Budget deal nothing to get excited about

As much as I want to herald the dawn of a new spirit of cooperation in the budget/debt limit deal that Congress approved Wednesday night, I can’t help but feel like we’ve all been doubly duped.

The deal that was reached was pretty much what the Democrats had been offering all along. It was not a real compromise by any stretch of the imagination and it should have happened before Oct. 1. The 16 days of government shutdown were essentially for nothing.

That would all be bad enough on its own. But making matters worse, all the budget deal does is ensure that we’ll be back in the same place in three months since it only funds government through Jan. 15. As I heard many TV pundits say, it just “kicks the can down the road.”

The biggest problem with that, of course, is that it’s our can that’s getting kicked. Congress has pretty much just thumbed their collective nose at the American people. They have no real desire to lead. No desire to govern, either. Truth be told, I’m not sure what it is they desire to do.

So as a matter of fact, we’re just on a three month reprieve from the shenanigans that is the United States Congress. And when they bring the topic back up, there’s nothing to prevent them from shutting down the government again.

Rarely will I say that President Barack Obama said something brilliant, but on Wednesday, he really did, saying we can’t keep “governing by crisis.”

That’s exactly what our “leaders” have been doing. I’m not sure if they think that they work better under pressure. Or if they think that the crisis will force the other side to cave. Or if they just have bad time management skills. But something isn’t right down there in Washington.

The only thing worse than a late budget and government shutdown and nearing the brink on the debt ceiling is that some people in Congress wanted it to last longer.

In fact, my own congressman, Chris Collins voted no on the budget deal and released a statement explaining his vote.

“Tonight, the House voted to increase our national debt by over $300 billion without achieving a single spending cut. I could not, in good faith, vote in favor of this legislation which only adds billions to the credit card bill our children will be left to pay,” he said. “America has a significant and dangerous spending problem that most of Washington is content to ignore. On behalf of my constituents, I will not ignore this fact. Kicking the can down the road is what caused this problem and Washington has to muster the political courage to deal with it for the future of our country.”

I don’t disagree with Rep. Collins about the spending problem. I agree wholeheartedly, in fact. We spend way too much money. But I fail to see any leadership voting against paying bills we already have. And I can’t help but wonder if his vote was really “on behalf of his constituents.” Or more to the point, which constituents?

But hey, we elected him — and the rest of them, too. Maybe we should kick all their cans down the road.

Scott Leffler thinks that “congress” and “progress” are antonyms. Tune in next week when he finds a word that rhymes with “orange.” Also, follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

The whole country’s gone crazy

Former New York Yankees player and manager Yogi Berra was a magician with words. Some of his quotes are downright legendary. “Baseball is ninety percent mental and the other half is physical.” Math was apparently not his forte. "Always go to other people's funerals, otherwise they won't come to yours.” Or physics. "You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I'm not hungry enough to eat six.” This actually makes sense to me. As you can see, many of Berra’s quotable quotes are oxymoronic. Despite what it may sound like, an oxymoron isn’t a follower of Billy Mays. It’s a figure of speech that contradicts itself. My absolute favorite, though, has got to be “Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded.” I’d like to think that Berra’s sayings were meant to be ironic. I hope he was smart enough to realize the humor in a saying like “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.” But sometimes people say stupid things without realizing how stupid they sound. Such was the case Tuesday morning, when a Republican congressman discussed the fact that many Americans were having trouble signing up for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) because the exchange websites were flooded with visitors eager to learn more about — and possibly purchase — insurance under the healthcare program. “Seeing how poorly this has been implemented, I am surprised that Harry Reid and Senate Democrats are willing to shut down the government over a law that simply is unworkable, unaffordable, and increasingly unpopular,” Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp said. Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert said it more succinctly. “Too many people signing up is always the surest sign that nobody wants it.” Except that Colbert was kidding. And I don’t think Huelskamp was. Republicans keep hammering the theme that they’re willing to shut down the government on behalf of the American people in order to do away with that dastardly Obamacare thingy that no one wants. Except that a CBS News poll released Thursday found that 72 percent of Americans disapprove of shutting down the federal government in order to smite the Affordable Care Act. Other recent polls offer similar results. So to simplify things: The ACA was enacted by both houses of Congress, signed by the president and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. The last presidential election was largely made into a referendum on Obamacare and the incumbent (Obama) won. And polls show that Americans don’t want it undone. So … what are the Republicans fighting for? Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe they’re just crazy. Seems like the whole world is, lately. What was up with that woman who crashed the White House gates and then led D.C. police on a chase through the Capitol district? I’m sure we’ll get theories over time. I’ll bet one of them will be that she was a patriot just trying to do what she could to prevent the implementation of Obamacare. If that’s the case, Republicans may run her posthumously as a candidate for Congress in Connecticut. She’d probably win the primary. Yep. The world’s getting crazier all the time. Or as Yogi Berra would say, “The future ain’t what it use to be.”

