows; noisy neighborhood; windows that are hard to clean; windows easily opened from the outside; windows in need of constant maintenance. You agree that whatever they describe is, indeed, a major problem. Then you explain how your replacement window will completely solve that problem.

Together you have identified the customer's problem. Together you have solved that problem. Now it is time to withdraw that solution. You offer to measure your customer's windows, so you can quote them a price. You look at the first window, and your jaw drops. Suddenly you explain that you cannot replace their windows. Round top windows? Too costly to manufacture. Their window is too narrow. Their window is too wide. Their are any number of reasons that can sound plausible. You pick one.

Sadly you inform the customer you cannot help them. If you have done your job well, they are now begging for your window. You explain there is nothing you can do, but you are trying to think of a solution. It may take poring over your literature to come up with a slightly different design. It may take a phone call to your boss, to mine his brain for a solution.

Finally you "discover" a solution and with great joy you explain how this makes it even better because of this, and this, and that.

Now, mind you, it works as well in reverse. You might call it the acceptance of the lesser of two evils. You are managing a baseball team which is currently playing a tie game. Your opponent has a runner on third, and now their best hitter comes to the plate. This guy can smash the ball out of the park, which he does with regularity. Or, he can dribble a bunt down the third base line giving him time to race to first.

The lesser of two evils is the intentional walk. You put this guy on first, but without the RBI that would give them the lead.

Back to foreign policy. Vladimir Putin invades Crimea and annexes the peninsula into Russia. A clear violation of international law. This act causes a great deal of angst among Western nations. Then Putin masses huge numbers of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border raising fears of further Russian conquest. All sorts of sanctions are threatened against Russia.

Now, suppose Putin has a change of heart and withdraws his army from the Ukraine border. All those Western nations breathe a huge sigh of relief, and decide that they and Russia can again be BFF.

Crisis averted. Russia to stay out of Ukraine.

But, wait a minute... Russia keeps Crimea? (Thanks for the flexibility, President Obama!)

Advertising

Sixty five years ago this summer, I went on the payroll of a radio station. Since then, every paycheck I have earned was derived from advertising revenue.

The advertising industry has changed. One of the old-time advertising experts was once asked to define advertising. He said advertising is salesmanship in print! Excellent. Since his day, the print part has evolved, and I recently read a prediction that internet advertising would, this year, surpass TV in total revenue. I don't know, or even care, if that is true. But it is interesting.

Early in my career, newspapers were the advertising gorilla in the room. Then came radio, but radio never reached the volume of revenue of newspapers. I remember one year, in the early 1960s, when a small town (Rolla, MO, I think) radio station's revenue exceeded the revenue of that town's newspaper. All of us in radio wondered how that happened, and invited the station manager to speak at a radio convention to enlighten us.

The conclusion of his speech was that his station never forgot the salesmanship ingredient of their advertising. What are we selling, how you will benefit if you buy it, and, of course, where and when it is for sale. Facts.

When the introduction of the UHF band brought TV coverage to all of America, television replaced newspapers as the advertising giant . Now they say it is the internet.

Much has been written or said to demonize advertising, but still the public likes advertising. Advertising keeps the consumer informed as to what is available... what are the newest innovations, who is offering the best price, etc.

A problem for advertisers has always been clutter. When there are so many ads, how do you draw the consumer's attention to your ad. Everything has been tried. Color, music, and, more than anything,  pictures of pretty women. Here, in my opinion, some advertisers have done much better than others. Consider these two internet ads:

First is an ad for an outfit that sells T-Shirts with wacky imprints. This one reads, "I used to care. Now I take a pill for that"

Sounds pretty funny until you think about it. Does this mean she takes drugs to obliterate her cares?

In any event, the advertiser could have used a picture of a T-Shirt carefully laid out so you could read the imprint.

Instead, they chose to show one of their shirts on a model. Their choice of a photo is superb. Because the model looks very casual, very friendly, you can't help but look. She is wearing no jewelry, no adornments of any kind. Just that wacky T-Shirt and a pair of frayed shorts. And, she looks like she could no longer care. It all nicely ties together.

