The Skinny On Fat - Political And Otherwise

I don't think I've ever been witness to anything quite as petty and mean spirited than the cancellation of the White House Tours.

The kids from Iowa have a point.  It is our house, not the President's nor the governments.  People who are more than able have stepped forward and offered to pay the $17,000 a week it supposedly costs.  Donald Trump to name the most prominent - and the most financially able.  So why has the offer not been accepted?

If is truly to 'punish' us, those decision makers should be ashamed of themselves. Okay, maybe the tours aren't 'essential' to the running of the government, but they are for the good will of the people.

Let's look at one more ludicrous example of what has been funded. The National Institute of Health has allocated $1.5 million for a five year study to determine why 75% of gay women are obese and men are not.  Granted this is a different budget, but consider that it would pay for over 75 weeks of White House Tours.

Yeah, yeah, I know obesity is a huge public health issue.  Why else would New York's Mayor Mike Bloomberg be trying to fix it single handed?  Is it really more important to figure out the trend in Lesbians than the female population as a whole?

Heck, I've studied the issue by going to the grocery store and seeing how many of the female shoppers are obese compared to the males.  I guarantee you the women win hands down.  Maybe it's because they don't labor as hard as the men, maybe it's because they're exposed to more food with a passel of kids around.

A far as the 'minority sexually oreinted' group is concerned I find it interesting that among prominent women who I know are gay the only one I know who is obese is Rosie O'Donnell. Jayne Lynch, Suze Orman, Ellen Degeneres and Portia De Rossi are anything but.

Then there are the men.  Anderson Cooper is slender.  Barney Frank isn't quite. Why?  It could be physiology I suppose.

There are approximately 4 million in the gay and Lesbian community in a population of nearly 285 million.  That's about 1.5%.  Is it really worth $1.5 million to study this statistic for a group that is already studied as a part of the whole.  Let them be obese first and Lesbian second. Causes can't be that much different unless you want to get into all the mental gobbledy gook that goes with being any type of minority if one is inclined to exploit it.

As far as that goes a ton of money could go into a study of how being denied to their own house affects these students from Iowa along with every other youngster that will be turned away.  Or all of us who read about it and shake our heads and wonder what's next. But then I've done some studies on that too.  The kids come away with a bad taste in their mouth for government and so do we.  There.
Problem solved.  Where do I send my bill?

Now I'm off to Montana for some rest and recreation.  You all can do a study as to why I'm going to buy a fur hat with buffalo horns at the Charles M. Russell Museum Shop.  Hint.  It has to do with my inner child and an indulgent husband.

A V8 Moment On Illegal Aliens

I had a V8 moment this morning.  You know the commercial where someone whacks someone else on the head because they didn't have a V8?  That kind of moment.

When discussion turns to immigration and illegals most of the talk revolves around securing the borders and a path to citizenship. An article about a different approach that appeared in The Wall Street Journal  this morning got met to thinking. Are we really on the right track with this path to citizenship business.

The article suggest patterning reform after NAFTA, where goods from the United States, Canada and Mexico cross all borders with impunity.  Why not allow workers to do the same?

It's a good point.  Back when Reagan gave mass amnesty to 3 million illegals only 17% or 510,000 actually sought citizenship.  That means 2.5 million chose otherwise.  Today they estimate 11 million illegals are in the country and no one can agree what to do about it.

We have, in this country, a bad habit of making assumptions that don't necessarily pan out.  Like how  every country in the world wants a United States style democracy.  They don't.  The Middle East is a prime example.

Why then should we assume that every person who would like to come to this country to work wants to be a citizen? If there was a program that allowed them to cross borders freely with proper identification it would eliminate the need for them to criminalize themselves.  It would free up the border patrol from having to hunt them down and free up Janet's beds.  It would give the businesses that depend on migrant workers the work force they need without criminalizing themselves and would give Obama more of that revenue he so covets through their taxes.

If at some point if they want to apply for citizenship they go through the same procedure as every one else.  This isn't rocket science.  It's common sense!

Of course not all those who cross our borders are not so pure of heart, but dealing with them would be a whole lot easier. Those who want to remain citizens of their home country would be free to do so and if  they are seasonal workers they might be more likely to leave their families at home if they know they can rejoin them.

The EU operates in a similar manner and has found it far more workable than anticipated.  Low wage workers will no more take jobs from Americans then they do now.  Face it, we're lazy.  We won't do the grunt work. Yet the wages are more than they can earn in their home countries and offers them a legal opportunity to raise the standard of living of their families.  It could be win win.

I'll leave it to our erstwhile politicians to work out the details.  If they opt not to we should all whack them on the head and tell them to get that V8.  They'll be able to think more clearly than with three martinis in their systems.  Olives excepted.

Mr. Hagel Meet Mr. Karzai

Our new Secretary of Defense certainly got a warm reception on his surprise visit to Kabul. Two suicide bombers blew up 19 people.  What's a celebration without some fireworks?

Mr. Karzai has long been a blustering irritant but now he's turning into a full fledged clown.  Soon no one will pay any attention to his outbursts. One can hope. Except for his people and ours just before those bombs go off.

The Taliban has taken credit for the pyrotechnics.  Those jokers.  After all they have been in negotiation for months with Karzai as to how he's going to end his presidency.  At least that's what we've been told.

But wait!  Seems not to be so!  It seems they are now in collusion with us! Because they want us to stay where we will continue to kill them and protect the women and children as best we can and pour money into that bottomless pit of a country.