— Scott Leffler is not exactly what you’d call a Yankees fan. But his father instilled in him a healthy appreciation of Yogi Berra. Follow his occasional oxymoronic tweets @scottleffler. And remember, "You can observe a lot just by watching."

Obama’s politics opened up can of worms

President Barack Obama pulled a bit of political genius out of his magic hat when he sought Congressional approval to use military action in Syria, putting the onus on Congress to decide whether we should go all “America” on their … posteriors.

In doing so, he climbed up on his stump and used the bully pulpit to tell Congressional leaders that if they didn’t go along with his plan to use force in the Middle Eastern country, we’d look weak. Congress never likes looking weak and as such will likely approve the measure overwhelmingly.

Right?

Well just hold on a minute there. There’s a large contingent of Congress that is opposed to military action in Syria, mostly for legitimate reason — but some for political purposes of their own.

As of the writing of this column, no less than 14 members of the House of Representatives have said that if Congress disapproves of military action and the president goes through with it anyway — which he has said he may — that they’d consider that to be an impeachable offense.

So would I.

At first I was impressed with the president’s decision to ask Congress for permission to use force. It is, after all, what he’s supposed to do according to the Constitution. I thought, “Wow. How refreshing to see a commander in chief who follows the law.”

Then the politics occurred to me and I realized that he wasn’t so interested strict Constitutionalism as he was in spreading the blame for a military action that we just plain shouldn’t be involved in in the first place. If Congress says yes, then no matter how poorly it goes, he can say, “But you told me to!” If he acted without asking then the blame is completely on the White House.

Congressman Brian Higgins, D-Buffalo, put out a press release Tuesday night stating “It is not the time for Americans to be subjected to the potential of yet another unwinnable overseas war.”

I agree, but would add that it is never the time for such an action. Especially if we’re not being threatened. And we’re not.

Some would say that if we allow Syria to get away with mistreating their own people, we could have another Hitler on our hands. It seems to me that that line of thinking has embroiled us in countless “wars” and “peacekeeping efforts” over the last seven decades, stretching our resources thin and diminishing our resolve.

If Higgins — a liberal Democrat in a very safe district — isn’t going to support intervention on behalf of his Democratic president, then who will? Maybe the GOP. Maybe no one. The vote is yet to come.

One other note on President Obama’s use of the bully pulpit: It kind of makes him look like a bully. If he succeeds in convincing Congress to go along with him, we’ll all look like bullies. And if that happens, our latest military intervention will do nothing more than create more enemies.

Scott Leffler is a peacenik. He lives in Lockport with his hedgehog, who also opposes war. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

We are citizens -- not subjects

The NSA scandal rolls on and government types on both sides of the proverbial aisle continue to support this atrocity that turns the people of the United States from citizens into subjects — or should I say pets?