It is difficult to read the imprint on her T-shirt, but that hardly matters. With the magic of the internet, you can just mouse-click her picture and be transported to a web site that is a catalog of their many T-Shirt choices. It looks like fun and this ad makes you want to take a look, even though you are not necessarily in the market for silly T-Shirts



Next, I came across this ad, for some sort of sleep aid. It is obvious that this photo of a busty model was chosen to look sexy.

To this old man's eye, she looks neither sexy or sleep-inducing. Rather, she looks a bit like she is ready to fight.

Then, there is the copy... "One weird trick..." Perhaps, in this era of interest in zombies, "weird" is appealing. But I fail to see any connection between this model, weird tricks, and my wanting to fall asleep.

I would love to re-do this ad. But, it is said that every ad man always wants to re-write the other guy's copy.

And, of course, there is the overriding rule of all advertising: No matter how much you may know about advertising, or about your product or your market, the public will often surprise you. An ad should produce results, and the only sure test of an ad is to run it in some advertising medium to see how the public will react.

Advertisers with large budgets spend a lot of money on research, so maybe they do know what they are doing. Still I often watch a TV commercial and wonder what they are selling and why I should buy it.

Perry-Paul 2016

If someone printed a bumper sticker like that, I would proudly display it on my car. Or, if they made a yard sign like that, I would happily stick it in my front yard.

It takes a proven executive to run our country, and Governor Perry has proven himself to be the most successful governor in the U.S.

But, it also takes an understanding of Congress to operate a successful Administration. That's where Rand Paul comes in. And, Paul's Libertarian slant nicely balances Perry's Conservative bent.

Wow! What a successful combination they would be! Or, I'd settle for Perry-Rubio. Or, how about Perry-Lee? It couldn't be Perry-Cruz. Article II, Section I says they cannot be residents of the same state.

But, alas, the odds against any of those combinations of names being the Republican nominees in 2016 are slim. The American electorate has proven time and again that experience and administrative skill are not the qualities they seek in their president and vice-president. Personality. good looks and a smooth rhetoric are much to be preferred.

In the primary debates of 2012, Perry promised he would rid us of the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Energy... but that was all
forgotten because he could not instantly remember the third Department he would axe.

Remember Ronald Reagan's promise not to use Mondale's youth and inexperience against him? If only John McCain would have thought of that in the 2008 debates. Or, when, in 2012, Obama quipped to Mitt Romney that the cold war had ended? If only Mitt had then pointed out Obama's total lack of understanding of U.S. Foreign Policy.

But, of course, either candidate would have been ripped by our liberal press.

Americans are slow learners. After the chaos of Nixon's Cambodia, Watergate cover-up, et al, the soft, reassuring voice of Jimmy Carter was so appealing. Even "Jimmy Carter", as opposed to "James Earl Carter", was a delight after "Richard Milhous Nixon". (Is there a Twitter shortcut for 'heavy sigh'?)

After the acrimony of such nonsense as "Bush lied, thousands died" a charismatic young black man seemed the answer. After the disaster of the Obama presidency, will America choose "the first woman president"? Or, will America choose the most-qualified executive to be our national C.E.O.?

Please, America. Give us Perry-Paul in 2016.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,

people will eventually come to believe it.

 

That statement has been attributed to Nazi Propagandist Joseph Goebbels, and to others. None verified, to my knowledge. But it seems to be true.

 

Certainly we see everyday evidence that few people are fact-checkers, and will accept the validity of any statement that sounds plausible. Hollywood has found such joy in portraying business people in a bad light, the public generally accepts that business owners are greedy, stupid, or both.

 

Just today I heard a comment about the GOP being "useful idiots" for Corporate America. (Those evil corporations which have given us aircraft, automobiles, computers, and thousands of products in between; hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs with generous benefits; an opportunity for everyday people to invest.) 

 

Corporations, they argue, are interested in profits. Yes, they are, and must be. Without profits we would be denied innovative products, people would lose their jobs; investors would lose their investments.

Organized labor has steadfastly maintained a hostile relationship with management. No surprise that many union employees hate their job and their employer. Some years ago, a friend of mine who worked for Ford Motor Company, and who was deeply involved in union activities, spoke of his employer in this way: "Just wait until our next contract negotiation, we'll get those S.O.B.s." Those S.O.B.s!

