Vladimir Putin Should Be Mummified

When I first read that the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez left plans to have him embalmed, presumably for permanent display purposes, I was intrigued with why someone would do that, or what type of person would do that.  When learning the history of Russia in grade school, I was impacted when I learned that Lenin was embalmed and on display in the Red Square Mausoleum in Moscow.  People would stand in line for hours to have a chance to see his corpse. 

Embalming is common, but usually not for displaying the corpse long term.  During the U.S. civil war, the dead were often embalmed to be shipped back to families for burial.  The trip often took many weeks, making short term preservation important.  Today many cultures embalm to allow open casket viewing to take place, days after the death.  It is the permanent display aspect that makes me wonder.  Occasionally I read about someone that has their pet animal taxidermy, which I consider very wrong. 

When the Hugo Chavez embalming plans emerged, I read more on the subject.  A number of other world leaders are embalmed and displayed: Russia’s Stalin, China's Mao Zedong, Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh, North Korea's founding leader, Kim Il Sung and Argentina’s Eva Peron are the most prominent.  All of these people led during tumultuous times in their country’s history, requiring a personality of considerable ego.  I guess if you have a significant ego, you want people to admire you for as long as possible.

The problem with embalming is that it doesn’t work forever.  Lenin’s body is deteriorating after 90 years and pictures show evidence that it looks far less “lifelike” than earlier.  Mummification actually preserves the body much better than either embalming or taxidermy.  Early civilizations caught on, and thousands of years later we have their well-preserved corpses to admire.

Kim Il Sung had the biggest ego, before his death.  Kim claimed to have shot a round of golf at 38 under par, including 11 holes in one.  The funniest thing is the North Korean people believed it. Russian President Putin is the biggest egomaniac running a big show right now.  He could be described as a megamaniac.   The man tries to convey the image of a leader that is world class at everything he tries, and he believes he looks very good without a shirt doing these activities.  A man with this ego should be mummified and preserved for many millennium.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Does Milwaukee County Tolerate Sheriff David Clarke?

“If jobs were like mental illnesses, the office of sheriff could be said to have multiple personality disorder. On one hand, you're a by-the-book law enforcement officer. On the other, you're a consummate, cunning politician. You're expected to crunch numbers like a slash-and-burn CEO, but turn on the celebrity charm when the TV cameras arrive.”  This was the opening paragraph of a story in Police Magazine’s June 1, 2005 article entitled How To Run For Sheriff, which went on to praise Sheriff Clarke and others.

In the Milwaukee area, Sheriff Clarke is often described as a bully, an egomaniac, a self-serving politician, a fake Democrat, a negatively disruptive force within the community and much more.  He loves the spotlight and seeks opportunities to grab it.  He is forcing the news media to pay attention to him, on an accelerating pace. Soon the late night comedians will pay attention too.

Clarke is well educated and trained, with a resume that suggests he would be highly qualified for the position. He worked for the Milwaukee Police Department for 24 years and was appointed by then Wisconsin Governor McCallum to the position of Sheriff in 2002.  Soon after the appointment, Clarke was elected to the same position, running as a Democrat, and then re-elected in 2006 and 2010, receiving the popular vote of 64%, 73% and 74% respectively.  People love a tough talking lawman…that’s why we watched John Wayne and Clint Eastwood in the movie westerns.

Often lost in the discussion about Clarke was his disastrous run for Milwaukee Mayor in 2004.  This event was not an ego check for him. Often discussed is his fake Democratic Party status.  By all appearances he should be a Republican.  His politics, his hero status and guest appearances on right wing radio shows, his rhetoric all suggest he is not a Democrat.  But face it Milwaukee County is a typical Northern urban county that leans heavily Democratic.  People in this county often vote a straight Democratic ticket, helping assure anyone claiming to be a Democrat would win.  Why Democrats tolerate his affiliation is uncertain to me.

Clarke has an open hate relationship with most anyone in power within Milwaukee County and the City of Milwaukee.  His ongoing feud with the Milwaukee County Executive is childish and should be embarrassing for him.  He has called the Executive a “puke politician”, a “small man” “an idiot” and recently accused him of having “penis envy”.  He openly lambasted the Milwaukee County DA, The Milwaukee Mayor, the Milwaukee Police Chief and many other officials.  The mainstream political structure within the county cannot work with the man.

