But, they paid a Settlement!

So, he must be guilty, right?

Republican presidential nominee hopeful Herman Cain, it is revealed, was accused of sexual harassment 12 years ago. His employer at the time, the National Restaurant Association, paid a settlement to the women who made the charges.

I hold that that fact tells us nothing.

If the public knew the truth about "settlements", I believe there would be a huge outcry against the kind of lawsuits clogging our courts.

In my career in advertising, I have witnessed events where a business is sued for some wrong-doing and said, "Bring it on", so certain were they of their innocence. Offered a chance of making a cash settlement in lieu of the lawsuit, they said "No Way!"

Then their lawyers tallied up the time it would take to successfully defend their case, and advised them to take the settlement.

Understand, please, that it costs money to practice law. Even the most rudimentary practice requires an office, utility bills, employees to answer phones, prepare complex legal documents, do research, etc. A lawyer cannot work for free and still pay his staff, his bills, etc., even if he wanted to donate his time.

So, if a lawyer computes that it will cost $10,000 to defend a case and the matter can be closed with a $5,000 settlement, the honest lawyer will so advise his client. That happens over and over and over in America. Doesn't matter if the charges are valid or just made up. Sad, but true.

But, let me speak to the fact of sexual harassment. There was a time when sexual harassment was rampant in the business world. A superior of some rank catches a secretary in the supply closet, closes the door and forces her against the wall, attempting to undress her. That was bad, really bad, and the perpetrators should be severely punished.

Some were. Some companies have paid big bucks when that sort of behavior was proven. And, quite naturally, some persons have seen charges of sexual harassment as an easy route to a big payday. Bring the charge, challenge the accused to a costly lawsuit - or in the alternative - a handsome cash settlement.

Happily for the women of the business world, the reality of harsh punishment for acts of sexual harassment has helped to minimize the practice.

No charge of sexual harassment should escape investigation. But, no charge of sexual harassment should be plastered across national news media unless and until substantiated. Especially not 12 years after the event, when the accusation can cause irreparable harm to the accused, even if never proven valid.

Victory in Iraq - Afghanistan

I like the Japanese and I like the Germans. There is much to be admired about the people of both these great nations. Yet, I spent much of my youth nurturing an inflexible hatred for both the Japs and the Krauts. Why the change?

Because of my age, I, thankfully, entered the military too late to experience combat in World War Two, but I spent much time with combat veterans. From them I learned that war is a brutal business. From them I learned that marble monuments and marching bands are not an accurate depiction of war. One writer of the time suggested that to build a war memorial we should dig a huge pit into which every veteran could defecate and vomit until it rotted and stunk and offended everyone for miles around.

But, I also learned from the combat veterans that war is sometimes the only way to bring justice to oppressed peoples... in those instances where injustice is supported by huge and powerful armies. And, I learned the concept that, once in a war, the only acceptable conclusion is complete victory. That is what was achieved in World War Two.

Now, people are debating what we should consider to be success (it is politically incorrect to use the word victory) in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Ken Blackwell, in a column titled "Arab Spring and Islamist Fall" (available at http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2011/10/30/arab_spring_islamist_fall), explains it well:

We should be proud of what we accomplished in Japan and Germany, both of which nations are mainstays today of the world economy and, with some salient exceptions (e.g. Germany’s persecution of homeschoolers) models of democratic legitimacy. We de-militarized and de-Nazified these vanquished regimes. We forced changes in their constitutions and in their educational systems. We shaped their economies.

We attempted no such changes in Iraq, Afghanistan, or in any of the other countries in the forever turbulent Mideast. That is why, tragically, any claims of hope and change in this region—especially when based on American dollars—are fatally flawed. We are building our houses upon sand.

I see it as like police caught a man robbing a bank, took back the loot, and let the robber go. The paradigm of World War Two would be to mete out justice in a way that would both prevent further mischief on the part of this robber and scare the pants off anyone else thinking of robbing a bank.  

