College Costs: Some thoughts

Funny thing. When I went to college (in California), tuition was $50 per semester, and you paid for your books. UNLESS you were not a legal resident of California...
So the question is, why are people having to carry so much debt just to go to a four year college? I think I know...

1. Real qualifications to attend. I had to have above a specific score on the entrance exam to even get in.
2. Reasonable wages for the profs, administrators, etc.
3. Citizens only, unless you paid, and CA legal residents at that. ID required.
4. NO BS (technical term, meaning bull feces) degrees. You could be an engineer, scientist, mathematician, teacher, psychologist, etc. on the State's dime, since they expected you would get a job and eventually pay back their faith in you.

OH, and by the way...why is it, in the era of FREE INFORMATION, that college costs so much? Nobody asks THAT question. As accessibility to information has risen exponentially, and despite the fact that all that info is free for the taking, colleges and universities have all raised their rates by about the same exponential number.
I am NOT a "Bernie Sanders" type, who says, "All college free, all the time." I'm the type that says, "Get back to what colleges were originally designed to do"--that is, TRAIN QUALIFIED PEOPLE FOR REAL WORK, and let the state carry the cost until the taxes it collects pay them back. So...back to getting in to actually DO something; back to reasonable, not exorbitant, pay; back to citizens free, back to pricing education the same way information is priced.

What's happened to the NEWS?

I realize that this complaint has been aired many times before, but this election cycle things have moved from bad to worse to a point where the news agencies actually defy belief.  I still watch TV news, but as little as possible. I read Washington Post headlines, mostly out of desperation, in the hopes that they will one day return to the reporting that made them justly famous. I don't watch CNN--it's not on my TV subscription. I don't watch Fox News or MSNBC (hereinafter called "the news"). I read their stories on their sites from time to time, so I know what they say.

Today, all of these news agencies are actually editorial agencies. There is no news. Instead of news, there is what might be called "newsivism" (news-activism). Whatever the cause of the day, the newspeople are there to celebrate it, whether it's transgenderism, gay liberals marching, or "black lives matter" folks looting to somehow prove that they are helping their communities by their "activism."  The news not only reports these things, it speaks of them in hushed tones, as if these people make up all the nation, and the nation is not being "heard."
Frankly, I've never seen or heard anything more ridiculous. The news ignores facts, makes up stories that they know are not true, biases everything the way they want, and generally tries to create a world that doesn't exist.
For example, here in San Diego, reporting about Mexican gangs is just about nonexistent, yet their influence is huge. Nobody discusses the effect of these gangs on sex trafficking, or their societal influence.  Instead, we see pictures of mothers holding babies, and crying about how they might get deported--and that is all. Nothing about the huge mess we face in society due to Federal and State inaction.
Regarding the mess in Ferguson, Missouri, I happen to have listened to the statements by the county prosecutor about what happened when Michael Brown attacked Darren Wilson. The entire (it was more than a half hour) series of statements, which were based on the investigations conducted at the scene were reasoned, carefully set out, and obviously true, including the evidence that Mr. Brown had tried to wrest Officer Wilson's gun from him, and was killed AFTER he did this.
So what did the news do? They ran statements from the mother, the father, the family, which all said that "Mike was a good boy..." A good boy, it happens who had just committed a strongarm robbery against someone about half his size, and who was walking down the street with a companion who was with him when he committed the robbery.  Which story did the news run? Obviously, the one about the poor family of "Michael Brown," who claimed that he was a "gentle giant" (who apparently roughed up smaller people at will). The news essentially concealed the real story, which was that a thug resisted arrest from a much smaller police officer, who fatally shot him when the thug charged him, intending to take him down and very possibly kill him. Had "Mike Brown" been white, the story would have been treated differently, for sure. Now, two years later, the Browns' "story" has been altered so much that the evil white cop shot the poor defenseless black teenager for no reason, and that has to stop. Well, it is true that something MUST stop. Perhaps it's biased reporting.

In another, and really unbelievable set of stories, I think Donald Trump must be the most misquoted man in America. Yes, he sometimes misspeaks, but it so happens that I listened to the news tell me many of the things he said. Problem is, I also listened to HIM. He did not say those things as the news told me. He said different things. Things that made sense (to me), but the news altered his statements substantially so that he appeared to have said something else, which didn't make sense. The so-called "Muslim ban" is one of the best examples of this. To this day, the Washington Post and New York Times insist that Mr. Trump is applying a religious test to see if people can be admitted here.  Nonsense.  He stated from the beginning that there must be a mechanism in place to see who we admit from Muslim countries. That makes absolute sense, yet the news says, "don't do that?" Why? Is it because they think he might win the election? Are they trying to alter history in favor of a candidate they like better? It's hard to come to any other conclusion.

