Our government needs an enema!

(Title used with all due respect to Jack's Joker)

We have severe blockage!  Prepare the dynamite!

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLDbwQ4cDTTVix2a1zZhl35zrtnC2eoFQkyJa74MMQzLk2MRU0

     This article highlights exactly what is wrong with our government.  With massive tax increases a mere month away that everyone agrees will most certainly send the country spiraling back into another, what are the so called leaders on either side doing?  Are they desperately working together to stave off this disaster before everyone suffers?  Are they even making any real effort to move forward towards some sort of solution?  Are they even sharing a Double Mocha Frappachino in some attempt at getting along?  NOPE!

Keep in mind, folks that its all about posture!

          Both sides are posturing and preening seeking some sort of angle that will allow them to "win" the upcoming argument.  Never mind that the answers are known to pretty much everyone who  has more than three brain cells to rub together.  We need to increase Revenue, decrease Spending and balance the damned budget.  That's it.  That is what needs to be done.  Everything else is in the details.

      Now of course as the old saying goes, the Devil is in the details.  How do we increase Revenue?  Tax increases, tax law overhauls, hiring alchemists to turn lead into pudding?  Where do we decrease spending?  Cut funding for popular public programs, Increase the eligibility age for SS/Medicare etc or put every politician on minimum wage?  These are all viable questions and should be considered.  I personally feel that we shouldn't allow any tax increases until the government proves it can be trusted with the money.  (Which ideally will put off any tax increases for the foreseeable future.)  I feel that popular programs need severe overhauls and better oversight which would allow us to cut some of the funding to them and STILL keep them viable.  However, both the Damnocrats and ReBoobicans are showing absolutely no drive to even confront these issues let alone actually work together to fix them. 

Well it is more like a tragedy but hey...

 

      Right after the election, both sides did these marvelous little dances that gave the impression that they had seen the error of their ways and would be willing to work together.  They preached that we would not have a repeat of the last fiscal emergency where impasse on both sides drove us to the point of disaster.  And like so many false prophets (Profits?), their sermons have turned out to be false.  The Damnocrats claim a mandate from the peeple even though they only won slightly more than half the popular vote.  (BTW does anyone else find it funny that Romney's final total on Popular Vote was 47%.)  The ReBoobicans are back to their "No new taxes no matter what!" speeches and both sides as a whole are refusing to give.

Why can't we all just get along?

     Let me slap a little definition out there for you.Webster's defines Compromise as: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concession.  In short it means that both sides in an argument give in a little.  It doesn't mean "Hey I am not going to give in, but you have to make concessions!"  By the very nature of the beast, making a compromise means that both sides lose.  Our Political Parties hate that.  "Their side" has to lose and "Our side" has to win.  And when neither side agrees to compromise, then the other side is guilty of blocking any chance at progress.
     The sad part is, even though I knew better, I actually briefly believed that maybe, just maybe our Pollytickans had learned something and would actually make some effort to work together without weeks of posturing.  And in all fairness, some on either side of the carpet are actually showing signs of doing so.   Reboobicans are making noises about agreeing to revenue increases and Damnocrats are showing some signs of being willing to put Reforms on the table.  Unfortunately, none of these guys are the head honchos.  I just hope that both Obama and Boehner can do the same.  The Fiscal Cliff is looming and I have a thing about heights.

and here is a picture of a cute bunny for absolutely no reason.

 

Ooookay someone explain this one to me?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240787/Ronald-Post-Obese-death-row-inmate-claims-hes-innocent-bid-delay-execution-400lb-weight-cause-severe-pain-rejected.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

     Now, this rant isn't about whether or not this guy is guilty or innocent or even whether he deserves to die.  The courts will decide if he warrants a retrial or not.  (course in my humble opinion, if you plead no contest to being involved in a murder you are prolly guilty)  No my question is a move the gentleman made to have his execution delayed because his obesity would cause him extreme pain during the process.

     Hokay, so he shouldn't executed because he might suffer some discomfort while they are KILLING him?  "Sorry you can't execute me today because I might be uncomfortable while you are doing it" seems a little silly.  I don't see any reason why our legal system should be any sort of obligation for making death sentence inmates all comfy cozy while they pump them full of a deadly cocktail of drugs.