Accidentally effective commercials

For years, I've made a living producing broadcast (radio and TV) commercials.Sometimes you work very hard and come up with a failure. Sometimes you produce a great one by accident.

Years ago I was making TV commercials for a large, retail furniture dealer. Most of our advertising budget targeted the big sellers: living room, dining room and bedroom furniture.

My client also sold grandfather clocks. But, so few grandfather clocks were sold, we never wanted to spend money on a commercial to feature them. Then, in one commercial promoting living room furniture, we showed a picture of a living room which, coincidentally, included a grandfather clock. Most of the response was for the living room furniture. But to our surprise, we also received a number of inquiries about grandfather clocks.

In future commercials, we often included a picture of the featured furniture item, but with a grandfather clock in the background. We never mentioned grandfather clocks, never gave a price, but my client continued to do a small but steady business in grandfather clocks.

Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain has made an internet commercial which shows one of his staffers smoking a cigarette. Nothing is said for or against smoking, but the guy looks right into the camera and takes a drag. Guess what? Many cigarette smokers are now Cain supporters!

Smokers pay exorbitant taxes on their tobacco products. This tax revenue is used for many beneficial programs, including health care for children. Yet, smokers are almost universally vilified. Smoking is banned in more and more places. Some companies will not employ a smoker. Smokers feel they are treated unfairly.

Now comes an ad for Herman Cain. It says nothing directly, but seems to say that the Cain campaign does not agree with the barrage of anti-smoking propaganda. Many smokers now feel there is someone on their side.

Accidentally, or on purpose, that commercial is brilliant, because it is effective!

Will the real crook please stand up?

The First Amendment spells out our right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances". But, if, for example, you run a small business that operates in several Midwestern states, how do you do that?

If you have enough spare cash, you may employ one of the many professionals who know exactly how to do that. That would be a lobbyist. These professional petitioners use many tools to advance the petitions of their clients - including money. One of the uses of that money is making campaign contributions to politicians whose voting record generally favors their client's cause.

So far, so good. Nothing in the First Amendment prohibits that. Today, however, President Obama triumphantly declared that his re-election campaign would accept not a dime in contributions from lobbyists! Isn't that a violation of the First Amendment?

Obama and like-minded politicians want us to believe  they are above corruption. But it isn't the petitioner who is potentially corrupt... the corruption comes when the politician  makes policy decisions in direct repayment for the petitioner's constitutionally permitted political contribution.

In Defense of Herman Cain

Candidate Cain declared himself to be Pro Life, anti-abortion, no exceptions. Then he permitted some exceptions. Some are screaming.

Like most pro-lifers, I believe all abortions should be illegal. We suspect that most abortions are for someone's convenience! We say a woman has the (legally protected) right to refuse sex. The right to follow the so-called "rhythm method" to avoid pregnancy. The right to use a medical or a physical contraceptive. The right to demand her partner use a contraceptive. But we believe that if she bypasses all those "rights" and becomes pregnant, she does not have the right to kill the unborn child.

Even if she is denied all those rights and is impregnated by force, we civilized types tend to imagine every fetus (regardless of the context of the act that produced it) to be a viable infant who could possibly grow to become another Steve Jobs.. or, at minimum, a healthy, productive Mom or Dad. 

Realistic? Of course not.

Most allow for exceptions "for the mother's health", but often we envision that position as some abortion provider stretching facts. I am reminded of a story from Africa, wherein a very young girl was impregnated. When the fetus developed it was too large for her tiny body. Her internal organs were literally torn apart The unborn infant died but she could not deliver because of its size. Miraculously she made it to a clinic where her life was saved. She became an advocate for women's rights and worked in prenatal care for poor African women.

Okay, that is truly a case where abortion could have been declared "for the mother's health". But, what if all abortions were illegal? If that female child had aborted her fetus, should we have then thrown the little girl in jail?

There are always exceptions... not in principle... but in reality; except of course in politics, where, if statements are not artfully made they will be used to vilify you.