Why does the news do this?  The only conclusion I can come to is that the news doesn't care about truth any longer, if they ever did.

The news is like the false prophets in the Bible, who say what they say in order to maintain or change society in the direction they want it to go. Every story is an editorial, and not one story that I've recently read is unbiased.  That's fine if you put your bias out where everyone can see it, but if your reporting is supposed to be the truth, or "fair and balanced," as some would have us believe, then you must use the opportunities afforded a free press to report the truth, and forget about what YOU want. Truth is pretty easy to find, if you look. Stories that are not reporting, those are opinions. Disguising opinions as news is wrong. Period.

"Make America SAFE again." About the Dallas Police shootings.

You need to think carefully about your vote in November and here's why:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement

If you want a video on the same subject, here it is:

LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAYS, NOT WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT HIM. HE'S RIGHT.

One of the greatest tragedies of the last 8 years is that we now have a divided country, filled with tribalism, where everyone is at everybody else's throats.

SNIPERS? IN DALLAS??
Remember the national reaction when the Oklahoma Federal Building was blown up by white supremacists? NOBODY marched in the streets defending them, despite the fact that the Feds had managed to overstep in Waco and Ruby Ridge. EVERYONE came together, and said, THIS IS WRONG. It's still wrong. Doesn't matter who does it, black or white or blue.

Remember the national reaction to airplanes flying into the World Trade Center? WE CAME TOGETHER.
We need to do that again. We live in a wonderful country. We have amazing freedoms. We have good lives,, for the most part.

The politics of division are bad politics, and the efforts that some make at dividing the country have to stop.
We don't need to "Make America Mexico again;" We don't need to make America Black, we don't need an "all White America," or an "Asian America." We need to come together as a free people, with one set of goals so that we can build our nation and make it strong and prosperous. Whether it's a Wall Street Banker or hedge fund manager who takes away our jobs and sends them to China, or a politician who panders to one or another political group, or a religious group that demands special privileges and the right to have "other laws" than the laws of our nation, it's wrong.
Let's be one, though many. Let's do that now.

About Orlando and the Massacre...

Since everyone else is "weighing in," I guess I better do so as well.  There are calls for gun control. Calls for more police. Complaints the FBI didn't do enough,  and so on. In the midst of this, we've forgotten the single most effective tool that we have against these maniacs, and that's...

PROFILING.

Why we won't use this methodology is beyond me.  I know that black people, Mexican people, Cubans, etc. believe that profiling is evil, but used properly, profiling protects the rest of us from the madmen. This is a tool that has been proscribed (opposite of PREscribed) since the 9/11 attacks, and when the Feds refused to use it, I couldn't understand. It made no sense. Yes, people are improperly identified, and so on, but it's a more reasonable solution than "gun control." If there are no guns in the hands of reasonable people, given the level of crime in our nation, you and I both know what will happen.

Remember, every public person who advocates for gun control has personal protection. Guards. Security. In other words, other people with guns who protect them. You and I have no such protection. In fact, one might argue that gun control caused this dance club scene, since if half a dozen of the attendees had guns, the murderer might well have been one of the few people killed there. 

The problem with "gun control" is that it really applies only to those who are willing to obey the law. If the shooter in Orlando could not get a gun, he could easily have used explosives. Same damage, different method. That's what the Islamic killers do in Israel. 

The answer? Figure out who these people are before they do their evil. That's the only answer that will work. 

Additionally, last year we heard multiple cries against the militarization of the police. Sorry, but cops need weapons equal to or greater than the criminals. If they don't have them, you can expect two things:

1.  More crime, more heinous murders.
2.  Fewer cops.  Nobody wants to put his life on the line for a society that won't support him. Nobody.

Finally, we have to recognize that our society has become terribly splintered. It's white vs. black, Mexican vs. Asian, etc. etc. We must come together as reasonable people and stop this. We have to stop listening to the people among us who want to divide and destroy our society. On the one hand, we have a President who makes heroes of "Black Lives Matter," and who also refuses to "out" radical Islamists, even when its clear that their intentions are destructive.

On the other, we have a mostly silent populace. 

Time for that to end.

National Review and the Elitist Class...GRRR...

So who's really on YOUR side?


Link to National Review Article saying, "Die, Middle Class, Die!"