I get dizzy trying to keep things straight.  My mind cries for an explanation as to why we'd want to stay in that God forsaken place.  Our generals have already stated we've gotten darn little for the money we've poured in - other than the gracious and continuing commentary of how grateful they are from Karzai.

Let's see, one more time, we put him in office.  We helped him throw a second election.  We've enriched he and his family.  We've kept the Taliban at bay.  Really, we have.

What have we gotten?  Thousands of dead men and women, hundreds of thousands injured and billions of tax payer dollars lost.

So why would be want to collude with the Taliban or anyone else for the privilege of staying?  Granted some of our government officials are on a permanent ego trip, but even they can't find a positive here.  They have no educational system for our students to take advantage of.  They have no national security.  They have no industry.  The majority of their population lives so far below our poverty level no one in their right mind would want to join them. Heck, they don't even have indoor plumbing!

'Tis a puzzlement.  We've gotten the message Karzai wants us out.  We're doing the best we can to accommodate him without everything we have accomplished, no matter how minuscule, being ripe for reversal.

He wants charge of the prisoners we still hold.  To let them go free.  As George Bush might have said, "Come an' git 'em!" Never fear, they'll get them soon enough unless we export them to the U.S. for trials in our courts.  We wouldn't do that would we?

I know.  I'm droning on and on.  Hey.  Speaking of drones...

Grumpy Old Men

Wow!  McCain and Graham cannot win for losing this week.  This must be foreign territory for the political Bobbsey Twins!  I couldn't be happier.  I hate sanctimonious politicians and these two personify it and they're not handling it well.

After the Rand Paul filibuster, the Twitter world would have you believe that just maybe the Republicans are finding a voice.  Of course one incident does not a revitalized party make, but it's a start.  Especially when colleagues have the courage to come forward in support.

But these two!  Mocking the effort and calling the participants "wacky birds" doesn't make Paul and his associates look wacky, but rather McCain and his!  It is no secret that the Republicans are split.  It's also correct that neither side of the split has a monopoly on being correct as to the direction the party should go.

One reason I was against McCain when he ran for President was his age and his grasp of things he should have had and did not.  Even something as simple as knowing how to send an e-mail.  His war record is long past and while it should be appreciated for what it was, it doesn't come with a lifetime pass to act stupidly.

As for Mr. Graham, he's good with platitudes.  Occasionally I will catch him on Greta and find he does a very consistent sidestep when pressed on why things are not getting done.  A silver tongue and a reasonably pleasant persona is not a substitute for straight answers.  Of all people he should know that since he's still waiting for straight talk on Benghazi.

Times change.  There comes a point when people don't.  I'm going through that phase myself.  I'm having a difficult time reconciling what I've known and believed for most of my adult life with new attitudes and ways of accomplishing things.  Politically, though, there should be one constant and that should be the Constitution, no matter your age or party.  When you begin to think that those 'youngsters' don't know anything and you know everything, it's time to go.

If you believe in the principles of the Republican Party, then discuss your issues in private.  You're supposed to be on the same page here.  What you're doing is magnifying the split and looking petty along with it. You aren't all knowing and don't hold all the cards any more.

If you can no longer serve with dignity and grace perhaps it's time to retire with dignity and grace. Showing yourselves as petty and pathetic would be a sad way to see once distinguished careers come to an end. And end they will.  Sooner rather than later if it isn't understood that rigidity and change aren't compatible.

Drone Wars

A simple answer to a simple question was the outcome of 12 hours of filibuster by Senator Rand Paul over whether the President has the constitutional right to use drones to kill Americans on American soil.

Put simply, he does.  There are of course mitigating circumstances.  And no, he is not going to bomb an American citizen in Starbucks - unless that citizen is in combat mode against the United States. That's one of those mitigating circumstances.

As for Mr. Paul's filibuster, he should have done some home work on the examples he used, like Jane Fonda could have been taken out for doing footsies with the North Vietnamese.  Wrong. She was not part of, planning to nor actually committing  aggression against the United States.  Just using bad judgement but then so have Sean Penn, Jimmy Carter, Oliver North, Michael Moore, et al in their profuse praise of the recently departed Hugo Chavez.

Today Senators McCain and Graham, two of the most prominent Republican mavericks in the Senate chose to belittle Mr. Paul's efforts.  They too are wrong. He got his answer, in writing, from the Attorney General.  Mr. Graham still does not have the answers he was demanding on Benghazi so I'd be a bit more prudent than condescending in my judgement of a junior colleague.

There is still the question of government over reach.  We know they are capable of it by looking at their reaction to the sequester.  Considering that, written and detailed assurances of what can and cannot be done are essential. They shouldn't have to be asked for in the first place.

Very little that happens in Washington stands alone.  There are other drone worries that could also escalate.  Perhaps they aren't getting the same scrutiny because they come under another department.  You guessed it.  Homeland Security.  They have a fleet of custom designed drones that can identify people carrying guns and also track cell phone signals.  The department seems to be building it's own army what with it's armoured vehicles and weaponry.  Now drones.

While currently unarmed, the same Predator B military version carries Hellfire missiles which means the ones in domestic use can be modified.

This isn't to say they would be used to detect armed citizens or randomly monitor your cell phone use or modified to take out an offender, but then again why not?  The question is do you have the right to privacy or do you not?  Just like military drone attacks can hit innocent victims so too can domestic drones pick up information to which they have no right.

I give Rand Paul an A for effort in bringing to attention loosely drawn language on the rights of Americans.  I give McCain and Graham an F for pomposity and condescension.  As for the rest of us I'll  give an incomplete for not being as aware as we should be as to how everything connects. At times it's referred to as connecting the dots.  A game well worth knowing how to play.