 

During the prelude to The Great Depression, my father made a poor career choice and found himself with four young children, no job, no money and no place to live. When he did regain stable employment, he was so appreciative, I often heard him say things like, "If you work for a man; if he gives you the opportunity to put a roof over your family's heads, clothing on their backs and food on their table, then, work for that man!" Meaning, of course, to give him all the skill and the energy you agreed to swap for his paycheck.

 

In my father's way of thinking, taking a job - accepting employment - even without written contractual terms, is a promise to do something in return for something. Heaven forbid that a man should break his promise.

 

It goes on. Many in government have promoted big lies. Way back in the early part of the last century, President Woodrow Wilson said the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were written for a different time, and were irrelevant to his day. Yeah, Mr. President, I guess "all men are created equal" is outdated. As is the concept of three, co-equal branches of government.

 

Sadly, our public education system has failed to prepare students to refute the big lies foisted upon them. Too many Americans are bereft of knowledge of how government should work, how business must work. Few people are familiar with the word sophistry, which refers to plausible but fallacious argumentation.

 

And we have failed in our families, failed to ingrain in our children the importance of honesty, integrity. I recently discovered that a merchant had failed to charge me for a service performed. When I pointed out the mistake, he was shocked and proceeded to tell me how rare it was for someone to point out a mistake that was in their favor. How sad.

 

The Ten Commandments have been written out in various ways, but number nine is generally accepted to mean "Do No Lie". But then, to many, those ancient rules are also considered irrelevant.

Time to get real.

In 1973, a radio station where I worked hired an artist to design some promotional material for the station. That artist drew a depiction of what he thought I looked like:

Okay, so I have used the drawing as my profile picture. Fair enough? Actually, his drawing was made from an earlier photograph:

You can judge the quality of his work. But, that was 40 years ago. It seems kind of silly to continue to use a 40-year-old drawing for my profile picture, so I changed it today: No more deejay. No more microphone. While I do occasionally record a commercial, I am more often found at my computer, so here is a more realistic picture of me, today: This is my new profile picture.

Actually, this picture is two years old. I don't have anything more recent. I was always the guy behind the camera, rarely in front.

Anyway, this looks more like an opinionated old man, which is what I profess to be.

Yes, that is a Livestrong bracelet on my right wrist. Recently I was examined by a doctor who was seeing me for the first time. He noted my bracelet and said he had not seen one of them for some time. Too bad.

I wear it to remind myself that my wife survived lung cancer 14 years ago. I need that reminder because she is, today, so full of joy and energy, it is hard to believe she once had an entire lobe of her left lung removed. And, I wear it out of appreciation to Lance Armstrong for all he has done to raise awareness for cancer research.

Finally, I wear it out of admiration for Armstrong as a cyclist. If, indeed, his blood enriching activity was legally prohibited, he should not have done it. If, indeed he was lying about that activity, that was wrong. But, if President Bill Clinton could argue about the definition of the word "is", surely Armstrong could argue as to whether what he was doing was really "doping".

In any event, that is not why he won the Tour de France seven times. He won because he had the will and determination to keep struggling on, all those many, many days of racing in heat and windy chill, sun and rain, uphill and down. He never quit. He was/is a true champion.

Yes, I m an old man. You decide if I am opinionated!

The Big Brother fix

Almost daily, I hear a TV commentator, or a politician, proclaim that Republicans cannot just say no to Obamacare... they must offer an alternative. Meaning, of course, another thousand page law that will give the government complete control. Obamacare II. Or, should we call it GOPcare I?

How many times must the Tea Party and other Republican Conservatives reiterate our desire for smaller government? How many times must we point out that we do not want the government to DO something big. We want the government to UNDO a lot of small things.

I just heard a report that we will be short 90,000 doctors. Why? One major reason is that the government has burdened the medical profession with non-medical nonsense. Another is that the government has facilitated malpractice lawsuits. Why would anyone want to endure the rigors of medical training, knowing they will spend a major part of their time and earnings complying with burdensome regulations... and knowing they could lose it all if some eloquent trial lawyer convinces a jury in favor of his client?

Another "unintended consequence" of possible malpractice lawsuits is that they force a doctor to take every possible step, in every diagnosis, for every patient. Doctors are forced to order expensive tests, possibly in spite of their better judgement. It they don't, and their diagnosis is even misinterpreted, they are sure to end up in court.