Link to Breitbart's Article re: National Review article


If you ever wondered "Whose side we're on," National Review's article provides the answer.  The problem with this article is that it is, like all politically motivated articles, aimed at protecting a group of people who definitely don't need protection. It's a sort of "in reverse" effort, but the real power in some branches of the conservative movement comes from the export of jobs and technology outside of the US.  It's almost as if the entire movement had conspired to desert the people who brought us out of WWII, who gave us great electric utilities, water utilities, and the like, and to say, "Well, you helped us out. Now go away. It's time for you to die." Unfortunately, this is true of elitests of all stripes. Conservative or liberal, they use the "multitudes" until they are through with them, and then want them to go away, so that the elites can go on and have their nice life.
This is just as true of the elitist liberals, and if you read between the lines, every "race war," every court appointment, every move is about just one thing: consolidation of power. If the conservatives are "out," they seek power. If they are "in," they seek to consolidate power.
If the liberals are "out," they seek power. If they are in, they seek to consolidate power. Perhaps the greatest fear either group has is that someone might arise who can't be bought, and the people might vote for him or her.
Don't look for that person any time soon. We are left voting for "the lesser of two evils" as we see them.
In these times, it's wise to remember several Bible verses:
1. "My Kingdom" (said Jesus) "is not of this world." If you want someone who actually cares for you, whoever you are, He's just about IT. Nobody else.
2. "The devil took [Jesus] up to a high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time;" (and then the devil said to Jesus), " Worship me, and all this will be yours; for this is delivered to me..."
If you want to know who's really behind the current political situation in ANY country, look at Luke 4:5-7.
3. If you want to know if "your" political candidate is on your side, refer to the above passage. Being able to understand the likelihood of altruism in political candidates is essential to the process of deciding who you'll vote for.
4. Should you even bother to vote? Yes.  Christians have a grave responsibility, to vote for people who most truly represent the things in which they believe. However, you should not be so foolish as to believe that these people actually care. What they care about is the power.
5. There's almost always some human agency, or agencies, "behind the throne." In the case of liberal politicians, it's often someone like George Soros, who acts in HIS OWN BEST INTEREST; he supports politicians because they will do what he pays them to do. In the case of conservative politicians, there are often multiple "benefactors," but they all resolve into an elitist group of wealthy people who want to protect their income and status.  That's why tax laws are written the way they are. In short, please don't fall for the idea that someone will "help you." He/she will help themselves. If you benefit as well, that's nice. Otherwise, too bad.

This is why I believe Christians should be exceedingly careful about political endorsements, whoever it is they endorse--whether black ministers endorsing the current president, or white pastors endorsing one of the conservative candidates.

It sounds pretty dismal, doesn't it?  But it's not.  One day, all heaven will sing. "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Messiah."

It's for that day that we wait.

The GOP wants to "Dump Trump;" Why?

GOP and Tech CEO's meet to Stop Donald Trump

Interesting goings on; now why would they do this? (see the link above) Simple answer: Mr. Trump will change the way they do business. The CEO's of the various tech companies are petrified that Mr. Trump will force them to behave as proper corporate citizens; they see evaporating profits because of changes in the laws if he's elected, and they really don't like it. the GOP establishment, which has argued for "free trade" all these years, is terrified, too, since to them "free trade" has meant exporting American jobs via American companies so that we could all work at WalMart. Mr. Trump will be bad, very bad for the establishment, but possibly very good for the middle and lower classes, who, I think, would rather have actually good jobs than work at KFC for a "better minimum wage."

Now this is just my opinion, but when the wealthy vote no, it might be wise to look at why they are doing it. Today, we have one of the lowest employment participation rates since the '50's, one of the highest unemployment rates we've ever had (22.5% or so, if you look at ACTUAL unemployment), and the GOP and DEM establishments want to convince us that "more of the same" is good for us. In reality, it's only good for THEM.

Money...or the REAL reason people hate Donald Trump...Especially Mitt Romney

I have often maintained that if you want to find the "why" of something, you need to look beneath what people say, to their motivations, because these are often the real reasons for their words and actions, as opposed to what they are saying.
In politics, motivation is relatively easy to discover, and I'll talk about that in a moment.
But in the first place, please don't think that this is really an argument for or against a particular political candidate. I'm going to discuss him (Mr. Trump), though, because he represents a sea change in the way the US acts.  You will certainly decide what you plan to do by the first part of November, if he's a nominee. Please vote your conscience. Always.
In the first place, let me talk briefly about Mitt Romney.  I voted for him in the last election, because I didn't like the other choice.  I believed, and history seems to bear me out, that Mr. Obama was not good for the country--not good for citizens' rights, not good for minorities, not good for our nation's business, not good for the military. So I voted for the "less worst thing"--Mr. Romney. I've grown accustomed to voting for what I believe is the lesser of two evils, because the candidates have really not been much different, however they represented themselves, and whatever their press releases said.

