What to do with Guantanamo Bay?

  Guantanamo Bay. No, I'm not well acquainted with this issue, but I have some preliminary thoughts -- and questions.
   First, I understand those in the camp are awaiting trial. I could be wrong, but that is my understanding. For how many years? No human being should be imprisoned for 10 years -- what a large chunk of life -- without his or her case coming to trial. No one. Our Constitution promises people a speedy trial, and, while it can be argued these are not Americans, and therefore do not have the right to a speedy trial, it should be noted the rights of the Constitution, for the most part, express what every human should have, how every human should be treated. That is why they are in the Constitution.
   You don't treat yourself one way and other people another.
   Are others in the camp, besides those awaiting trials? If so, why, and for how long? Do we justify holding political prisoners indefinitely? Are they merely political prisoners? Or does the fact they are potential terrorists make them more?
   What of the Geneva Convention? I do not know the specifics, but I understand President Bush argued the Geneva Convention does not apply? Why?

My Take on Apple

  Apple, then. Did I hear correctly that they dodged paying $7.7 billion, that, in spite of that, they are the largest corporate tax payer in America, and that they moved money overseas to steer clear of the taxes.
   Oh, and that they owe it to their shareholders to avoid the taxes, thus returning to the investors all the money possible. And, maybe one more thing: their tax rate was 30.5 percent, or something like that.
   I'm grateful to them for the taxes they did pay. Being the largest corporate taxpayer in America should bring them honor. Bless them, too, as Rand Paul would have us do, for giving so many people jobs. Rand Paul is also correct in saying the government set up the tax code, and, it should be responsible for what has happened.
   But, I stop a little shy of letting Apple go its merry way. Yes, they have the right to take every advantage the tax code offers, but should they -- even in the name of doing what is best for the shareholders?
   I would just hope they would look at their bottom line, weigh whether they could keep more of the money inside the U.S. where it could be taxed, and decide that they wanted to do that. If being organized with shareholders means you cannot make decisions like that, well, that isn't right. These companies have power to give to charities, to donate to communities. Why should this be any different.
   And, there is the question of whether taking the money overseas to dodge Uncle Sam is ethical. I'm not sure it should be considered unethical, but it is. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
   And certainly that you have shareholders should not mean you cannot be ethical.

This is Like a Birthday Party Without Cake

   Being it that an election should offer a choice of candidates, why is it the Republicans refuse to pass along more choices to the voters?
   At the state convention Saturday, the delegates decided if 60 percent of them agree on a candidate, they will not pass the decision along to the voters. It had been proposed that the threshold be raised to 66.7 percent, which would have resulted in more races advancing to the primary.
   My thought is, why have an election if you are going to winnow the race down to a single candidate before the primary. An election is not really an election if you are limited to a choice of one. 
   Would you throw a party and not serve the cake? An election without a choice of candidates is like a birthday party with no birthday cake

Are They Guilty of the Same Thing?

I wonder -- just wonder -- if some of those upset about the IRS scandal are not guilty of the same thing. Do they target Obama because of his political beliefs? Do they go after him harder than they do those of their own party in searching out scandals? I do think it worthy of my thought, for it just might be true. 

Are They Guilty of the Same Thing?

I do wonder -- just wonder -- if some of those who are upset with the IRS targeting people for their political leanings are actually guilty of the same conduct. Do they target President Obama, looking under every hill to find faults in him? If so, they are targeting him. They seem intent on investigating him for anything, but much less inclined to investigate those of their own political persuasion. I'll give it some thought. But, I do wonder.

Seek Only to be Good, and not to be Great

   Seek to be good, but not to be great. The person seeking to be good has an eye to honor his or her fellow humans, while the person seeking to be great seeks to be honored in their eyes.

 Get Them to the Polls Informed

   I wonder if there is more to this problem than just getting everyone to vote.
   We are doing all we can to get every person to vote. But, what if you get everyone out to vote, but none of them know anything about the candidates? Have you achieved anything? You have voters fulfilling a patriotic charge, but what good is done if they haven't studied the candidates?  I mean, more than to determine if there is an "R" or a "D" after their names.
   No, the pursuit shouldn't be just to get them to the polls, it should be to get them to the polls informed.