A Cushy Long Life in the Shackteau

Lately Lamont was talking to his sisters and said, “While the furless ones were away last night I got on the computer of the one who only has hair on his face and a wee bit on top of his head, at least he uses it, the most, the computer that is not his fur. We rarely see the one who only has fur on her head using it at all. Anyway, now that we are indoor cats rather than outdoor cats, I wondered how we compared to our cousins who live outdoors all their lives.”

Barely pausing from licking her paws, Patchtricia said, “Really, how industrious of you.”

Pawline then asked, “Okay, Oh mystifier of minds, what did you find out?” as she arched her back and curled up atop of scratch tower.

“Well, my preening sisters,” replied Lamont, “I think you will find this most interesting. I think we have it made in the shade. If the furless ones don’t toss us out we can expect to live 12 even up to 20 years. After further research I found out that if we make it to 12 years that equates to about 64 years for the furless ones. And, if we live to 19 years that equates to about 92 years in their terms. I’m afraid out our poor outside cousins only live from 1 to 5 years, poor buggers.”

“Most interesting,” brother, said Pawline, stifling a yawn. “I’m glad you had something to do. As for me, I think a nap is in order.”

“Not yet,” meowed Patchtricia, “Here they come with tonight’s dinner. I wonder whether it will be turkey and cheese with succulent gravy or chicken and Salmon with gravy, or just Chicken with gravy, or beef with gravy.”

“Isn’t saying gravy each time a bit redundant?” said Pawline.

“Of course not,” said Patchtricia, “if you piggy cats didn’t lap it up before I get my fair share.”

“Ah, petting and brushing time as well!” They all said in chorus. “Life is not too bad here in the Shackteau.”

“Oh my,” said Lamont, “I just thought, do you know how old the furless ones are?”

What Is a Small Business? And how will the Affordable Care Act affect them?

“The sky is falling, the sky is falling.” Said Henny Penny the chicken of the fable. Henny Penny was wrong. Sen. Marco Rubio says under Obamacare “75% of small businesses now say they are going to be forced to either fire workers or cut their hours.” Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner’s “Washington’s Secrets, says, “74% of small businesses will fire workers, cut hours under Obamacare.” And other modern Henny Penny’s are yakking it up about the sky falling under Obamacare and they are as wrong as the original Henny Penny. FOX news feeds all this nonsense.

     Marco Rubio  Give the man feathers.

First, what is a small business? When I think of a small business, the first image that comes to mind is a Mom and Pop store that may not have any hired employees for a few high schoolers helping out part-time. Rubio is talking about the businesses that have 50 or more full-time employees that will be required to provide affordable, comprehensive health coverage’s or face $2,000 penalties for each full-time worker after the first 30. Those certainly are not mammoth businesses, but small? Also it just doesn’t ring true.

So, how did Rubio and the other Henny Pennys come up with their data. Well, a survey was made by the Chamber of Commerce with the following options for “small businesses” to check: a. reduce hire to avoid this mandate (24%); b. cut back hour to less that fulltime employees (27%); c. stop providing health insurance; d. Replace full-time workers with part-time (23%); e. none of the above. Yep, 74% if you add those up. However, that ignores those who didn’t answer the survey and give no responses to c and e. Smoke and mirrors time.

How many would cut back hours or replace fulltime workers because of this law – 5- 9%

We also need to bear in mind that most companies have 10 or less employees, which better fits my idea of a small business. The group that has between 25 to 49 employees the Rubio laments about; 87% of them already proved health benefits (Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual employer survey.) As companies that have between 50 to 199 employees, 94% of them already offer benefits.

Are these businesses worried? Of course, that is the nature of the game. But the 75% numbers that Rubio and others cite are hogwash. Or, as PolitiFact says, it is a “pants-on-fire” lie. Again as they say, Categories don’t add up

The study was conducted among a national sample of 1,300 executives for small businesses, defined as fewer than 500 employees and with annual revenue less than $25 million. It included chamber members and non-members "weighted to be representative of the small business population."

The chamber told us executives were first asked whether the employer mandate would affect them:

As a result of the health care law, the employer mandate will require employers with more than 50 full-time workers to offer health coverage to all full-time employees and their dependents or face a penalty. The law defines a full-time employee as someone who works 30 hours per week and the penalty is based on the number of full-time employees. Will you be impacted by the employer mandate?

The result of that survey was 17% that 17% was then asked to respond to the 5 questions mentioned earlier.

Since most small businesses don’t know how the law will affect them, perhaps it is more prudent to wait and see when the law comes into effect.

Moving the Democratic Party More Left

I have frequently spoken and lamented that the Republican Party has moved so far to the right that it bears no resemblance to the Republican Party of my youth in the 40’s and 50’s; becoming radically right and becoming the toadies of the wealthy. Others have said there is not even a single Republican Party but five of them all with significantly different positions. I would like to see a more centrist Republican Party capable for negotiating with Democrats for the common good as once was true.