However with Mr. Trump (and Mr. Sanders, on the other side of the aisle), there's a huge change coming.

Mr. Trump is avowedly a nationalist.  In other words, he plans to act in the best interests of the citizens of the US (assuming this is not just campaign rhetoric). Which would be us.  You and me. This really is a first in a long time.

For generations, elections have been bought and sold with lies and bribes. I know this because of multiple sets of facts, but let's use Obamacare as an example.  I'm not as much against it as some of the people I know, but imagine a system in which insurers are guaranteed money, in which the pharmaceutical companies can charge what they please, and in which the American taxpayer is required to purchase insurance to pay them. That's Obamacare in a nutshell. There are cost savings, and people can have insurance without reference to their pre-existing conditions, but Obamacare is a system almost wholly made up for the benefit of the people who put in the money to get it passed. Any benefits we get are side benefits.  If you doubt my words, look at what happened to insurance company stocks, and pharmaceutical stocks, once it was passed.

This leads me to a conclusion.  We will be lied to by the politicians.  Most of them, maybe all of them. Mr Sanders is complicit in this, as is Mrs. Clinton.  Mr. Sanders because he promises a minimum wage, which is set up to make low paying jobs well paying, and Mrs. Clinton because she is really a creature of the people who pay her, Goldman Sachs being a good example. The Republican candidates are almost all the same.

If you put them all, Republican and Democrat, in a huge basket, and bread them and fry them, you wouldn't be able to taste the difference.  They are virtually the same, despite what you hear.
We will be lied to because we don't bother to follow the money, since money is the chief requirement to get elected in these days.  The various pundits also seek money, and they want to be "in on the party," so they help elect people they like--or at least dislike less.

So what happens if we follow the money, in say, Mitt Romney's diatribe against Donald Trump?
Very simply, Romney is a creature of the stock market, and of his former company, Bain Capital. What Bain Capital did was to purchase and sell off companies that it deemed "unprofitable;" the jobs in those companies often disappeared, because one of the ways you make a company "more efficient" is to "outsource" your workers (i. e., you have your stuff made in other countries).

Mr. Trump is very much against (at least in his campaign words) against the very things that made Bain Capital and Mr. Romney rich, and indeed made all the moneymakers on Wall Street wealthy beyond their dreams.

Mr. Trump is FOR U. S. citizens getting jobs from American companies. He's FOR removing, if not reducing, the incredible impact of foreign workers on jobs here in the US.

This, whatever else it is, will be a giant shock to the system.  "Bring jobs back here? NO WAY!!! Make companies actually pay a living wage to their workers, HERE, rather than outsourcing everything from sweatpants to cell phones? NEVER!" That's what all the stock market folks are screaming, giving money hand over fist to whoever else they can find to keep the status quo going.

I am old enough to have seen the slow erosion of virtually all the moneymaking jobs in this country, except for finance, technology development, energy production, medicine, and government. The companies, by the way, who've been at the forefront of this are just about all against Mr. Trump, if not vocally, at least quietly, and they are donating money like crazy to whomever they think can challenge him.

The thing that terrifies them all is that this person, who has made his money locally (yes, I know he or his contractors employed foreign workers, but real estate is by definition local), actually HAS THE MONEY to fight them. And he's doing it.

So my point is this.  We need people, whomever they may be, who are willing to tell the truth in politics--the truth being that it is NOT good to invite people from another country into our country when we don't know who they are; The truth being that we need good jobs here for US citizens, and no amount of welfare, unemployment insurance, or fast food jobs that pay $15 an hour will replace the good jobs lost to outsourcing. After all, who pays for welfare? YOU DO.  Wouldn't it be better for the country to restore the jobs that we lost over the decades with good new jobs, and a nationalist policy that puts us first in trade negotiations, etc. than to have a host of fast food or retail jobs paying $15 an hour?

When I was a little guy, my parents bought and paid for two homes on my Dad's salary alone. They owned cars. They provided food. We had lobster sometimes (San Diego had a clean ocean then!), and we always had fresh fruit and vegetables. All this on ONE paycheck until I was about 15, when Mom went to work in real estate.  This was the real world back then. The country made its own stuff. We decided who would come into our country.