On Wednesday, the National Security Agency acknowledged that when investigating one suspected terrorist, it can read and store the phone records of millions of Americans. That’s a huge upgrade from the six degrees of Kevin Bacon, that’s for sure.

According to a story by the Associated Press, it’s quite easy for Americans with no connection to terrorism to unwittingly have their calling patterns analyzed by the government because of what’s known as “hop” or “chain” analysis.

The story said, “When the NSA identifies a suspect, it can look not just at his phone records, but also the records of everyone he calls, everyone who calls those people and everyone who calls those people.”

In other words, if a “suspected terrorist” ordered a pizza and you ordered a pizza from the same place, you are automatically in league with said “terrorist.”

Yes, I’m puttiing “terrorist” in quotes because I’m not entirely sure how the government defines terrorism any more. It used to be pretty black and white but these days everything is a shade of gray. I have a feeling anyone who ever protested anything might be in some database of being potentially a terrorist. This would include me.

Of course, the government has to watch out for itself — and moreover the people it was sworn to protect. But it needs to also watch out for the Constitution that it was also sworn to protect. And I have serious reservations about the Constitutionality of many of the ongoing government surveillance programs.

The problem with ignoring the Constitution and just doing whatever-they-damn-well-please is that in doing so, they’re turning the people of this country into mere subjects. Instead of power flowing up from us (via the ballot booth), it trickles down from Washington to us … in scant doses.

And just like the trickle-down economy is a complete fallacy, a trickle-down power structure is equally flawed. By the time it gets down to folks like you and I, the power is so diluted that it couldn’t run a flashlight, let alone a country.

I realize that there were also members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who are livid about the abuse of power in the NSA. I find that somewhat heartening. Unfortunately, they were outnumbered by those who believe that government is all-important and we aren’t.

Unless you’re content with becoming a subject — rather than a citizen — I recommend you make some noise and complain. But be forewarned, as I already said that I imagine all complainers are added to the top of the “terrorist” watch list.

Scott Leffler sometimes orders pizza with mushrooms. The NSA already knew that. And now you do, too. Follow his public tweets @scottleffler. For a more in-depth look at his life, get a job at the NSA.

Are we all enemies of the state?

The United States Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

FBI Director Robert Mueller said on Thursday that the federal government has launched a criminal investigation and is taking "all necessary steps" to prosecute Edward Snowden for exposing secret U.S. surveillance programs.

Snowden’s crime — as you should be well aware — is exposing a secret surveillance program being conducted by the National Security Agency in which the government was (and likely still is) collecting millions of U.S. phone records along with digital communications stored by nine major Internet companies.

So basically Snowden is being investigated for calling out the American government for spying on law-abiding American citizens. He may be prosecuted for telling the American people that their government is sketchy.

I think it’s safe to say that that isn’t “levying War.” Nor is it “adhering to” our enemies. Nor is it giving them “Aid and Comfort.”

Unless of course, the American people are the enemies.

There’s been much discussion about whether Snowden was right or wrong in revealing what he learned while working as a sub-contractor handling computer networks for the NSA.

Is he a patriot? Or a traitor?

Those defending the PRISM program would say that in exposing the NSA’s methods, he has caused irreparable harm to their ability to conduct counter-terrorism surveillance. I’m sure they’d add something like, “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you haven’t got anything to worry about.”

Those defending Snowden would say that the PRISM program far oversteps the bounds allowed by the Patriot Act and other provisions that have followed. I’m sure they would also argue that those provisions — including the Patriot Act — go too far to begin with.

Democratic Congressman John Conyers said, "It's my fear that we are on the verge of becoming a surveillance state.”

On the verge of? We’re there. And Congress approved it.

That’s another argument being made against Snowden — that what the NSA has been doing has been approved by Congress and is thus OK.

I don’t buy that argument either. For one, many people in Congress are stating that PRISM goes above and beyond the scope of what they have authorized. And secondly, just because the government decides that it’s OK for the government to spy on its people doesn’t make it so.