Illegal Immigration. My Take.

Growing up on farms in Missouri and Kansas, I loved the outdoors and wildlife. I especially liked doves. There, we had only mourning doves, named I suppose, for their mournful call. As a boy, I learned to imitate their call.

When I moved to the Southwest, I discovered three species of doves. The mourning dove; the white-winged dove which looks like a mourning dove but has snow white primary feathers on the edge of each wing (a stylish touch) and a call that sounds somewhat like a rooster crowing; also we have the Inca dove - about half the size of a mourning dove. Incas display a more reddish-brown color. We see at least one dove in our yard every day.

To our delight, an occasional covey of Gambel's quail also visited our yard. They are a wonderful bird, but like all quail, Gambels are easily spooked. In hope of attracting more quail and of making them less fearful, I bought some bird seed and spread it on the bare ground.

To my surprise, after spreading seed, the ground was soon covered with a mass of doves. All three species at times. Yes, quail would show up, but if they were a little late the seed would all have been devoured by the many doves.

I still like doves... but these doves were getting all the birdseed. Is that the dove's fault? And what should I do? Kill all the doves? (Against the law, for starters.) Put up a fence? (That would also keep the quail out.)

Then I discovered bird seed blocks... bird seed mixed with some kind of adhesive material (looks like a molasses mix) that enables the vendor to form seed into a solid cube, about ten inches on a side.

Interestingly, the quail seem to have a stronger beak and readily pick individual seeds from the bock. Doves find it more difficult to feed from the blocks. Problem solved. A bird seed block lasts for several weeks. Quail now feed several times a day. We still have doves, but only one or two at a time.

Yeah, an occasional feral cat also shows up and I grant them no quarter.

Living close to the Mexican border and a frequent visitor to Mexico, I find the Mexicans to be delightful people. But when they come to our country in numbers that overwhelm our hospitals and other social services, it is not so delightful. Who is at fault?

Just as my spreading an abundance of free birdseed to attract quail created an invasion of doves, the U.S. government's abundance of free services for the "needy" has attracted large numbers of illegal immigrants... mostly good people looking for some relief from grinding poverty.

Like feral cats, the criminal element must be dealt with. But for the vast majority of immigrants, it seems that cutting back on the free stuff would seem better than fences, and other punitive actions.

Just my opinion.

Home Grown

The press calls him "The American Cleric". While I have doubts about the veracity of the cleric part, there is no doubt that Anwar Al-Alawki was American... born here in my adopted home town of Las Cruces, NM - probably in the same hospital where my granddaughter was born.

No one in Las Cruces today was proud of Al-Awlaki... but there is more to the story that does make us a little proud

The Physical Science Laboratory at New Mexico State University, in cooperation with the U.S. Military at White Sands Missile Range here, develops and tests Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Their UAV Test Site is near our airport.

White Sands is the birthplace of America's missile program and is where the Hellfire Missile first delivered hell and fire to a target.

Down the road in El Paso, TX, my friends Jeff and Ruthie are proud parents of a drone pilot, who has been on assignment in Afghanistan flying drones to deliver Hellfires to Taliban bigwigs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As you can see, his "Control room" is mobile. His current assignment is a secret, but a good guess would be somewhere within striking distance of Yemen.

So, perhaps the world will forgive us for birthing a terrorist-to-be, when they learn that we also birthed at least part of the technology that has put the drones in the air; and we first tested the Hellfires that arm the drones.

Now, how cool is it that one of our locals may have been flying the drone over Yemen that delivered the Hellfire (and damnation) to Anwar Al-Alawki?

What a country!

The Great Depression

Every day or so I hear another statistic which someone says is the highest or the lowest or the worst since the Great Depression. Each time I hear some such "truth", I am reminded of the famous, if not accurately attributed quotation, "Lies, damned lies and statistics."

Then I remember President Ronald Reagan's quote about the definition of recession, depression and recovery. "The Gipper" said, "If your brother-in-law loses his job it is a recession; if you lose your job it is a depression; if Jimmy Carter loses his job it is a recovery." In other words, President Reagan understood that statistics never describe reality.