Please don't tell me it can't be like this again. That's been the mantra for decades, that we "needed to enter the global economy," that we needed to "once again become a nation of immigrants," that we were "going to enter times of change," that America would be OK, and that people would "find new jobs."

Sorry. It was all a smokescreen, beginning about 1964, and it was almost all lies.  The same people who told you, "We have to have less expensive foreign products" laughed at us as they cashed their ever-larger paychecks, and got us all to vote for people who systematically destroyed our way of life. And I'm NOT just talking about one political party or the other.  It was, unfortunately everybody. That's the sad part.
Perhaps saddest of all, though, with the political guarantees that they have of free speech, is that the various news organizations did not have the courage to stand up against the lying bribery, and to say, "enough!" In fact, with the rise of the internet, and the availability of information, they all railed against anyone who challenged their hegemony, and called them "Bloggers...not real reporters," and the like--but if you followed the money, you'd find the same thing to be true of them as of the politicians. They were not after truth.  They wanted the same "in" as the moneymen had. Truth was not just secondary. They created an untrue "reality" in the service of money.

How do we fix this?  Is it Donald Trump? I really don't know.  I DO know that if we maintain the course we've been on, we'll be a third world country much sooner than we realize. Mr. Trump, for all his faults, represents a genuine change in the way America does business. This, at least, commends him to me. Not one of the other candidates really proposes to do that. Even Mr. Sanders proposes "more of the same," meaning, "tax more people so that folks can get a free lunch;" (I'm for a free education, by the way, but an education that really means something, not an education that focuses on useless information. I'm for reasonably priced medical care, which is something we still don't have now, after years of Obamacare). I'm for a lot of things that probably won't happen for a while--but we have a chance.

What I want is that very elusive person: an HONEST politician--someone who works on behalf of his own constituents, and who has the commonsense to see that what we need to do is institute change that will give our country back to us.

Vote for whomever you think is most likely to do that, and you will give yourself and your children a shot at the future. 

Here I go again...Chiropractors!

I still remember my daughter calling chiropractors "ChiroQuacktors." She had evidently heard that nonsense from someone.

I only wish I had started sooner with a good chiropractic Doc. All the ones I've seen have been competent. They've all helped me.  They are not good for everything, but in general, they have knowledge far beyond their basic training, and that knowledge includes nutrition, posture, all the joints (not just the back--one of my chiropractors healed my shoulder with manipulation), and lots of other "stuff."
Most chiropractors today work on a per-appointment basis (in my view, and after ONE negative experience, it's not good to pay for a series of treatments up front), and my medical insurance sees enough benefit in chiropractic to include it in their plan for me.
One thing about chiropractors--they actually are interested in their patients (at least the ones I've seen are); My chiro spends as much time as necessary to 'fix' me when I go. So...if you haven't tried chiropractic, and if you hurt (but not if you have osteoporosis), you might find the same thing I have. Here's an article on Chiropractic that you might enjoy:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/02/28/wellness-chiropractic.aspx

Kids can't read. Why?

Teaching reading is the single most important thing schools can do, because the ability to read is the main way we receive and communicate information in our world. Videos work for lots of things.  I use them for DIY instructions, and lots of other stuff. But if you want to imbibe and absorb information, reading is king.
However, lots of kids don't know how to read. I started out as one of those. When I was in the first grade, my teacher told Mom that she thought I should be tested, because she believed I was "slow." I didn't learn reading "the school's way."
Mom knew better. She knew me.
So she sat my 6 year old behind on her lap, and read to me. Every day.  As she read, she carefully sounded out the words, placing her finger under each word as she read it so that I could see it.
By the 2nd grade, I was reading fine, and by the 4th grade, I was tested to find out my IQ.  I was immediately admitted to the "gifted" program (later to become the Gifted and Talented program). The teacher who thought I was "slow?" She went on to mess with other children's heads.  The problem? It really was not the teacher, or the way I was taught, except the crazy stupid stuff they tried to use to teach me to read--"See Jane. See Spot. See Jane and Spot." Even a two year old would be bored, much less a 6 year old of normal intelligence. It drove me nuts.  I still remember thinking "Is this reading? Waste of time!" or something like it.
So how did I learn to read? Individual attention by someone who loved me so much she could never have explained it.
The method? Simplicity itself. She read interesting stuff to me. She sounded out every word. She pointed to each word as she sounded it out. She kept it up. She did it until I not only could read the words myself, she did it until my mind turned words into imagination, and then turned imagination into visions of reality.
Mom used this technique with both me and my brother. We both have advanced postgraduate degrees, earned with honors from good schools. Our abilities were there, just never unleashed.
So what's this rant really about?
It's about the many kids who can't read, but who can be taught to read by parents who hold them on their lap and read to them. However, it's too late if these kids are older. They can still learn, but it's only with much greater effort and time.
If you're a parent, take the time to help your child(ren) learn to read. It is the single most important thing you can do for their education. It's more important than helping them play soccer, more important than teaching them to use a computer, more important than anything except loving them completely.
Do it. Don't make excuses. Just do it.