It is a simple truth that the more people an insurance company signs up, the better. Employer pools almost always offer great coverage for lower premiums, because the employer buys insurance for every employee.

Yet, the government interferes with that business. Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines, even international borders. Allow them to offer packages of coverage tailored specifically to the interests of the buyer. Want to sign up more young people? Allow them to buy a policy to cover only a catastrophic illness or accident. That could be a very low cost policy. And, it could be profitable for the insurance company because they would rarely pay benefits.

After all, we want insurance to cover something we could not cover ourselves. Why make people buy insurance to cover unlikely expenses? Or, expenses they can financially handle?

Government needs to stop piling on to the cost of medical care. The tax on medical devices is a display of ignorance. Not only does it make the cost of things like pacemakers higher, it discourages research and development. That could deprive us of newer and better technologies.

Republicans need to keep saying no to Obamacare and to every government encroachment upon the medical profession, the health insurance providers, and the manufacturers of all sorts of medical supplies and devices. They must not say yes to any new government laws, regulations or taxes. Please, not another big brother fix!

Of all sad words of tongue or pen

we all know that John Greenleaf Whittier proclaimed them to be "It might have been".

The older I become, the more I stand in awe of the Framers of the United States Constitution. How that group of men succeeded in writing out the supreme law of our land with such clarity, such brevity, such perfection, is truly the miracle of modern times.

How sad they would be, today, to see how Americans have attacked their work of perfection. How sad they would be to see how we have distorted the perfect plan they laid out for us. Surely they believed their Constitution was written without the need for change. And, but for the modern day fools seeking change, we well may say "It might have been".

Of course,  John Adams once made the comment that: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Could the American electorate have become an immoral people?

Or, could it be that our Constitution could not serve an ignorant people, meaning people who fail to keep themselves informed?

I did actual "Man On The Street" broadcasts on radio for years, beginning 65 years ago. I found that most people's minds were locked in on their individual lives, their personal problems, their families, and little else. But I was just trying to be friendly, ask opinions, and the like.

Today, "Man On The Street" wannnabes are out with microphone and camera, asking questions framed to prove people's disconnect with the world. One recent example was a questioner on a University campus asking students about The Bill Of Rights. Their ignorance of this important part of The Constitution was shocking.

Perhaps the saddest words are that we are failing to teach what students need to know to better their own lives and to preserve and protect this great nation

Elementary!

Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective, demonstrated that the truth can often be found with an analysis of the obvious.

We will surely never know the full truth about what has gone on behind the scenes at the White House, but we can certainly draw some likely conclusions from the obvious.

Let's analyze. A group of business types donate heavily to the Obama campaign. They then invest a sum, a few million perhaps, in building a facility to manufacture solar panels. They had to know they could not compete in the world market. As their venture's obvious failure began to materialize, the Obama Administration awarded them some $500 million, after which they promptly folded. Nor a bad deal for them!

As Obama's reelection neared, his campaign saw that ill-informed voters were still supporting their man, likely assuring his re-election... if only those pesky conservatives did not interfere. Suddenly, the IRS began stalling conservative groups tax-exempt status applications by virtue of long, tedious application requirements and intimidating actions such as audits. This denied the applying groups their source of funds, effectively keeping them silent until after the election.

The Obama Administration figured that if everyone in the nation bought health insurance, the pool of funds would be so large, it could easily cover the cost of care for every person. But, a certain percent of the population, for whatever motivation, will not buy health insurance. So, the government would demand that everyone participate. Then, those troublesome Supreme Court justices said they cannot do that.

So, the dream of an all-inclusive pool of insurance buyers failed. But, the Administration can't bear to give up that dream, so they keep trying to "fix" the law, or, at least hide the failure for another election or two.

The Obama Administration proclaimed "I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony. A song of peace that echos on, and never goes away", and set in place a "be nice" foreign policy. Now we have lost Libya, Syria, Egypt (almost), Crimea, and, it would seem we are hell-bent on losing Israel.

We blame Obama, because his was the name on the ballot, but who is behind all this? Does a group of people meet and decide these policies? Does one person throw out an idea and others acquiesce?

We cannot know the answers... we cannot identify the dragon. But like the knights of lore, we know the cure, we must cut off the head of the dragon. We can accomplish that in one way, remove Obama from the White House. Expiration of term will certainly do the trick. Impeachment is the quicker, Constitutional way.