I once had a friend who invented statistics, just for fun. Usually ridiculous numbers. I was always amazed at how many people accepted his numbers as truth. Today I am amazed at how people react to statistics from The Great Depression. Also, I am amazed that so many people who were not born until decades after the depression ended, are now telling us these "facts" about the 1930s depression.

Respectfully (always) I submit that if you are younger than 75 years of age, you cannot possibly understand the Depression. Those statistics the youngsters quote may as well be labeled damned lies. They are meaningless.

Consider unemployment numbers. Today, "unemployment" means you do not have a "good" job, paying a high salary, while providing health insurance, unemployment insurance, guaranteed vacations, sick leave, etc., etc., etc.

Flipping hamburgers? That is not a "real" job.

In the 1930s, "unemployment" meant you had nothing to feed your family this day. It meant you could not find even an hour's work, of any description. A job flipping burgers? What a blessing... you might fill your stomach with a few scraps and earn a couple of dollars to purchase a sack of beans to feed your family..

Imagine living in a house with no electricity, no running water, no kitchen sink, no indoor bathroom. Imagine eating only beans, or greens, or some other persons leftover food, and being thankful that you are not hungry. Now, in that scenario, imagine someone trying to describe your life with  statistics. What a waste of breath.

Elect Me President.

I'll solve the nation's problems. Fast. Guaranteed!

Ever since humans first developed a written language and invented the tools for writing: clay tablets, papyrus, paper; chisels, quill pens, word processors, people have observed and recorded events of their lives. So much so that there are tens of thousands of libraries with millions of books. Books that sit on shelves, collecting dust, unread, while governments make the same mistakes over and over.

Forget partisan politics. I wouldn't care who carried water for the elephant, hay for the donkey. My administration would be packed with people who didn't give a damn about politics, but were passionate about history.

In the relatively short two and one-third centuries of our government's existence, we've seen it all. Boom and bust, recession, depression, inflation, war and peace. Civil unrest and periods of tranquility. Natural disasters. Katrina, yes, but how about the Chicago fire, the San Francisco earthquake, the Johnstown flood, the dust bowl. The administrations of our 44 presidents have faced these events in different ways. Sometimes with spectacular success. Often with painful failure.

My administration would study, learn from and follow those successes while avoiding repeat of the failures.

We already have an example of such a form of administration, It is the United states military. At West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs, the military academies don't dwell on social welfare BS or on PC fantasies, they teach the facts - the facts of history.

What happened at the battle of Waterloo? How did Washington's rag tag army of volunteers defeat the highly trained, well organized British? Why did Rommel lose in North Africa? Lee at Gettysburg?

The result? The most successful, most powerful military in the history of the world.

All the events have occurred. All the solutions have been tried. It is all written... the big picture "The Rise And Fall Of The Roman Empire", "The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich"...the minute details of every Parliament, every Congress, every dictator. All we have to do is read it.

Sadly, we are governed by politicians, theorists who imagine that their idea is the big one.

I would change that. You like Marxism? How has it worked in the past? You are a fan on Keynesian economics? How has it played out? Big on environmentalism? How many humans have suffered for the welfare of the brown pelican or the spotted owl. How many die annually for an imaginary theory that DDT was wiping out all birds?

I don't need a donation. Just your vote!

Ronald Reagan Said It:

Government IS the problem!

Hasn't that always been true? True of any people, of any era?

Think about the Russian people. Have you ever heard of any reason to fear or to hate a Russian? But the governments there - from the Czars to Stalin to Putin, are another story.

The German people. A highly advanced people in every way. World leaders and innovators. Then there came
Bismarck, Kaiser, Hitler. Bad memories.

Japanese. Remarkable people with much to be admired. Except when Tojo held influence.

Venezuela. Cuba. What's not to love about these beautiful, tropical nations on the Caribbean? Can you say  Hugo Chavez? Fidel Castro?