Of $15 per hour McDonald's jobs... and a broken society.

"Back in the day," my ex-wife worked as a part-time appraiser for the mortgage company that employed me.
Because of the nature of our business, she often had to go into parts of town that were "not the best;" so she was in one of these sections of town, and had to go down a certain street, where she was greeted with a good deal of hostility by folks in that neighborhood, since she was taking pictures. So she said, "I just got this job (it was new to her) appraising houses, and I have to take pictures."
Then the most saddening, pathetic thing happened (I think partly because she is a woman)--several of the women who were acting in a (sort of) threatening way got really interested, and they said, "Can you tell us where we can get a job?"
Whenever you get into an argument about welfare (I still don't like it much), or people who are the "have nots," remember this.
Even people who live in tough areas want good jobs. They want a way to get out of the hole they're in. They want a way out of the gangs for their children. They want to own their car, their home, their life.
The gateway to all of that is a truly good job.
Now fast forward a few years. Here we have similar people, people who "have it tough" wanting to get some job, any job, and they want it to pay what they perceive to be a living wage.  It is, if two people in the family work.
If you have ever been poor, you know what effort it takes to lift yourself up out of the hole you're born in.
What we don't need is to see the jobs that would go to people who are here go to imported people. We don't need to export more jobs. We need to bring them home.
The reason Wall Street fights this is twofold:
Stock price / earnings per share/ taxes paid
and
executive compensation.
Companies are all run in the US as if they are not citizens of the country, and as if they owe nothing back to the general economy. Some do choose to be good citizens, but for the most part these are privately held.
Many companies shield both their executive compensation and corporate profits from taxes, but that is not really the problem. The problem is that these same companies both export jobs to foreign lands because labor is cheaper there, and import people on H-1B visas because they are cheaper to hire, and because they are not "on the hook" for the same kinds of things as if they employ a US citizen. Neither of these practices is entirely the company's fault. They are to blame, because what they do is so destructive to people in our country, but the real fault lies elsewhere.
It's the fault of Congress and the President, who can change these laws with the stroke of a pen. Congress could, in any one year, change government policies to so dramatically favor companies who hire workers here, and who refuse to participate in the H-1B visa program, that nobody would do it.
So why don't they?
Bribes. Pure and simple. Bribes.  Say it with me. Bribes.  Bribes under the guise of campaign contributions, or in the case of some politicians, funding a foundation.
Make no mistake. If you're poor, the government is NOT on your side. The Democrats say they are, and they fund lots of "programs" for poor people, but where are the good jobs? In China. How did they get there? They were voted there by people YOU elected. 
The Republicans? Same thing.  This is why (or the secret reason why) there is so much support for $15 an hour jobs at McDonalds among certain politicians.  It's the old method of deflection. "Vote for me, I'll support more welfare;" "vote for me, I support free enterprise;" this is all code for,
"NO good jobs." I'll export these so you NEED welfare. Or, "I'll fight increases in the minimum wage for you poor small businessmen who can't afford to pay that won't have to."
All the while, these same people are all but worshipping the tycoons of Wall Street, the wealthy businesses that export YOUR job to China, and import people who will take your job away from you.
Please don't believe the lying fiction that "I can't get good employees:" THAT is code for, "I have to pay US citizens too much." If these same people want to do so, they can employ US citizens.
These economic crimes have nothing to do with political party.  Both parties are completely, absolutely guilty. What we need in our legislatures, and in our businesses, is people who consider their responsibilities as citizens of the US, and mandate and provide business that's centered here in the US.  If you think Democrats are better, think of the acronym NAFTA,or TPP.  Both eviscerate US business, if it's mid-size or small.
If you think Republicans are better, think to yourself, "Who was in office when Sam Walton died?" When Mr. Walton was alive, just about everything that could be made here was made here. Within a year of his death, everything was "made in China." The family had prepared for his death during the first Bush presidency, and was ready to send YOUR jobs to China. 
Mr. Bush was a Republican. Please don't think these legislators have your interests at heart. They do not.  They want to be re-elected. That's all, and they will accept bribes from anyone on earth if it will help them do that.
YOU can stop this, whoever you are, by demanding that your representatives represent YOU. YOU, not the people who send your jobs overseas, and import workers to take YOUR JOB.
End of rant. More coming soon.