Made In America silliness

The U.S. military buys flags. Stars and Stripes. Lots of them. They fly over military installations, ships at sea, etc. News this week is that the military will now purchase flags only if they are 100% made in America... right down to the fiber, even the dyes that color them.

Of all the silly things I have ever heard, this easily rates as the silliest. More than that, I consider it a fraud against American taxpayers.

The military should set some standards as to quality of manufacture. We wouldn't want to fly a flag over a military base if the red, white and blue colors ran together in a sudden rain shower. Or, would we want those colors to fade. And the flag should stand up to wind and sun for some reasonable amount of time.

Then, we should seek the best price. If a manufacturer in Thailand or Brazil can produce the quality flag at a lower price, that is the one we should buy. This idea that buying only flags made in America will support American jobs is nonsense. It is just another taxpayer subsidy for American manufacturers and labor unions.

We fuss at the flow of foreigners into the U.S. Why, we ask, don't they stay at home and work to improve their own country? But if they do, we refuse to buy what they may manufacture - even if it is a better value!

Competition is good. And today, competition is and should be worldwide.

I bought a bunch of flags this past year. Very nice flags; embroidered stars, individually stitched stripes, bright colors. Great price. I have no idea where they were made, and I don't care. They look beautiful on my flagpole!

In 1934

a group called the Trinidadian Calypsonian Roaring Lion, recorded a song called "Ugly Woman". No, I do not remember that recording, just read about it. But, in 1963,a fellow named Jimmy Soul adapted the old song a bit and retitled it "If You Wanna Be Happy". Jimmy sang,

If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife,
So from my personal point of view,
Get an ugly girl to marry you.

The point of the lyric being, no one will try to steal an ugly girl.

But, of course, there is no such thing as an ugly girl. As Only In America author Harry Golden, "The Carolina Israelite" explained, the beauty of a woman is in the eye of a man. If a man loves a woman, she is beautiful. It doesn't matter what others see.

Then, again, everyone is beautiful in some way. Ray Stevens sang it, in 1971,

"And everybody's beautiful in their own way.
Under God's heaven, the world's gonna find the way."

I suppose you could also say everyone is ugly to someone. Watching TV recently, my wife suddenly remarked "That is the ugliest woman!". Oh! I hadn't noticed.

Depends on what you are conditioned to look for. If you are troubled by the size and shape of your own nose (which I am), and suddenly see someone's nose with an even more exaggerated size and shape, you think ugly.

Towards the end of Jimmy Soul's recording, a brief dialogue takes place between Soul and a backup singer, "Hey baby"/ "I saw your wife the other day."/ "Yeah??"/ "Yeah, and she's ugly-y-y-y-y!!!"/ "Yeah, she's ugly, but she sure can cook, baby"

There are other ways to be beautiful.

How to destroy a business - or a government

Some years ago, a business colleague in Columbus, OH explained to me how he nearly lost his business. I'll bend the details (to protect the well-meaning, though not innocent). His company was moving. Taking care of customers; taking care of employees; making money.

Then, one day, one department head wants to talk to the owner. He reports that everything is great in his department. They are turning out their work, employees are happy, all is well... except for one small problem: that pesky telephone.

Fielding all those phone calls is interrupting staff. If we could just hire someone to handle the telephone, sort the calls to insure the  important ones were properly handled, it would be a great help.

A person was hired to handle the department telephone traffic. Payroll was increased. Profit was not.

A second department head wanted a talk with the boss. His department is doing fine, he brags. They are turning out the work, everyone is happy... except for one small problem: that pesky data entry.

Taking time to do all that data entry was eating into important staff member's time. If we could just hire a young computer keyboard whiz to handle the data entry, it would be a great help.

A person was hired to do data entry. Payroll increased. Profit did not.

A third department head wanted to see the boss. His department is doing great, turning out the work, everyone's happy... except for one small problem: pickup and delivery. Having to drop everything to make a delivery, or pick up some needed item was cutting into skilled workers time. Could we hire someone to handle all that go-fer stuff?

A person is hired, a vehicle purchased. Payroll and expenses increased. Profit did not.

This continued until my friend realized what was happening, got tough, and cut payroll to true essentials.