The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure, which is to say that unless specific reasoning is given and a warrant for said search is granted, the government needs to stay out of our stuff.

PRISM granted a blanket warrant to the government to search basically any digital means of communication we have. Not for specific people. Not for those thought to be terrorists. Everyone.

One of the founding principles of American government is that the government gets its power from the people and acts on those people’s behalf. The U.S. government exists because we say they should.

Where then does the U.S. government get the authority to spy on us — treating us all as though we’re the enemy?

And if the federal government has usurped its authority, so those in power still have a legitimate claim to that power?

Scott Leffler is probably being watched right now. If you can’t find the secret webcam and still want to know what he’s up to, follow him on Twitter @scottleffler. 

Dear Congress — Get your filthy hands off my science

Here’s a scary tidbit: Republicans on the House science committee seem to want to have an unprecedented amount of oversight into what the National Science Foundation considers “worthwhile” when funding scientific grants.

A bill put forth by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology demands that the non-partisan foundation provide details to Congress in order to justify how it divvies up its research funding, potentially politicizing decisions how that funding is awarded in the future.

The Nation Science Foundation is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense," according to nsf.gov. The foundation has an annual budget of about $7 billion.

Smith says that in these tough economic times, the federal government should have stronger oversight on how taxpayer dollars are being spent. That’s an incredibly valid point. Which is exactly why I want scientists deciding how scientific grants are awarded and not a financial writer-turned lawyer-turned congressman, which is exactly what Smith is.

The bill, titled the High Quality Research Act also asks the NSF to recommend how to place similar restrictions on other federal science agencies. In other words, it isn’t only good enough that Congress micromanage science, they’re looking to micromanage anything else possible, too.

For years, Republicans in Congress have been salivating at the opportunity to defund public broadcasting, in hopes of killing off that annoying Big Bird and his “liberal agenda” — you know, like teaching children not to hit, hate, pollute or waste.

I can only imagine what might happen if they get their hands on science. Coming soon to a textbook near you: How we lived alongside the dinosaurs and why God wants you to smite your neighbor.

Seriously, though, I could easily see a partisan Congress refusing to fund research on global warming, claiming the whole “phenomenon” to be a hoax. Scarily there are even members of Congress who don’t believe in evolution. Could that get the ax? What if we get a band of loonies who want to declare the earth flat?

I rely on Congress to fund government, provide some national infrastructure and keep me safe the rest of the world. If they can figure out how to do those things, I’ll consider turning to them when I have questions about science. Until then, I’ll rely on encyclopedias … and scientists.

Scott Leffler was really bad at science in school … except political science. He did okay at that. Starting next week, find his column in Friday’s paper. And please follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

Who gave these people the keys to the country?

I have a good friend who advised me some time ago that if you don’t know what to do, don’t do anything. Eventually what you’re supposed to do will show itself to you. I’ve tried to follow this strategy and it’s actually worked pretty well for me.

But my life is pretty simple. And my problems are equally simple. So me doing nothing usually has little downside. It’s not like the fate of the country is in my hands.

Unfortunately, it would seem that the people that are running the country have gotten the same advice. If they don’t know what to do, they do nothing.

It’s considerably more problematic than my doing nothing.

Case in point: Any number of government shutdowns and budget battles. The government has taken doing nothing to a whole new level. Their practice of procrastination could win Olympic medals.

We jumped over the fiscal cliff and now we’re being sequestered, apparently.

I’ve only been familiar with the term “sequester” as part of court cases until just recently. It usually means to keep a jury holed up in a hotel until they reach a verdict. Maybe that’s what we should do with Congress — lock them up in a room until they come up with a solution to current budget crisis.

The current budget crisis, for those who haven’t been paying attention, is a series of wide-ranging across-the-board budget cuts designed to be unpalatable to both parties. They focus on defense spending and domestic spending.