"We Need More Money!" "We Can't Pay you More!" "We Can't Live on What We Make!"

"More!" Is the cry of the unskilled worker.  "Can't!" Is the cry of the businessman.  These two are usually at odds in the economic world. Both may be right. That's the problem. Many small companies can't do better, and at least some may not be able to make $15 per hour payments. Everyone who thinks about this, thinks "$15 an hour..." However, it's not just that.  Many years ago, when I did taxes, I did them for a few employers. What appalled me was what it actually costs an employer to pay that money.  There's 8% (or so) FICA tax, about 8% Unemployment insurance, Workmen's Comp insurance, and Federal Unemployment.  It works out to over $20 an hour, not $15. So there is some rationale for an employer to say, "I can't be profitable if I pay these wages." On the other hand, the worker has the same argument.  He says, "I can't survive on what the employer will pay." Thing is, he's right.  Neither side is lying. Both are telling the truth.
The proposed answers have been these:
Wealthy people are certainly not all bad, but 'way too often I've heard the equivalent of "Let them eat cake" from the wealthy. Many people with money don't have the sense of responsibility that goes with employment.  When you hire someone for full-time work, you do owe them proper care, so that they can feed their families, live in a place with dignity, and provide the things the family needs. It's become pretty customary to offload those responsibilities on to a foreign country, and make the problem "go away." I suppose the reasoning is, "I can't see the woman who stitches my shirts for 50 cents a day, so I don't have to worry about her.  She's the problem of her employer."
They do this so that they can rent cheap labor. Problem is, these were actually fairly good jobs before they were exported. People in the US made bicycles, shoes, coats, pants, socks, furniture, kitchen utensils, belts, books, Bibles, etc. etc.
Which is why we have people who work at McDonald's crying for higher wages--because jobs that used to go to people who wanted full time work actually paid a living wage.
However, two things happened.
1. Businesses imported people to do these things--normally illegals, or "quasi-legals," because they could cheat them in their pay, again because these men and women fear deportation.  This invaded the construction industry in about 1970, and by the year 2000, almost all those jobs were gone. When the partly legal / mostly illegal folk began to demand more money, those jobs were moved offshore, or to Mexico (after President Clinton signed NAFTA).
2. Businesses are still doing this.  They export jobs by purchasing items from overseas that could as easily be made here.  Interestingly, they blame the American people for this, as if WE had chosen this path. In addition, they import skilled workers under the H-1B visa program, because they can pay them less.
As a consequence, we have people wanting jobs at McDonald's because there are no others--and wanting to be paid a living wage. No surprise, really.  Everyone would like to be able to afford a hamburger (if only a cheap one) where he works.  Under the current scheme, folks are not paid enough. It's that simple.
However, the solution, in my view, is NOT to pay people $15 at McDonald's. The reasons? Nobody will be able to afford the hamburgers, and that work is best as a truly entry level job, not a career.
My solution is simple: Stop exporting the jobs we now export. Stop importing people to do skilled work on H-1B visas. This will take a number of new laws (hate the idea, but there it is) that favor US workers getting US jobs, and that favor businesses keeping the work at home. 
There actually ARE jobs for us all, and they can pay well. They just don't--and many jobs that could be there are not, because the legal structure of our nation favors the way things are now.

More on this another time, but here's a preview:
Corporations view their only responsibility as making money for their shareholders. However, like all businesses, they are part of an ecosystem.  That ecosystem, to remain well, has to take more into account than share price and earnings per share.
The economists who read this will flame me, I'm sure, and their arguments sound plausible until you realize that each economist is a part of a heavily protected employment sector--some of the universities, some of "thinktanks," and some of the government. Each of these people has three things: Medical care, a good wage, and a decent retirement.  They have no right to a voice unless they themselves are willing to experience what the rest of us do. They are like Marie Antoinette: "Let them eat cake." Well, guys and gals, there's no cake. What you really are saying is, "Too bad. I have mine, so you can eat cardboard."

Of $15 an hour McDonald's jobs...