Clarke recently gained international fame when he suggested the public arm themselves, because they can’t count on law enforcement to protect them anymore.  At a time our nation is beginning to have genuine debate about real gun control, many of us believe his suggestion to be poorly conceived.  He described gun control as the “second coming of an American revolution”.  This week he sent an apology to a Republican U.S. Senator over testimony from the Milwaukee Police Chief about a proposed assault weapons ban.  He wrote that he was speaking for his “constituents” and called the Chief embarrassing and rude.  Clarke’s behavior is embarrassing and not what you would expect from a stable, clear thinking leader.

Is the man a law enforcement leader or a politician?  Is he an egomaniac and bully or does he have more serious problems?   The mainstream press in Milwaukee has reported the frequent comments by the Sheriff, but has not called him out for his behavior.  Other press sources and blogs have suggested he has significant problems and must be replaced.  The Milwaukee Area Labor Council published an article on March 6 titled A Bad Sheriff Faces a Real Lawman, in reference to the September 14 primary, and the likelihood he may face Milwaukee Police Lt. Chris Moews.  Should Moews run, the county has an authentic choice. 

I have seen egomaniac bullies pretending to be leaders in business.  They get power, refuse to share it and make life miserable for the real leaders around them.  Eventually they crash and burn.   Afterwards people find the courage to say the person was a problem.  Sheriff Clarke looks exactly like those business people I have witnessed and I believe he is nearing his end as Sheriff in Milwaukee County.  Milwaukee County residents and the press need to find the courage to admit their Sheriff is/has problems.

Religious Flowchart

I am not a religious guy.  I grew up Catholic and my late Mother worked for the Catholic Church.   However, I had some bad experience with this religion and the history of the church is bad…really bad.  No, my bad experience doesn’t involve a Priest.  I am a big fan of their buildings and I never miss a chance to see a nice cathedral when I tour a country controlled helped by the Catholic Church.

I am a structured guy.  I also like to understand the history of religions.  I began to think about the process someone may go through to choose a religion, if they didn’t already have one forced on them by their parents or culture.  A flowchart with a logical decision tree is the way a structured person could make a choice.  I began the process of developing the various decision points, and planned to create the flowchart to help all of the people in the world choosing a religion for the first time, or possibly changing their religion.  If it was successful in English, I would have it translated to a number of languages.  I am a structured guy and I want to be a helpful guy.

Religions are very diverse and there are many to choose from.  Religions help shape many of the people in the world, though I would argue they are not shaped in a beneficial way.  I began to list the various decisions someone would make as they tried to pick a religion:

1)      Do you want one God or many?

2)      Does the religion’s God send a prophet to Earth to mingle with humans?

3)      Are you allowed to see a picture of the prophet?

4)      Does the religion require that you die for it?

5)      If you have to die for it, does it involve explosives strapped to your body?

6)      Does the religion go door to door and obnoxiously try to make you join?

7)      Can you have multiple wives?

8)      Is gay sex allowed?

9)      Can you eat beef?

10)  Do the leaders of the church rape young boys and tell you that gay sex is not allowed?

11)  Does the church discriminate against women?

12)  Does the religion make you feel guilty?

13)  If you sin, can you buy your way back to the God’s favor?

14)  Are you required to give the church a lot of money that you can’t afford?

15)  If you decide five children are plenty, and begin to use contraceptives, will the church kick you out?

16)  If you pretend you’re crazy and believe in aliens, can you meet a religion’s movie stars?

17)  Do the movie stars of this religion have gay sex?

18)  If you draw a picture of the prophet, will you be killed?

19)  Is it true one religion’s prophet was actually a thief?

20)  Are thieves worse than rapists?

21)  If you draw a picture of a prophet having gay sex with another prophet, will you be killed?

My list goes on and on, and I knew I had to scale it back to fit into an easy to use flowchart, that is translatable to many languages.  I went to the internet to obtain a flowchart template and found out that someone already created the religious flowchart.

 

Sequester Is Obama’s Perfect Solution

Imagine the President contemplating the start of his second term in office, after a first term where the economic devastation of a global depression was averted.  The cost to bail out banks and auto companies, and create stimulus was very high, objectionable to most of us, but necessary and it worked.  The cumulative budget deficit now is nearing crisis mode and everyone understands it must be dealt with.  Any temporary deal is described by the Republicans as another “kick the can down the road” ploy.  It is impossible today to actually sit down and have the two parties negotiate a real long term solution.  The issues facing this President are many and all impact the long term future of the country and deficit that must be addressed during his final term.

