Excremeat: a definition.

Excremeat: the apocryphal or legendary food stuff created by Japanese scientists from human excrement, as reported on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.   Or a delicacy for rich foodies who spread Cuitlacoche (that mold stuff mid westerners scrape off corn) on toast or bagels. Or the logical basic food stuff for the future dystopia where only robots have jobs and the only food choices are soylent green and soylent brown.

Thick as a Brick: I promise to be more entertaining next time.

     Let's clear the air about something:  China.  This point last century, China was in a similar position economically. Around the 2nd biggest economy in world, rising military power, and about 5% of it's population pulled out of poverty.  The problem is, when 5% of 900 million gets money and the rest are poverty stricken individuals working in sweatshop conditions, what you get is social disorder.  You can feel that leaking through the fringes of the news we get here in the U.S.. The problem for China is the same one for France during it's revolution and for Russia for that matter.  Not the overall poverty level, but the fact that the revolution will start at the bottom.
     The American Revolution was, by and large, rich men organizing people along known social lines.  A conservative revolution.  With an ocean between the targets of the revolution and the revolutionaries.  The other's mentioned are more traditional:  lower classes vs. high, rich vs poor, haves vs nots.  The blood flow was awesome in the Great Leap Forward.  With wealth centralized in the hands of the few, shrinking world resources and no plan we can expect another in the future.

Sorry. July was a bad month in a bad year in a bad decade.  Prices are rising.  Temperatures are rising.  Tempers are fraying.

Fallen on hard times (1)

      The debt limit.  The US credit crisis.  Point one:  The credit ratings organizations are owned by big business.  They do not report the truth,  they report statistics, and anyone who works with statistics knows:  they can mean anything based on the questions you ask and the information you look for.  So what the credit reporting agencies are doing is telling the congress and the world what their owners want them to hear, not the whole truth.  And not the companies that produce jobs or employ people, rather, it’s the people who trade in economic abstractions – banks with interest rates and the stock market with stocks and bonds that are worried.  Places where money is a one and zero in a computer.  For instance: if a bank is too big too fail, based on its effect on the economy, imagine how much how little that bank wants the largest economy in the world to have it’s credit down graded.  Lots of lost ones and zeros in that equation.  Point two:  if we bailed out the banks, how fast long do you think before the bankers arrive, on their silk clad knees, begging the US to take their money so we don’t default.  That moment,  in world black-plague-Spanish-flu-nuclear-winter level suffering,  might be worth the whole thing.  

If you’re into that sort of rough trade. 

The Clasp (1)

     Okay, I have no dog in this fight, but it has been a topic of discussion, so: gay marriage.  It's not that I  don 't have gay friends, they're just not in committed relationships.  It's not that I don't  believe in the bible, I have already stoned my wife for wearing cotton and polyester (read: jeans) and killed one child for disrespecting me (read: his father).  And that's all the reference to Leviticus I'm using. I just think the discussion is silly.  The government has only one duty where marriage is concerned: inheritance issues.  Otherwise they should stay out if it.  Okay, legal connections for insurance coverage.  But that's it.  Civil union stuff.  If you don't want to marry homosexuals in your church, good on you, but that's not political, that's personal.  A personal belief has no business in policy, it's not pragmatic it's dogmatic. 
     Now the new New York thing intrigues me: on one side people getting married appeals to the sappy romantic who straps on a vag for the month of December to watch Christmas comedies movies on Lifetime,  on the other  it's slightly offensive to the same spirit, in that, in all likelihood, the main reason for the change was the millions of dollars in tourism that this decision will generate for New York.  
     I did see a man on TV said that gay marriage would ruin my life, which is good to know, I was wondering what happened.  

Geek Thing

Okay, so  . . . is it my imagination or are alien invasion movies now  using the same harsh, pseudo-emergency broadcast noise as the generic look-it's-an-alien alert?  And how long until the alien conspirators begin telling us that the government is teaching us  to respond to the aliens like Pavlov's dog? 

Jet Fuel Genius (1)

    So, we do not want to tax job creators.  Done.  We link tax rebates to job creation.  Nationally we give tax rebates only to companies that increase the number of jobs in the us.   Maintained jobs over time.  If the net job increase, in the U.S.,  is 10% over the last fiscal year, you get that amount in  tax credits.  We never pay a company to do business in the U.S. (we are capitalists -- sorry, couldn't keep a straight face -- after all).  All other tax credits go away.  This will reduce government interference in the economy, and reduce the size of government overall, which is what we all want.  We would lose jobs  in the IRS and Tax Lawyer sectors but we would benefit overall. 
     Of course, we would have to change our trade policies.  Simple enough, match the trade policies of other nations, say 35% tariffs on imports from India and 20% on imports from China.  I know,   it's not free trade, and we'll have to pay more for out lead based toys, and it's not fair those tariffs are still lower than their tariffs  on our exports, but if a company creates jobs in the U.S. then they get those nifty tax rebates.
     The jobs don't even have to be well paying, they just need to include health insurance.  An ancillary benefit would be loosening of the immigration restrictions, after all, we will need more hands for all the extra jobs we create here. 
Ooooh! And we can stop wondering if the only jobs our kids will have will be selling coffee to each other or living at home as in-house health care providers for their aging parents.

I got your "write it down" or The Basics

The thought for the moment is political, so, for today, the philosophical facts:
Politics should be intranationally liberal and internationally conservative.
You protect your citizens from all comers.
The Constitution protects the innocent from the mob.  If you think otherwise, you are the mob.
Airport security does not protect you, it advertises protection and the public buys it. 
Relationships are simple, if you have to ask the question (is this wrong, is this cheating, should I break up with them) the answer is probably yes, the rest is rationalization.
If one percent of the population owns ninety-nine percent of the wealth, where should taxes be drawn from?  (Robin Hood robbed from the rich because the poor had nothing -- there is a lesson in this).
Napoleon would have kicked George Washington's ass.

and last: 

People need to stop voting for hope.   The politician that promises moral rectitude, winds up hiring hookers while on the clock.  An advocate for the poor and needy winds up riding in a limo.  Voting against the "death tax" is voting for the hope you will be rich enough to apply to you.  Hope is wonderful.  It gets you up in the morning.  Practicality keeps your grandma in Depends.