As is usual, the GOP is fine with the domestic spending cuts but wants the military cuts restored. And the Democrats want the domestic spending restored but isn’t as concerned about the military cuts. Democrats have suggested tax increases to offset the impending cuts. Republicans say no new taxes.

All this happens Friday unless someone does something to fix it. But all signs point to Congress following my friend’s advice of just doing nothing. Which, again, is fine for me. But not so fine for those with the keys to the country.

Of course, we’re the one’s who put them there.

See, you’d think that when choosing people to represent us in Washington, we’d pick the smartest people with the best ideas. But you’d be wrong. First of all, those who vote like to go with people who think like them as opposed to people who just think. Second, those who vote are frequently outnumbered by those who didn’t know what to do so they didn’t do anything.

Long story short: Pogo was right. We are our own worst enemies.

So as Friday draws near and nothing of any consequence is done in Washington, remember that we could have elected smarter people. But we chose not to.

Maybe we should all be sequestered before the next election.

Scott Leffler frequently does nothing. It’s for the best. But when he does anything mildly important, he tweets about it @scottleffler.

The questions that don't get asked ...

Sometimes questions that don't get asked are the ones that should.

I'm not sure how or why, but I was talking about politics with my oldest daughter on Sunday and she asked me, “what's the point of political parties?”

I attempted to explain it the best way I could, telling her it was sort of an indication to others of who your friends were. “It's kind of like football jerseys,” I said. “It's so you know who to throw the ball to.”

Except, that's a horrible explanation.

And the more I attempted to think of a metaphor for the reasoning for political parties, the more frustrated I got. Because, honestly, I just can't.

As the lame ducks in Congress convened in Washington yesterday, the Democrats pushed to get certain things done before the end of their session, knowing that come January when the Republicans take over, their ideals will be put on hold for at least two years.

Many political pundits are split over whether the Democrats will get anything meaningful accomplished in the next month and a half. Some think they'll ram some legislation through and others think they'll simply bicker, much like they have been doing for the last 22 months.

So here's a question that seldom gets asked aloud: Why do we have an election and then wait nearly two months to put the people we elected into office?

Sure there are some races that remain undecided. Votes need counted. And recounted. But for the most part, we know the winners and losers of the mid-term election. Ironically, the losers get a month and a half back at the controls.

In a manner of speaking, each election, we have a pre-planned revolution – a mutiny of sorts. And then we tell the captains we had just revolted against that they have six more weeks at the helm. Why don't we throw them out on their behinds immediately?

For some masochistic reason, I looked forward to watching the Bills game on Sunday. Every week the Bills frustrate me, and yet, I as hoping to watch the game. Unfortunately I couldn't because it was blacked out locally.

Football fans understand the blackout. If the game doesn't sell out, we don't get to watch it. Have you ever thought about the logic in that? If not enough people think the game is worth paying to watch, you don't get to watch it for free.

NFL: “Sorry, but your team is horrible. The only way you can watch them is to pay.”

Does that make sense to anyone?

Some questions, I guess, don't have good answers. And sometimes it takes a 13-year-old girl, a dysfunctional group of middle-aged white men, or a shoddy football team to make you realize that.

Be sure to read next week as we learn why we drive on a parkway, but park on a driveway. Plus, why are there interstate highways in Hawaii?

In government we distrust ...

I'm in the majority.

That doesn't happen often, by the way. Although in this instance I'm not surprised.

To be honest, I'm surprised we're not all in the majority on this particular issue. It shocks me that anyone would disagree with me on this one.

The issue is simply this: Do you trust the federal government?

A whopping 78 percent of those polled in a Pew Research Poll released Sunday said they don't believe that Washington can fix what ails us. That means, though, that 22 percent said they think Washington is on the right path.

Imagine if you will that you're at dinner with nine of your closest friends. Statistically speaking, two of them think the feds are going to fix everything. Not to be judgmental, but you should choose your friends better because two in nine of them are idiots. Of course, I'm assuming that you're in the majority, too.