This President may be recognized as one of the greatest ever, if he is successful in reshaping the financial future of the U.S., following the game saving moves of his first term.  His public position includes leaving entitlement programs untouched based on rationale that it is a past commitment that must be honored.  He favors tax revenue creation over spending cuts, exactly the opposite of Republicans.  This is the classic scenario of both are right and neither are right.

Unsaid is that military reductions need to be a large part of a deficit reduction solution.  To say that would suggest he is soft on national security.  His public position is that the military must modernize, which is code for don’t spend money on large weapons programs, but rather focus on cyber-war and other less expensive military issues.

Knowing he must force action to reduce the deficit, preferring to leave entitlements alone, understanding that tax increases will be all but impossible to get Congress to pass, and causing the general populace to become engaged in the issues that will affect them directly is what the Sequester provides.

The Sequester was created in a 2011 budget battle, with both sides envisioning the actual implementation as highly unlikely, given the depth and arbitrary nature of the cuts.   The Sequester leaves entitlements untouched, and forces budget reductions equally from military and domestic programs.  The President is not obligated to identify where the cuts take place, which leaves him without blood on his hands.  He has already exempted military pay and veterans’ affairs, which leave the large weapons and logistical support programs as the targets to cut.  Unfortunately, these hardware programs support U.S. manufacturing given they could never be outsourced and offshored.

The President does not want to see air traffic control and safety, grants for scientific and medical research, education, food safety and homeland security, and other domestic standards compromised.  To engage the people, he is willing to let this happen and create a little chaos.  He probably feels we need to disrupt the average person’s life to get them to pay attention.  When the people become engaged, then true and needed tax reform can be created, allowing for the revenue increase the country must have to help reduce the deficit.

The Sequester is a political strategy the President is willing to play.  It is high stakes and risky, but given the likelihood he would be otherwise unable to reduce military spending, increase tax revenue and leave entitlement programs unscathed, it is a risk he feels is worth taking.

A Horsemeat With No Name

During the early 1970s, there was a popular song by the band America called a Horse With No Name.  It was believed to be about heroin use or hallucinations, but maybe not.  The current uproar over horsemeat in the European food supply causes me to think that horsemeat needs a new name.  When you think about the popular meats, beef, pork and lamb, they are not named after the animals they came from.  For some reason horsemeat isn’t called something else like rior or chol.   If it was, then we could easily disassociate this most likely delicious meat with the elegant animals call horse.

The horsemeat scandal is an interesting story.  Horsemeat was intentionally mislabeled as beef, passing through a number of countries and inspection systems, before ending up at big name processors such as Nestle and Birds Eye.  Most recently, the famous IKEA Swedish meatballs were found to contain horsemeat.  I have been to IKEA and have eaten their tasteless meatballs.  Horsemeat, and possibly some black pepper, would help them tremendously.

I have eaten the meat and organs of many animals, and I have always wondered why horse was off limits.  I can see where it may not be an efficient animal to raise solely for meat, but horses are much closer to being livestock than they are to a family pet.  In the early 1970s, beef prices spiked and horsemeat appeared in some stores. I think the popular TV series All in the Family actually addressed it at that time on a show, though my memory may be fuzzy.  Eventually it was banned for consumption, but several years ago, Congress quietly passed legislation allowing U.S. processors to slaughter horses. 

We should eat horse and plenty of it. Diversity of diet makes food more enjoyable. Rather than act shocked they unknowingly sold horsemeat, Nestle should hold a contest to rename the meat to something more marketable.  Nestle could become the horsemeat market kings and sell IKEA all of the horse they can pack into their meatballs, and the meatballs will taste better, causing IKEA to sell more crap furniture, and the economy will improve….    If we eat horsemeat, life will be better.

Why Republican Party Cannot Avoid Extinction

Much has been said and written about the inevitable death of the Republican Party.  Even Republican leaders have warned they will become modern day dinosaurs, unless they change and change quickly.

The problem is that the Republican Party is a fractured group of several political ideologies that can no longer function as one group with common goals.  Libertarians, Tea Partiers, Moderate fundamentalists, etc. all act quite differently from each other, and fail to support the candidates and platform that is ultimately put forth.  Assuming the Republicans will survive is like suggesting the European Union can function with a common currency.  It won’t happen.

We all know the demographic makeup of the party is a detriment.  A party full of old white men does not bode well as whites become a minority in the U.S., males are already a minority and old will never be a majority, but it is probably the best thing the party has right now.  The party’s exclusion of intellectuals, educated women, people of color, non-Christians and many more subgroups, has created a majority for these groups of minorities.  They don’t necessarily have a great deal in common, other than a strong desire to make sure we don’t get another Republican President.  I doubt we ever will again.