     Lethal Injection is supposed to be the kinder, gentler way of executing criminals  (It ain't, btw.  Experts say that the process is very painful though not as painful as previous methods.)  Pre-Lethal Injection, let's look at the various methods used to execute felons.  Beheading...Yup painful.  Crucifixion...oh yeah really painful.   Hangings...moderate to extended painful.  Firing Squad...Oh yeah!  Painful!  Electrocution...yep you guessed it REALLY PAINFUL.

     But wait, you cry!  What about cruel and unusual punishment, you ask?  (Well its either you guys or the voices in my head again.)  To you (Or the little blue gnomes in my head) I reply  "You're executing the guy!  Taking his life!  Shuffling off his mortal coil!  Kicking his bucket!  It don't get much more cruel than that!"

      If someone is accused of a heinous crime, they deserve fair and honest legal defense.  They deserve every chance they can get to get  fair and impartial hearing to prove their innocence.  However, arguments like Mr. Post makes are ridiculous.  When someone kills someone else in a violent crime, I doubt that most of them had any concern about whether or not the bullets fired caused the victim "severe pain" so why should we have any sort of consideration for the one firing the gun?

END OF RANt

Who determines fair?

Oh look he's pointing at something!

      So okay, here is the FB post that kind of started this whole train of thought.  It is a quote by the famous/infamous Paul Krugman about business/labor practices.  Now normally, I don't particularly like this man or his reasonings, but when taken in a general sense this quote is fairly accurate.  Of course, like most general ideas the actual truth is far more complicated, but I liked the general notion so I reposted it on FB.

http://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2012/11/well-its-bit-more-complicated-than-that.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PorkBrainsWithMilkGravy+%28Pork+Brains+with+Milk+Gravy%29

     Now my brother Benjamin Baker saw my post and wrote a most excellent counter point blog that very effectively dealt with some of the deeper questions behind this issue.  (If you aren't following his blogs yet, you are missing out on some amazing Shift)  His musings got me thinking yet again and I took finger to keyboard before my headparts exploded from the confuzzlement.

     Who or what determines what it means to pay a "fair wage?"  Who says, "Okay, you are doing X job for Y hours so it is fair of me to pay you Z wages?  The person who is paying the wages will feel that it is his right to pay the lowest salary possible to better improve his profits.  The worker will always feel that it is his right to earn as much money as he can for the labor he produces.  Never will you find the two ideas comfortably meeting.  Employer will always want to pay less and the employee will always want to make more.  

     The US Government as well as many other countries has an established Minimum Wage that is paid (At least in theory) to every person working in the country.  People with skills and training (Experience) can make significantly more than that in their chosen fields.  The disconnect, at least to me, is when people who haven't taken the time, effort and money needed to gain said skills and training expect to be paid as much.  I have read many "opinion pieces" that state the minimum wage should be $15.00-$20.00 so that people can earn a "decent living."

       Does anyone else grasp the absolute ludicrousness of that idea?  The idea that Joe with a high school diploma flipping burgers at Jolly Burgers should earn as much as Sally at ACME Mechanical Sharks Ink who went to school and got a degree in Mechanical Sharks?  Sally spent four years of her life and thousands of dollars to get her training.  Joe walked in to Jolly Burger and said, "Hey kin I flip burgers?" 

     Fair pay does not mean that every single person makes similar wages.  It means that people with the same skills/training/education or any combination of those makes similar wages no matter their race, creed, religion or planet of origin.  Companies aren't required by either law or morality to pay a worker "enough money to live off of."  They should only be required to pay the worker a salary appropriate to their skill level.  If your skill level is Minimum Wage level, then that is what you should be paid.  If that amount isn't enough for you to live comfortably off of then get another job.  Heck get two they might be small.

     People get annoyed when I bring up my father and how he worked 10-12 hours a day his entire life with the County Road Crew AND cut dozens of yards a week to earn enough money to feed his family and keep a roof over our heads.  They scream that times are different now and that people shouldn't have to do that.  Well, I scream back that times are no different now than they were 20 years ago.  We the people do not owe anyone else a living.  We aren't responsible for you earning a better wage.  

     If the job you hold doesn't pay your bills, get a better one.  If you can't get a better one because you lack skills/education, get the skills you need.  If you can't do that, get two jobs.  We as a Nation aren't required to make sure you have everything you need.  That responsibility is completely on your shoulders.

End of Rant