The vast majority of the world's people want the same thing, a happy, peaceful life. Perhaps because they are concentrated on this goal, evil people muscle there way into power.

The United States has one advantage over other nations. Constitutionally mandated elections. Every two years we have the choice to throw out a Congressman. Every four years, the president. Every six years, a senator.

Happily, in the case of the president, the choice is made for us at the end of eight years. Now, if we can just add term limits to members of Congress, we will have created Utopia!

Worst President

Lately many are saying Jimmy Carter was our worst president, but that Barack Obama is about to steal that title. I disagree.

Forty four men have been President of the United States. Twenty eight served before I was born. I can't honestly speak about those 28. All I know of them is what the history books say, and I do not totally trust the history books. So let's just talk about some presidents who have served in my lifetime.

Jimmy Carter was a bumbling fool. He gave us The Department of Energy, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That department has been an abject failure, yet we continue to spend some $27 billion annually to sustain it.

Jimmy also gave us the Department of Education which now costs between $64 and $77 billion annually, but by every accepted yardstick, our schools have just gotten worse.

Pretty bad performance! But nothing compared to F.D.R. Here is the product of his first term:


Agricultural Adjustment Act    AAA  
Civil Works Administration    CWA  
Civilian Conservation Corps    CCC  
Federal Emergency Relief Act    FERA  
Glass-Steagall Act        FDIC  
National Industrial Recovery Act    NIRA  
National Youth Administration    NYA  
Public Works Administration    PWA  
Rural Electrification Administration    REA  
Securities and Exchange Commission    SEC  
Social Security Act        FICA
Tennessee Valley Authority    TVA  
Wagner Act            NLRB  
Works Progress Administration    WPA
  
Granted, some of these programs were discontinued, but some have lived on to bleed America for over 75 years.

Franklin Roosevelt was the worst president. But he ground on until he died in his fourth term. Obama cannot overtake Roosevelt, but he will surely occupy second place. Jimmy Carter should rank number three.

Good Language

Essentially all birds and all mammals communicate with some sort of sound. A shrill cry of alarm to warn of imminent danger; a signal to scare off a competitor; a signal to declare a territory; a call to attract a mate. Each of these events, in numerous species, has been documented by researchers.

Humans, with their ability to utter a wide variety of sounds, developed language. These languages often consist of thousands of words. Steven Pinker, in his book The Language Instinct, suggests that speaking a language is done instinctively. He counts up the number of words understood and used by the average college age student and feels it would be impossible to learn and remember that many words in their short lifetime... so people must have an instinct to speak a language.While some academics disagree with Pinker's conclusions, his arguments are persuasive.

Early European explorers, who first visited remote regions of the earth, were surprised to find that inhabitants there spoke well-developed languages. Pinker even found that in many languages, common items, such as milk, were often referenced by similar sounding words.

The ancient Romans developed a marvelous language we call Latin. Over distance and time, that language nuanced into what we today know as Italian, Spanish, French and Portuguese. Some native speakers, notably the French, try to maintain the "purity" of the language by discouraging the "bastardization" of traditional French words. The Spanish language, spoken by native speakers in America, is rife with such variations. While the Spanish word for truck may more properly be camion, many American Latinos prefer to use trucka.

English speakers, on the other hand, show no such tendencies toward purity. If another language has a word that fits well, English speakers will happily adopt it.

A French journalist was quoted as having said he wished he wrote for an English language publication because he could then express himself more precisely. But, could he? Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, one of the world's best speakers of the English language, once had a problem explaining her anger at some government for acting unilaterally. She simply dropped the use of unilateral and started saying their behavior was "one-sided". Everyone understood.

If you are writing for a scientific journal about a discipline that employs very specific language, you may require complex, even foreign words to make your point. But if you are making a speech to a general audience, remember that they cannot turn back the page and re-read your last comments. In that setting, it is wise to avoid using words or terms that require even a moment of careful thought to absorb your meaning.