Years earlier, at a radio station where I worked, the station had the opportunity to interview a member of the famous DuPont family- of the giant DuPont chemical company. In discussing ways to achieve success, Mr. DuPont explained that it is okay to spend extravagantly on your home, if that will make you happy (providing you have the money to spend). But you can never do that for a business.

A business is a tool for earning a profit - while properly supporting employees and serving customers. You never make an expansion, you never hire an additional person, unless it can be shown that not doing so will cost the company money, or that doing so will increase profits.

That is why corporate C.E.O.s are highly paid. They know how to follow this rule, no matter how large the company... an extremely difficult task.

The same scenario happens in government, except that there is never a C.E.O. to rein in the waste. After all, government is always supported with other peoples' money, and profit is never a concern.

When we talk about smaller government, we are wishing for a C.E.O. who will attend to properly supporting employees and serving customers (taxpayers), while eliminating everything else. Not a huge demand. Not a job for a likeable but unskilled C.E.O.    

Things that bug an old man

It is always the little things! Like,

1. Rules of grammar: if you don't now the rule, you don't know when you break it. If you do know the rule, if can be very upsetting when someone else breaks it.

I once had a friend, a very competent and accomplished guy. Many times, in telling me of some past event, he began with "We was... ". To this day, when I think of him, I think "We was...".

I will be first to admit I do not always know the rule. I am sure my breaking the rule is upsetting to some. So, we should strive to learn the rules.

2. Watch TV news programs where they play clips of important politicians, and note the number of times you hear, "I couldn't have...". "I couldn't have been more proud"; "We couldn't have been more disappointed"; "I couldn't have been more surprised." Really? How do they know?

Whatever happened to "I was very proud."; "We were very disappointed"; "I was very surprised"?

3. People who do not take the time to articulate. Being old and hard of hearing, this is especially important to me. 

You don't have to pronounce veg·e·ta·ble with four syllables... the common veg-ta-ble is okay. But, if you slur those three syllables, or run over them with preceding or following words, you lose me.

As a radio announcer, I often worked a morning shift... a very early morning shift. Often when I had been up late the night before. Driving to the studio with lips and tongue feeling like clay, I repeatedly recited "How now, brown cow?", in an attempt to annunciate.

Listening to the news, I often want to ask the reporter to pause and recite "How now, brown cow" a few times.

4. Hearing politicians say things they could not possibly believe to be true, but which support the position of their party.

The current discussion of workers being "job locked" is the latest example. Victor Davis Hanson skillfully articulated my feelings today.

The real disaster behind Obama

Numerous highly respected commentators have written blistering indictments of Barack Obama. It leads one to wonder how we will survive the three remaining years of this president's term.

It is now glaringly apparent that Obama's election/re-election handlers realized a simple truth: The ill-informed, disinterested voters could form a more coherent bloc, than could the informed, caring voters.

Voters who pay attention, have read the constitution and truly care about the rule of law, often get bogged down in minutia. They fuss about minor policy differences and get really upset about details. In 2008, I heard many voters argue about some small difference with the policies of John McCain.

Then, in 2012, many complained that Mitt Romney was "too rich", "too stiff", "too Massachusetts", "too Mormon".

Meanwhile, voters who are ignorant of government actions, happily support a candidate they "like".

As Bruce Bialosky, founder of the Republican Jewish Coalition of California and a former Presidential appointee recently reminded us "Unfortunately, Republicans have not learned the lesson that the alternative is worse than a Republican they don't totally love. That is why we have Obama still." Indeed. 

But, I believe the problem runs even deeper. Recent studies have shown that, in spite of doubling and re-doubling of expenditures on education, Americans today are less educated than those of a few generations ago.

There are several apparent reasons. First, of course, are the teacher's unions. Too often, teachers are retained because of union status, competency be damned.

Then, there has been the trend of loading curriculum down with all sorts of social trivia, at the expense of serious teaching of the basics. 

Jack Kelly, a former official in the Reagan Administration, Wrote, "Massive ignorance of what every American should know is a recent phenomenon. To graduate from the eighth grade in Bullitt County, Ky., in 1912, students had to answer questions like these: “define latitude and longitude; name and give the capitals of the states touching the Ohio river; describe the function of the liver; give the cause of the war of 1812 and name an important battle during that war.” Much less eighth grade, could recent graduates of a liberal arts college answer those questions?