A lot of people read this column, though, so I know you can't all be in the majority. There are some of your reading this right now who are really upset because I just called you an idiot. There are others, of course, who aren't upset because you didn't know I was talking about you. This proves my point all the more.

I'd apologize if I were sorry, but … come on! If you are one of those in the minority, I have to ask you; “What are you thinking?”

I can't for the life of me fathom what would lead any thinking American to believe that the federal government is capable of fixing anything, much less everything.

This isn't a Democrat and Republican issue, by the way. It's across the board. And although the distrust level is at its highest rate in decades, it isn't something that just happened. It has been slowly creeping up little by little with each passing administration and congressional class.

What does this mean, really? It means that those of us in the majority really need to step up and do something. Elect some different people. Run for office ourselves. Something. Anything.

I mean … twenty-two percent? I think England had a higher favorable rating during the revolution. Which explains how fringe groups like the Tea Party come into existence and gain such popularity.

This should be great for the GOP come November. The mid-term elections tend to swing a little bit in favor of the minority party no matter what. Given the perfect storm we've got this year between the high level of anti-government sentiment and the mid-terms, and the Republicans should pick up dozens of seats in the house and a handful in the senate.

Ironically, this will add even greater chaos and will allow the feds to accomplish even less.

The preceding sentence may sound like I'm condemning the thought of a GOP sweep in 2010, but you wouldn't be further from the truth.

Fact of the matter is, I'm a bit of a fan of chaos. And I don't want the government to accomplish much. I prefer gridlock. When the government “accomplishes” things it tends to cost us money and further limit our ever-dwindling freedoms.

In other words, while I am in the majority on the issue of whether or not I believe the government can fix our ills, I'm probably in the minority if the question is “do you want them to?”

I prefer being in the minority, frankly. I'm used to it.

Why the census is crap

“We can't move forward until you mail it back.”

That little slogan has been frustrating me now since I first heard it a couple months ago.

Surely you've heard or seen the Census commercials telling you that if you don't fill out your “10 questions in 10 minutes,” your child won't have a school next year and none of the potholes in your town will get fixed.

The Constitution mandates that the US government count all of the nation's residents every 10 years for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives and Electoral College. Basically, the more people in your city or state, the more influence you should have in Washington.

It's sound logic in this representative government we have. What's not sound is the thought that if you don't fill out your census form, little Billy won't have a school to go to next year. Not only is it not sound logic, it's actually disingenuous.

Their slogan should be something like, “Hey, paperwork sucks, but we gotta do it.”

The form asks your name, age, sex, race, and if you own or rent your home, among other things. While the questions don't necessarily infringe on your rights of privacy, they also aren't necessary for the purposes of “enumeration.” .

Whether you own or rent your home, you still get to vote. No matter your race, you still get to vote. So these questions are moot. Interestingly, the census does not ask whether you are a citizen of the United States, which is related to whether or not you can vote, so it is actually is pertinent to the number of representatives each state has.

While the Constitution mandates that the government must count us, it doesn't mandate that we have to give the survey takers our phone number, another question on the census.

Many people have come up with an idea to only fill out the first question, pertaining to the number of people that live in the home. A congresswoman from Minnesota says that's all she'll do, in fact. She could face a $5,000 fine for doing so, according to the Census Bureau.

I'm betting they're hoping on a lot of $5,000 fines so they can pay for their horribly atrocious commercials they've been airing – including one during the Super Bowl.

Now, look, I'm not saying don't fill out your census form. I've never been one to tell people what to do and I'm not going to start now. But I am saying don't be afraid to question it. Don't assume that the government knows what they're doing. And don't assume that they're benevolent.

That said, if you have a census worker show up at your door, don't hurl obscenities (or anything else) at them. Odds are they're rather be doing just about anything else, but there's not much else for them to do, so … census worker it is.