Again paraphrasing Steven Pinker, If I orally express a thought and a listener fully understands my thought, that is good language!

Insults Reversed

Years ago, in southern New Mexico, there was a State Senator named Burton Roach. Sen. Roach was a robust man with a huge paunch. In one campaign, an opponent said the last thing needed in the State Senate was another "pot-bellied politician". Everyone, including Roach, recognized this as an insult to Roach. But, Roach was the smarter politician. He turned the insult around had a large button made with the letters PBP emblazoned, and as if to brag about his big belly, wore the button everywhere he went.

I have no recollection of Roach's ideology, but his general good humor and refusal to engage in name calling appealed to voters, and he was re-elected.

Andrew Jackson so infuriated his opposition that one speaker openly called him a jackass. Jackson apparently liked the comparison to a hard headed donkey and adopted the nickname. The donkey - jackass, if you will - remains the symbol of the Democratic Party to this day.

Margaret Thatcher angered Communists worldwide. Even before she became Great Britains Prime Minister, one called her an "iron lady"... meaning a stubborn, uncompromising person. But Maggie Thatcher liked the label and today, if anyone mentions The Iron Lady, everyone knows they mean former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher!

Politicians and political consultants should think before they write campaign commercials insulting their opponents... you may just be creating a buzz word certain to get him, not you, elected!

What do they mean?

When I was an announcer I was taught the importance of correct pronunciation in the interest of clear communications. We were cautioned against the perils of placing the em-FOSS-us on the wrong syl-LOBB-uhl.

Today, when I hear a spokesman read copy on a well crafted TV commercial while seemingly placing emphasis on the wrong syllable - or word - I wonder if it is on purpose or just a mistake.

On a commercial for Legal Zoom, an outfit that provides self-help for preparing legal documents, the spokesman promises "We put the law on your side", without emphasis on any word, or syllable. Okay, no one wants the law on their back... but, why on your side? Shouldn't he be saying "We put the law on YOUR side"?

Maybe there is a reason. Amazingly, there are all sorts of legal requirements placed on advertising. You have heard an announcer identified as  "a non-attorney spokesman". Really? Who cares if the spokesman is a non-attorney? Or, you have seen commercials for some medical product labeled as a "dramatization". Is that so we won't think someone with a hidden camera is filming in a doctor's office? Only a lawyer would dream up a need for those disclaimers.

I once wrote a commercial in which I said something could be completed in "a few short weeks". I was forced to re-write it by a regulator who demanded "What is a short week?".

Is there a reason why Legal Zoom cannot say "We put the law on YOUR side"? Or is that spokesman, who is a well-known attorney and NOT a well-trained-non-attorney-announcer, just doing a poor job of reading his copy?

Don't face the IRS Alone!

If, that is,  you are a tax cheat!

An outfit called Tax Masters is running a TV commercial in which spokesman Patrick Cox warns, "The IRS will pursue you relentlessly...", to which I say, "They damned well better!" Pursuing tax cheats is what they are paid to do and I find it refreshing that someone in the Federal Government is doing their job... relentlessly, no less!

As politicians are wont to say... let me be perfectly clear:  I deplore the 16th amendment to the Constitution, I hate income tax. But as long as it is the law and millions of us law-abiding citizens are forced to obey, I want everyone to pay up just as we do.

As for the IRS being in relentless pursuit, I will share my personal experience. Having been self-employed most of my adult life, I have paid estimated taxes. There have been a couple of instances when we underestimated and suddenly found we owed more income tax than we could immediately pay. We asked the IRS for help. They worked with us to develop a payment plan we could handle. We followed the plan, paid our taxes and that was that.

And again, I have seen a couple of instances where an individual IRS agent appeared to be a bit unreasonable but, by and large, my IRS experience has been okay.

Repeal the 16th amendment. But until you do, enforce the law evenly and pursue tax cheats, law breakers, relentlessly.

My opinion is that you can save money and time by working directly with the IRS. Let Mr. Cox make his money off someone else.

