My Pseudonym

Someone told me that the pseudonym for a porn star is made by combining the name of his first pet with the name of the first street he lived on. My first pet was a dog we called Poochie. We lived on Williamson Road. I am definitely NOT a porn star, but I really like the name.

What's Wrong with Airport Security?

This cartoon by Mike Keefe in the Denver Post says it all. Whether it's nail clippers, a bottle of baby formula, or a sewing kit, airport security agents have diligently and repeatedly located and confiscated harmless items from 80 year-old women and 4 year-old children.

Maybe you feel safer in the presence of this arbitrary and mindless knee-jerk approach to security, but I am just plain annoyed. I have no objection to taking my shoes off and putting them on the conveyor belt. Based on recent history, that's a perfectly reasonable request. But it took them far too long to drop the nail clipper thing. The only folks who resent the intrusion of mindless security more than the bad guys do are the good guys!

Effective security concentrates on persons and items that, as a result of a preliminary screening, are determined to be most likely to cause severe damage. That's called profiling. Profiling can be done in a positive sense (to quickly pass low-risk passengers) as well as the more recognized sense (to single out high-risk passengers for closer scrutiny). But the criteria must be kept strictly confidential in order to retain their validity. With this approach, a few innocents who fail the initial screening will be inconvenienced, but that's better than spoiling travel for all the rest of us. If you are absolutely compelled to look like a duck and quack like a duck, then expect to be treated like a duck. That's the breaks; grin and bear it. Eventually your record of good behavior will put you in the low risk category.

>

There is no room for "political correctness" in the area of security.

Tips for Presidential Candidates

The pundits are saying that the independent voters will determine the outcome of the next U.S. Presidential election. I tend to agree with them. Although I am registered as a Republican, I have always voted based on the issues and on my conscience, not on party affiliation; I consider myself an independent.

So, Hillary and Rudy, Barak and Mitt, John McC and John E, (and all the rest), please listen to the voice of an independent:

1. Don't tell me how terrible things are in our nation. Tell me instead which of the good things you intend to preserve and enhance. You can tell me if something can be improved, if something is broken and needs fixing, or if something is missing and needs to be added, but be prepared to offer a specific remedy.
2. Stop proposing policies that favor the multimillionares who fund your campaigns to the detriment of the other 99% of our population. Make your proposals and your actions truly serve the common good.
3. Ignore the rantings of the blind dummies at the far right and the far left ends of the political spectrum. They probably account for about 5% of the total vote. There are many more voters toward the middle of the spectrum. They are the intelligent, thoughtful and curious ones who are examining all possible solutions to the problems and who are looking for intelligent problem solvers. They are also the ones who will see the benefits of your proposed solutions and embrace them regardless of the party of origin.
4. Make sure you address the important issues. Some candidates don't even have illegal immigration on their issues list. There are other missing issues as well. If you can't see what the important issues are, you aren't presidential material.
5. Don't change your position with every new poll that is published. If you truly believe you are right, hold fast to your position. On the other hand, if one or more polls indicate that 75% or more of the electorate disagree with you, then you should seriously reexamine your position, because they may have seen something you missed. If you are certain you are right, then you had better explain the facts that got you there.
6. Don't patronize me or try to dazzle me with promises of pie in the sky, two cars in every garage, or a chicken in every pot. These offers have already been made and renigued upon. Instead, be specific about the improvements or additions you want to make, and make them realistic in the sense that Congress will be able to implement them.
7. Don't offer me "comprehensive" reforms. These have failed every time they were implemented or attempted (e.g. health care, immigration, congressional ethics, campaign financing). Comprehensive reforms are so long and complicated that they are guaranteed to have one or more elements that will alienate voters of one persuasion or the other. As a result, few voters will support them. Most of our present policies are pretty darn good. They have specific faults that need correcting, or they are not always properly enforced. So identify the specific faults, and propose specific corrective and enforcement actions.
8. Don't be afraid that I will not vote for you if I disagree on an issue--that's exactly what elections are all about. You can't please all of the people all of the time. If you make more good suggestions than bad, and more good solutions than the other guy, you will get my vote.
9. Quit using ad hominum attacks. They have been around as long as politicians have. And they are weak and antagonistic substitutes for substantive positive positions on meaningful issues. Besides, you have just as many failings as the other guy does.

That is a recipe for winning the votes of independents. I suspect and fear that you will not follow it. No presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt has come very close to following it. Some of you have already begun your "avoid the issues and torpedo the opposition" campaign strategy. Change now, or lose my vote for sure (and those of most other independents as well).

Class in American Society

Republicans are criticizing Democrats for attempting to define economic "classes" in American society.

The Republicans are dead wrong in their criticism. American society comprises two classes: The extremely wealthy, and the rest of the working families. These classes are not defined by the Democratic Party. They are defined by the words and actions of the wealthy elite.

Here is how they define and create their exclusive social class:

• They isolate themselves from the hoipolloi by living in gated estates or gated communities
• They avoid the use of public transportation. They use private limousines instead of buses or trains; private yachts, or first-class accommodations on cruise ships; private jets in place of commercial airlines
• They have assistants do their shopping for them, and if they do shop for personal items, they have the shop owner close the shop to other customers while they are there
• They guard their income and their sources of income from taxation by receiving funds out of the country and storing their funds in offshore accounts
• They either are our nation's lawmakers, or they influence the lawmakers by means of contributions and personal favors. For example, the Federal tax code is full of special provisions for the wealthy--treating capital gains at a lower rate than other income, allowing adjustments credits and deductions applicable only to people of wealth

The wealthy elite have defined their own class, and you and I are not part of it. Just about anyone can knock on your front door and speak to you, face to face. That's not true for the wealthy elite.

Another Tax Proposal

Don't laugh too hard--it just might work, if the proposal is indeed revenue-neutral. Some specific provisions are essential:

• The $100,000.00 figure should be tied to an inflation index to protect upper-middle-income folks from drifting into the higher category.


• A more gradual transition to the upper bracket may be needed so that, for a person earning $98,000.00, a 4% raise does not give him a big cut in take-home pay.
  
• "Income" must be defined as gross, from all sources and activities; no "adjustments," no "allowances," no deductions, no loopholes.

Like any proposal, this one has its benefits and drawbacks. Readers can identify those and sort them out. In general, though, it is a promising attempt to spread the tax burden more fairly.