So, we now have a couple of generations of barely literate Americans. We have become obsessed with You Tube, Facebook, Twitter, Selfies and other gadgets and popular phenomena of the day. It seems no one gives a thought to The Bill of Rights, and such outdated notions as state capitols or the war of 1812.

What will it take to get America back on track? I believe it will require many real leaders who can rise to power and lead the way to change... back to the day when schools taught and students learned, resulting in citizens who could protect and preserve this wonderful nation.

"There is More Than One Way",

we are told, "To skin a cat".

Perhaps. Personally, I have never witnessed a cat skinning, and have no idea why anyone would want to skin a kitty. Even naughty Johnny Flynn, who "threw poor pussy in" (the well) did not first skin the cat!

Likewise, there is more than one way to win an election. You can throw your ideas out there and try to persuade voters that they are the correct ideas. Or, you can just steal the election.

Stealing elections has been done in various ways. They once stuffed ballot boxes at the precinct. And, they managed to count votes from deceased persons. But that is so yesteryear. Like a Model "T" Ford.

I am reminded of Pearl Harbor. Having been attacked surreptitiously by aircraft carriers loaded with dive bombers we spent 70 years guarding against a recurrence, only to be attacked by a different sort of enemy, using domestic airliners on September 11, 2001.

Today, elections are stolen in a very different way. First, with the help of a sympathetic news media, you destroy all possible opponents.

First target: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Embroil him in a scandal, in which he denies involvement. He will probably be proven innocent, but no matter, Christie's approval rating has plummeted.

Next, former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. Embroil him in a scandal of accepting gifts, quid pro quo, which he denies. He will probably be proven innocent, but no matter. The damage is done.

Next, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Take his inopportune comments out of context and accuse him of speaking in degradation of women. He did not, but no matter. The firestorm has begun.

And, think what this is doing to the brand: three Republican governors involved in scandals.

As you destroy possible opponents, you take out any who may present a truth that will defame your candidate. Comes Dinesh D'Souza, producer of the highly acclaimed documentary film "2016. Obama's America", now accused of an illegal campaign contribution to Senate hopeful Wendy Long.

He will probably be proven innocent, but no matter. His movie-making activities will be seriously curtailed, as he is now embroiled in a long, expensive fight to prove his innocence.

Finally, you just watch as compliant media publicize/glorify your candidate:

Newspaper Editor Paul Greenberg recently wrote,  "As the country has discovered from time to all too frequent time in our history. As on September 11, 2001. Or, for that matter, December 7, 1941. Each time, after this sleeping giant has awakened and struck back in full force and righteous fury, the giant tends to doze off again till the next shock hits him".

We vow to defend against ballot box stuffing and dead voters. Republicans fight those tactics, vigorously pushing voter ID. That's dozing off. The new kinds of election theft are already at work.

Second thoughts

There is an old belief that men cannot understand women.

I grew up in a home with a Mom and four sisters. I have a loving wife of 43 years, three daughters, seven granddaughters and two great granddaughters. I've spent time around women. I thought I understood women.

Because of their generally smaller size, women could not always compete physically, so they learned to compete, and win, intellectually.

Because of their natural tendency toward nurturing, they are more thoughtful, more contemplating.

I like women. In general. I think they make great teachers, leaders, decision makers.

Still I acknowledge there are a small percentage of bad women.

Some years ago, an acquaintance of mine, a mechanical type who worked in the construction trades, met two young women in a bar, and made his awkward attempt at romantic overtures. Before long the three ended up in a motel room.

There, while getting "better acquainted" the women openly admired an expensive diamond ring he was wearing, an item he was once awarded for an excellent performance. One asked to see it closely, and the poor sap obliged by taking the ring off his finger and handing it to her.

After she had examined it for some moments, he held out his hand for the return of his treasure. She coyly delayed its return. Then, her accomplice, from behind, violently struck him over the head with a heavy lamp. As he dazed, the two women fled.

When he regained his senses, he called the police, who responded to the motel. One of the officers, a well experienced old cop, studied the situation and offered that in such cases, the perpetrators sometimes have second thoughts... What if the dolt died? Possession of the ring could lead to their capture and conviction! Better ditch the evidence! The old officer suggested a search. Sure enough, the ring was found on the ground, under some shrubbery outside the motel room.