Foolish Questions

I loved the old country music song titled Foolish Questions. It referenced situations as when a person rushes into the house, literally dripping wet and someone asks "Is it raining?".

At the August debate for Republican presidential candidates, TV host Bret Baier asked candidates to raise their hand if they would reject a Democrat proposal to offer $10 in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases. What a foolish question. Given the track record of Congressional Democrats, the $1 in tax would be taken - the $10 in spending cuts never given. How would you answer such a question?

But, I heard of a worse question: A group was asked to raise their hands if they believe in evolution. In both instances, the question was posed for a "gesture" answer... no explanations requested... no clarifications permitted.

Any sane person would have to answer yes, that they believe in "evolution". We all know that cross breeding and adaptations caused by climate, food or other influences, have caused a species of animal or plant to evolve into some different form. Consider the old "wolf to chihuahua" example. Or, how about the many kinds of roses developed by cross pollination (even patented).

However, the word "evolution" in modern conversation almost always refers to the origin of man. No one can
absolutely answer that question. Many learned people have sought the answer to the origin of man. Many others have speculated. Historic prophets have advanced "truths", sometimes mutually exclusive truths, but each with legends of believers.

Across America there are frequent confrontations between people who want schools to teach one or another explanation for the origin of  man. How can you teach anything when it is impossible to know the answer? But some persist, as if it would truly affect the life of a fifth grader to know what happened thousands or perhaps millions of years ago.

It would be very nice if we could just teach the truth, or at minimum, common sense: "We really cannot explain the origins of man but there are several possibilities. Why don't you discuss it with your parents?" Immediately that would enrage people of all beliefs  - who hold their personal belief to be inviolate. Better to ask foolish (unanswerable) questions. 

Clarification please.

I have always been a little perplexed as to why we show such deference to the President of the United States.


The person is not a king (or queen) or God. They are a politician, in the office because of a skilled and perhaps devious campaign and the donations of hundreds of millions of dollars from people who hope to rake in millions more in political favors; and from people who (often mistakenly) just admire them. They enjoy unimaginable perks and immense powers, and  (in modern times) always become multi-millionaires from their time in office.

But we are always expected to say "Mr. President"! When Barack Obama stood before Congress and told a bald-faced lie, Congressman Joe Wilson shouted, "You lie". Wilson was chastised for that retort, and forced to apologize, even though he was correct - Obama was lying. No punishment for - no apology from the liar.

While I fault the British for their adoration of their royalty, I believe their conduct in Parliament is much more realistic! If their PM makes a statement perceived to be false, a chorus of members voice their feelings.


While I was not a fan of Harry Truman, he was, at least, realistic about the Oval Office job. When he left office, he was offered one or more high salary jobs, which he refused. Harry said, "You don't want me. You want the office of the president and that is not for sale." Harry never became rich.

Fifteen different men have held the office of president in my lifetime. Some have led wisely with great benefit to my country. I appreciate and applaud them. Others have been lousy leaders and have inflicted harm on our nation and our people. I have no regard, no respect for them.

So, until I am persuaded otherwise, I shall continue to regard Barack Obama for what he is doing with his time in office. I think he is a bum... a great detriment to America. I do not wish him any physical harm, I just want him (and all of his cronies) out of office, out of power and influence.

The Big Picture

When I was studying broadcast electronics in my youth, I once encountered an exam question that asked for the probable cause of a malfunction in a described electrical circuit. I looked at the circuit, quickly identified a possible cause and wrote it as my answer.

When the exam was graded, I had answered every question correctly except that one about the malfunction. Disappointed at missing a perfect score, and certain my answer was correct, I challenged the examiner. He advised I reexamine the circuit for a more likely cause of the malfunction... the probable cause, which the question had sought. He was right, of course, there was a much more likely cause for the problem.

I never forgot that experience and through the decades since, have tried to look for The Big Picture. I haven't always succeeded, but frequently enough to know that first impressions are not always correct. How I wish everyone would discover that truth.