After some strategizing, the party has embraced immigration reform to capture Hispanic voters.  Great strategy, but Obama won’t let the Republicans claim it as their own.  Most Latin Americans, with the exception of Cuban Americans, don’t trust the Republicans and will not give them their vote.  As Hispanics become less passive in the election process, the Republicans cannot see much hope for their future.

All organic things eventually die off, and so must the Republicans.  In school we learned how the Republicans replaced the Whigs, which is proof that political parties in the U.S. die.  The Whigs were essentially the founding party of the U.S., but couldn’t come to grips with how to deal with slavery.  While largely opposed to it, they were a fractured, unorganized group of men that didn’t deal with “modern” day problems.  The Republican Party was formed and a few years later Abraham Lincoln was elected the first Republican President, and the rest was history as the saying goes.  Eventually the Democratic Party began representing people like the Republicans, and the Republicans became more exclusive and narrow in their representation; the two parties essentially flipped their ideologies.

The Republicans will continue to have a majority within the House of Representatives, creating difficulty for a Democratic President and Senate to move the country forward.  However, they will never elect a President again, which is amazing since we are only 25 years after Reagan.  A reasonable replacement for this party, that is inclusionary and progressive, would have a real chance to defeat the Democrats.

Immigration Reform Will Boost Economy

We all know the immigration story and how illegal immigrants have been a politically difficult subject.  As a country that achieved unparalleled success because of broadly liberal immigration rules, it has seemed absurd that the U.S. remained stalled on the issue of what to do with the current immigrants that haven’t, or in most cases, are unable to achieve legal status.  Most everyone that has citizenship or legal residency in the U.S. has benefited from previous sensible policies. 

By conservative estimates, there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.  There are likely many more.  Almost 80% are Latin Americans and 75% of those are Mexicans. Several years ago I worked with an immigration attorney to help a Mexican employee gain a visa.  She commented that if the employee were Chinese, Russian or Indian, she would have a 10,000 times greater chance of gaining permanent residency, but because she was Mexican, her chances were low.  Our country’s policies and our views as a people towards Mexican immigration, is blatantly racist.   Many times I have been in debates with people that blurt out ridiculous statements such as Mexicans should just do it legally and then we wouldn’t find it so objectionable.  When I explain that our government hands out very few visas to Mexicans, and we make it almost impossible to be legal, my debate foes dismiss me and change the subject.

Mexicans that come to the U.S. to work, want exactly the same thing all other immigrants want.  They want to improve their standard of living and give their children a better life than they had.  These Mexicans want to accomplish that by holding jobs and working hard.  They don’t want handouts, welfare or benefits they haven’t earned.  They would actually like to pay taxes, but often cannot without disclosing their lack of legal status.  In fact they usually pay into the social security system with FICA withholding applied against social security numbers they will never use again.  Because we make it impossible to be legal, Mexican workers will often keep their families in Mexico, sending their wages back home, and treat their jobs as temporary.  If they had legal status and could bring their families to the U.S., imagine the economic stimulation keeping their wages in the U.S. would provide.  These people respect home ownership, family and education.  Having 5 million or more people attempting to become a first time homeowner in the U.S. would be great for the housing market.

We need the Mexican workers and many employers have treated their illegal status as an inconvenience.  While we have a high unemployment rate in the U.S., many employers cannot find an adequate supply of workers.  Why is that?  That is an entirely different discussion. 

Countries with no population growth, and restrictive immigration policies, are facing difficult times.  Norway is one of the wealthiest countries, but cannot find enough workers to fill basic level jobs.  Rather than allow for greater immigration, they choose to suppress their life quality; there are not many restaurants in Norway because of a lack of workers, and Norwegians begrudgingly eat most of their meals at home. No wonder they cuisine doesn’t get any better. Japan’s population is projected to decline from the current level of 128 million people to 86 million in 2060, due to low fertility rates and restrictive immigration.  Japan already has the highest debt levels in the world and the population decline will decimate the country economically. Yet they do nothing to change the inevitable.

The Republicans have recently embraced citizenship for illegal aliens, attempting to take this reform away from Obama.  I’m sure the inevitable collapse of the party has led to discussions about gaining new support from the fastest growing demographic.  Regardless of the motives, I am happy to see real momentum to a problem we have ignored for too long.  The economy is set to grow and what better way to stimulate growth than to provide legal status for this hidden class of hard working people.