But the same critical eye needs to be applied to the Democratic Party, which also has moved significantly to the left and has also become toadies of the wealthy. All of Washington seems to have become a elaborate club of politicians who are mainly interest in getting elected and re-elected rather than serving their constituents. To that end they all are lead by the nose by the extreme wealthy and have done incredible harm to the country, that is the middle and poorer economic classes. Both parties have succumbed to the ethics of efficacy rather principles of civilization that are for the common good – treating ones neighbor as you would treat yourself.

I also see hope on the horizon. I do see truly progressive politicians that seem to honor time accepted virtues of political responsibility. Two of the best examples would be Senator Elizabeth Warren and here in Wisconsin, Senator Tammy Baldwin, and Hillary Clinton.

Recently the Republican leadership condemned President Obama for making yet another speech on the economy instead of doing things to make jobs and provide means to improve their lives. They did this while continuing to block legislation that would make that a possibility.

Elizabeth Warren has made great efforts to address the loan debts of students in this country so they will not be tied to huge debt while pursing the American dream of upward mobility through education. She also works hard to revive the Glass-Steagall act dealing with the banking abuses in our country as they gamble with investors money and when they lose, get bailed out by tax payers while their CEO’s get pay raises.

In my opinion modern Democrats are not moderate but have moved to the left by a significant measure. President Obama I believe has the right instincts but is too inclined to compromise with Republicans and perhaps is too practical of leader; then perhaps he just doesn’t have a choice.

We need real progressives such as Warren and Baldwin and grass roots organizations strongly supporting them to get this country back on tract.

What is lacking even among these progressives is the most important problem in this country – election reform. Until we can get the big money out of the election process we are doomed to continue to have a plutocracy rather than a democracy.

I wonder how the founding fathers would view and deal with the country we have today which is so different that the American they lived in and created our democracy. We need a significant update if not an entire reboot to recapture their dreams in this era.

I believe the country is open to progressive ideas whether they come from the right or the left but we need powerful spokespersons to help get us united in these efforts.

To Groom or Not Groom, That Is the Question

Cats, as I believed I extolled in my ad nauseam article about cats on July 13, groom themselves about 30% of their lives. Now Doreen and I groom Lamont, Patchtricia, and Pawline with a brush a good deal every evening, but we cannot bring ourselves to groom them with our tongues as they do with each other. We love our cats but there are limits.

Now the philosophical question (it is amazing how many philosophical ideas come from these cats) is as the title suggests, “To groom or not to groom that is the question.” Have you ever seen a truly motley cat, ungroomed, unkempt, or disheveled? No doubt this condition occurs but certainly not on a common level. Cats by nature seem to be the most comely and persnickety of creatures in terms of their appearance.

Then follows the next metaphysical question, “’Tis it nobler to groom oneself than another?” We observers of cat behavior note that cats seem perfectly if not more disposed to grooming their fellow cats as themselves. With our three cats we frequently observe and veritable bacchanalia of grooming of each other. Licking commences with enthusiasm and alacrity. There in nothing in human experience I can find such selfless behavior. Therefore, are cats morally superior to their human counterparts?

Perhaps cats are natural Zen Buddhists. Though I believe we can find corollaries with all major religious and spiritual philosophies. Though when an Australian interviewed the Dali Lama and told him a job about asking a pizza maker to make him one with everything, the Dali Lama didn’t get it. However, I believe the Dali Lama’s cat was in the next room laughing hysterically.

A Philosophical Discourse on a Ceiling Bug

Lamont: “See that bug on the ceiling?”

Patchtricia: “Yes; well, more precisely I see a spot, a very small dark spot, that appears to be very similar to other small dark spots that we have heitherfore described as a bug, yes.”

Pawline: “How very Aristotelian of our Patchtricia, and a bit verbose.”

Lamont: “Now ladies, let us keep focused here. My mind has gone more along the nature of that bug, its reason for being, it’s existential why of being, and it’s purpose in the scheme of the universe. I’m looking beyond the observational analysis of its existence. Why, I ask, is that bug?”

Pawline: “Ah, bugness. Is a bug sentient? Is it aware of its bugness? More importantly, even if it is unaware of its ‘bugness’ does that affect its reason for being a bug? Good thought there Lamont.”

Patchtricia: “To bring this back to the observational realities of what we assume and are calling a ‘bug’, How and why did it arrive at its position upon our ceiling. Is it there merely to stimulate our little grey cells to speculate upon its bugness or is it just there because it is there?”

Lamont: “Agreed, is a part of the cosmic consciousness or cosmic design? Is it merely an object for our speculation or does it have innate reason or reasons for being there above our mutual heads on said ceiling?”

A long pause ensues as the cats ponder in silence.

Lamont: “Aside from its bugness, its dependence or independence upon us or all of us in the cosmic design, beyond the various reasons for its existence and reason for being…I’d like to bite it!”

Pawline: “Excellent point. I had as well arrived at the same conclusion, I would like the bite it.”

Patchtricia: “I concur fellow felines, it looks good for biting. However, it seems a bit out of reach.

Lamont: “Patience Pawline and Patchtricia, patience.”