Environmentalists are, in my opinion, the worst offenders. They zero in on one conclusion and refuse to accept that they may be causing greater problems than the one they wish to solve. The most horrible example, of course, was Rachel Carson's attack on the pesticide DDT. Based on the belief that DDT would wipe out all bird populations, Carson's book Silent Spring sparked a movement that created a worldwide ban on DDT.

Carson and her adherents truly missed The Big Picture. DDT had almost eliminated the anopheles mosquito, which spreads malaria. Discontinuing the use of DDT allowed this mosquito to flourish and malaria to spread. The British newspaper, The Daily Mail, published this graphic to show the human price paid to satisfy the environmentalists posit that DDT must be banned:

Today, in political rhetoric, in discussions of the economy, in just about every phase of public discourse, we see examples of a refusal to look at The Big Picture. Even when results are indisputable, some still believe their original, narrow view was correct.

Each time someone makes an assertion about anything and asks for your concurrence, pause and look for The Big Picture. In so doing, you could be making a huge contribution to the general welfare.

Theater goers and sports fans are killing us!

Theater ticket prices go up another couple of bucks... but, Gee! You've gotta see the new Harry Potter movie!

Tickets to the ball game are $50! But, Wow! You may not even have another chance to buy tickets to see the team this season!

So the grocer says, "If they'll pay $12 to see a movie, they sure can pay $4 for a gallon of milk!"

The plumber says, "If they can pay $50 to see a ball game, they sure can pay me $100 to come fix their leak."

There was a time when prices were determined by cost to provide the goods or services purchased, plus a reasonable profit for the effort. No longer. The rule today is, What will the market bear?

Fair, honest. reasonable are no longer the language of enterprise. Today we pull a price out of the air. If people pay it, we raise it a little. If they will not pay it, we have a sale, lowering the price temporarily. If they pay the sale price, we take another shot at charging the full price. If they now pay the full price, we again raise it a little.

Every time you smile and agree to pay "a little bit more" for something, you are signaling to someone that raising prices is okay. Only when people begin to walk away from a ticket booth saying they will not pay that much; only when people stop buying something, anything because of price, will someone sit down and seriously search for ways to offer the goods or service for less.

Unintended Consequences

The problems of violence by Mexican drug cartels and the growing resentment against illegal immigration along the U.S. southern border, has led to the dislike of the entire population of Mexico and their thoroughly American descendants in the eyes of many Americans. That is a tragedy.

I live in a city located about 50 miles from Mexico, where persons of ethic Mexican descent are the majority. Having visited Mexico many times, I can attest to the fact that the Mexican people and their progeny, in general, are the kind of people you would like as your neighbors. They have deeply held religious faith and strong family ties. Are there some big cultural differences? Yes. But these differences are not universally apparent.

Last night my wife and I had dinner in one of our city's numerous independently owned "Mexican" restaurants. Actually, that is a misnomer. the cuisine we call Mexican is rarely found in Mexico once you leave the proximity of the U.S. border. In fact, it is probably more common in U.S. restaurants than in their Mexican counterparts.

During dinner, a local group of mariachi musicians came into the restaurant and played for the patrons. They were dressed in what has become traditional mariachi attire... black trousers with silver decorations nicely attached down the outside of each leg, white shirts with a white, satin bow, and black vests.

While the group were not great musicians, they were not bad, and I fully enjoyed their performance. One fellow had obviously acquired his attire at a younger age and had decidedly outgrown the fit. But since they played only for tips, one can understand his inability to afford a new outfit.

I requested a popular Mexican song, made famous by Mexican superstars Juan Gabriel and the late Rosío Dúrcal, but they did not know the song, a testament to the fact that the group were decidedly more American than Mexican.

The musicians played three or four songs and left the restaurant. We finished our dinner with a most warm feeling of affection and appreciation for these friendly people; along with a touch of sadness in the knowledge that many Americans will never learn to appreciate the goodness in so many of our southern neighbors.