Look up Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution. Maybe print a copy out. Maybe mail it in with your form. Call your congressman and ask why the census form has nine more questions than it needs. Ask him or her if little Billy really won't have a school next year if you fill out the census wrong.

And if your congressman comes back with “We can't move forward until you mail it back,” remember that there's another form for you to fill out in November. And that one's really important.

Why I don't believe the hype

A certain mistrust of government is natural, healthy even. In my line of work, it's actually a necessity to be skeptical.

But I - like many other Americans - have moved beyond the level of skeptic. I - like many other Americans - have gotten to the point where I don't believe anything politicians say. Anything.

If congress says something is black, I have a good reason to believe that it's white. If the president says something is up, I can reasonably assume that it's down.

And the reason for this general mistrust ... the move from being a skeptic to a cynic ... is that the level of blatant lies to come out of Washington these past several years exceeds anything that could be considered reasonable.

Fact of the matter is that government works for us. It is a tool of the people by which to perform certain functions that people can't be expected to perform on their own. Because government is supposedly "of the people, for the people, and by the people," many American citizens expect to be told the truth by their government.

And while it's not popular with many folks, I understand why government lies to us sometimes. Occasionally, it's just easier to lie when setting out to achieve a common goal. Sometimes the truth creates bedlam, a state in which working towards any accomplishment becomes almost impossible.

An example: At the scene of a crime, a police officer will tell you "there's nothing to see here," in an effort to clear the scene, making their job of solving the crime easier. Yeah, it's a lie, but it expedites matters.

Unfortunately, many of the lies we've been told over the past few years haven't been this garden variety white lie. They've been dirty black lies, not told for the sake of making our lives better or easier, but told for nefarious reasons, some of which we won't know for decades ... if we ever know at all.

Complicating matters even further is the fact that a certain percentage of the population wants to believe the lie ... and even helps to propagate it. This could be that they just want to believe their government ... or maybe it's partisan ... or maybe they have something to gain from the lie.

Many have even gone so far as to explain away the lies by method of defining lies to the n'th degree. I hear often, "it's not a lie unless you know it to be untrue."

This strategy is often used to defend the "weapons of mass destruction" claim in Iraq, the principle reason we invaded a sovereign nation. It turned out to be untrue, but as long as we didn't KNOW it was untrue to begin with, then it's not a lie, they say.

The problem with this definition, is that a statement such as, "There's a million dollars worth of gold buried at the foot of the Statue of Liberty," wouldn't be construed a lie ... even though I just made it up. It COULD be true. I don't know that it's NOT true. Therefore, it's not a lie by their definition.

But to me, it's a lie. I want to believe that there's a million dollars worth of gold buried at the Statue of Liberty, but as much as I want to believe it, that doesn't make it true. It's still a lie.

I've gotten so used to hearing lies from the government, whether it's about Social Security going bankrupt ... or being greeted as liberators ... or any other number of things, that I just don't believe anything they say.

So when I started hearing last week that the federal government felt that if we didn't pony up $700 billion for some invesment bankers, the whole country could collapse economically, my first thought surely wasn't, "well if the government says it's true, it must be." Instead my first thought was, "if those bastards think they're going to rob from the poor to give to the rich, they've got another thing coming."

Look, I'm no economist. But as far as know, neither is President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or any member of Congress, for that matter. Henry Paulson is, of course. He's also a former Wall Street CEO. This bailout would make a lot of his friends very happy (and lots of money). Just like the war on Iraq made Vice President Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton very happy (and lots of money) and the same worldwide boondoggle has made George W Bush's friends in the oil industry very happy (and lots of money).

A friend of mine often tells me, when things don't make sense, look at who's making cents.

In the case of this "bailout," the people making cents would be investment bankers ... many of whom are friends of the political system.

It's reverse Robin Hood and they're hoping that if they lie to you and tell you that it's in your own good, you'll not only believe it ... but demand it.

Don't believe the hype.