These were bad women.

I believe Texas State Senator Wendy Davis is also a bad woman, but of a different sort. She married young, gave birth to a daughter, then was divorced. Davis moved into her separated mother's mobile home. Wisely, she recognized the need to continue her education, and enrolled in a community college.

Along the way she met a well-to-do lawyer, 13 years her senior and married him. He provided financing for her and her daughter to live, and for her to continue her education. She gave birth to a second daughter, then decided she wanted to become a lawyer, herself.

Somehow, (possibly with his help) she was admitted to Harvard Law School. Her husband paid the bills and took responsibility for both daughters. Upon her graduation, he undertook to pay off her accrued student loan debts. The minute he made the final payment, she left him. In the ensuing divorce, he was awarded custody of both daughters.

It is very rare for a court to award custody of two daughters to the husband, especially when he is the father of only one of them. What was the evidence for that decision?

Then, there is the abortion angle. Davis has become the darling of the pro-choice crowd. A mother who seemingly took advantage of a good man, then seemingly was willing to abandon her two daughters? Now, she advocates taking the life of an innocent, unborn child? Wendy Davis is a bad woman, but she is but one tiny segment of the pro-choice movement.

Therein lies the crux of my original argument. We are told that women, in large pluralities, support the right to elective abortion. How can that square with my original idea of their natural tendency toward nurturing?

How can women, gifted with the ability to create a new living human being, be so willing to snuff out that new life? In spite of my life experiences, I guess the old belief is true... this man really does not understand women.

I have a question,

Mr. President.

Your biological father was a black African. He abandoned you, contributed nothing to your upbringing, your training in life experiences, none of the things expected of a dad.

Your mother was a white American. She could have aborted you. We'll never know her thoughts, we only know she carried you to term and gave birth to you. She accepted the responsibility to raise you. She re-married to an Indonesian man whom, by your own accounts in your first book, was a good dad. He taught you to shoot baskets. He taught you many other things a boy may want to know (what does tiger meat taste like?).

When your mother became concerned about your growing up as an Indonesian Muslim, she sent you back to Hawaii and your white grandparents. They saw to it that you attended a good high school, sent you to college, and probably were helpful in getting you into Harvard - though we'll never know those secrets.

My question is, why is it always "black", "African-American"? Why do you throw your white mother and white grandparents, your Indonesian dad (the only "real" father you ever had) under the bus? Why do you cling to "The Dreams" of a biological father who treated you like a piece of throw-away trash?

Like most Americans, Mr. President, I don't give a whit about your race. I like brown skin, as do the millions of white people who spend billions of dollars on tanning booths, tanning lotions, days at the beach, etc. to acquire brown skin.

But I care a lot about dis-loyalty. Why don't you ever say anything good about your white mom? Your Indonesian dad? Your white grandparents?

While we're at it, there is another matter. You recently said it is well-documented that you smoked pot as a kid. I wonder if your grandparents let you smoke pot when you were a kid? I suspect the toking didn't happen until high school, and beyond.

I once had a business associate who was fond of saying, "There is no part-time honesty."

I loved that quote, have lived it and re-quoted it for over fifty years. You cannot call yourself "honest" if some days, under some circumstances, you do dishonest things. That would make you a dishonest person.

Smoking marijuana, especially back in the 1960s when you were growing up, is a crime. You cannot shrug off smoking pot, like you would shrug off the use of vulgar language.

You say that smoking pot is no worse than alcohol. People have drank alcohol since Biblical times because a glass of good wine is a culinary delight with a fine steak, or a perfect serving of seafood. There is only one reason to smoke pot: for its mind-altering effects.

Smoking pot is against the law, which means it is/was a crime. Are there other crimes you may want to admit to? Did you steal a few things? As a kid?

And, how about morals? Did you lie once in a while? Did you cheat on a few tests at school? We cannot know because your academic records are sealed.

We have always cherished the character of our presidents. Legend has it that George Washington took the punishment for cutting down a cherry tree, as preferable to telling a lie. Abraham Lincoln was so meticulous about truth-telling, his contemporaries called him "Honest Abe".

Sadly, Mr. President, you fall short of those standards.