I had two kids work at Mickey D's, one at KFC, and one at WalMart. My kids all worked during their school days, to help put themselves through college.
So I'm no stranger to the need for fair wages. I worked at the school library during college (part time, of course).
All those jobs paid what we might call a "child's wage," or a wage that was designed to help, not fully provide.  Those kinds of wages have been legal for a long time (as long as I've been around), and they do what they are designed to do.
Fast forward to the current situation, and the demands for a $15/hour minimum wage.  Now we have people trying to support families on a McDonald's or WalMart wage.
Why is that?
Can you say, "Too few good jobs in the US?"
This is really the endgame after decades of support, both governmental and societal, for sending good jobs overseas, and importing foreign workers under H-1B visas.
Now that we have too few good jobs, government and otherwise, people have to try to make ends meet in a difficult environment, and they have nowhere to go except to the fast food restaurant or Target in order to make enough money to feed their families.
In other words, this is a crisis created by the very corporate icons and government folks we are hoping will solve the problem.
So what's the answer?
More good jobs. The idea that a man and / or woman can support themselves or a family on a Mickey D's salary is simply crazy.
We need better jobs in the US. We need to stop exporting jobs.  We need to end the H-1B Visa program.
If we don't do this, we'll all be working at WalMart, and retiring at 95.

Computers...Computers...Computers!

I've used a computer ever since I needed a church secretary to type church bulletins, and I couldn't work with typewriters (I would have had to buy white out in 55 gallon drums and use a sprayer to apply it).
I remember going to Costco and pricing out IBM Selectrics ($800), and then thinking, "the church can't afford a secretary, so I'd have to type up the bulletins, but if the church could afford a one time purchase of a computer, then..."
So, after a couple of false starts, I ended up with an MS-DOS computer, which had two 5.25" floppy disk drives--one for programs, one for data, and a printer, and a couple programs.
I used that computer for quite a while, and then graduated.  As I write this, I'm using a Windows 10 computer.  I've used Apple, Microsoft, Linux, and Android computers.
I taught myself just about everything I know about them, from MS-DOS to the basics of Unix.  It's not as hard as folks say, if you just decide it's not, and it's a wonderful tool.
So...as an officially certified Old Guy, I think you can learn to use a computer.  If you're worried about it, get an iPad or Android equivalent (Google Nexus, Google Chrome, Samsung tablet, or a clone), and start there.  There is an entire world of information out there for you, and all of it is available through the gateway of your keyboard.
I've seen older folks just start using iPads with just a little bit of instruction; I watched an 18-month old pick up an iPad and use it (had some coaching from Mom & Dad at first) with literally no effort.
Android tablets are about the same level of difficulty, just a bit different.
What I'm saying is this:
"If you're an official Old Guy or an official "Old Gal," and you are of normal intelligence, you can learn to use a computer--or computing device.
I always recommend you opt for the easiest to use, and if you outgrow it, then go for something more complicated.
God Bless!

What this blog is about

When I say "old," I mean, "probably older than you."
I've suffered through about five recessions, and in each the younger folk say, "It was never like this," but of course it was.
I've watched the Congress allow the export of jobs by the millions, using the economists' excuse that "the world is changing, and everyone will have to find different jobs," until we now actually NEED to pay McDonald's employees $15 an hour, because there are no really good jobs for folks with minimal skills.
On the other hand, I've seen many "miracles"  in medicine, science, computing, and so on. I was one of the first people I knew to use the internet, back in the day when you had to learn Unix / Lynx (a bit, just a bit) to use it, until now everyone complains about broadband speeds and has an email address, and I'm writing this blog on a machine that would have either cost $20,000 back then, or would have been impossible to buy at all.
So it's a mixed bag. At the moment, I'm sitting in my brother's house in Florida, contemplating the fact that I knew a guy who had come across the country in a covered wagon--so I've been around a bit. I remember being a minister in a rural Indiana community where the main drag was defined by a hardware store and a traffic light--but I've worked and ministered in Orange and San Diego Counties (California).
All this to introduce the fact that I'm going to be writing from my own (hopefully unique) perspective. I've "been there, done that."
The blog is basically "occasional thoughts," which I hope you will enjoy.  I'm no George Carlin, but I do think I have a brain (at least for a while), and I want to use it to tell you things you may not hear elsewhere.
For example; did you ever notice that all the "university economist" who tell us that exporting jobs is a "good thing" have a job HERE?
What if we ship their jobs to China? What if we tell them that "universities are no longer needed because of the internet, and therefore they get to work at a 7-11--and oh, by the way, their pensions are forfeit, because they are now "redundant?"
What if we actually start telling the truth about stuff, bluntly, rather than lying about things, and using evasion and big words to disguise our lies?
And so on.
I'm done for today, cuz I have to go help my brother move a bed, and then we're going to go to Ocala and visit the bookstore.