Not Every Legislator Ignores Us. Too Bad.

       Have you ever received a phone call from your congressman's aid? I did yesterday. It's not the first time either. Congressmen never make the call themselves unless you're calling to give them some money, lots of money. The call was in response to a less than flattering letter I had sent him a while back. The aid asked my opinion on a number of issues and I answered about those and other issues. I found fault with a number of them, I think we feel differently on most issues.
       I asked him why it was that nobody in Washington was talking about jobs, but everybody wants to starve the economy, a move that can only harm job growth. There was a pair of economists who did a report on how austerity would help the economy. Until it was pointed out that their information was flawed. It seems they left out some important information that, when added in, disproved their theory.
      We talked about education and why some legislators want to end the Education Department. He asked if I felt decisions are better made on the local level. I said not necessarily. He asked why. I pointed out that not all board members in school districts have the best interest of the students in mind. That all too often some members of school boards are there for personal reasons. To get a child hired at a neighboring school or to cut taxes, and have little or no interest in the actual educating of the students. It's not so hard to get elected. Who wants that job anyway? It's a thankless one.
       I mentioned term limits hoping that would shut him up. He pointed out his boss had said he agreed with term limits. I asked if his boss planned to run again? He replied that it was too soon to know? I think he thought I'd believe that one. Have you ever heard a politician state he was sure he would or would not run? Not until about a year before the actual election.
       I don't think he was overly happy with my responses, but he did say he would type them up and give them to his boss. I'll have to check his circular file. Then he invited me to keep writing to the Congressman. He appreciates all letters from his constituents. It's easy to say that if you plan on recycling them. Or maybe they could go into one of those $5 million incinerators the army can't use in Afghanistan.

Here's Why We Need Austerity.

       Deficit hawks and stimulus advocates alike are rushing to the aid of the Abrams tank. After all, this behemoth needs to be protected like any other wild creature. And after all, it is under assault from the very home it was intended to save. That's right folks, the Abrams tank is no longer loved by the Army. Actually it's not so much that it's unloved as it has outlived it's usefulness, at least for the most part. I mean the Army still likes it's tanks and does not plan to give them up.
       It's just that it doesn't need any more than it already has. Which is quite a few. Fortunately Congress knows better than those unimaginative Army generals. Congress seems to have figured out that America still has a major tank battle in it's near future. Perhaps in Arizona, along the border. Or perhaps in New York City for crowd control. For this reason we need more tanks.
       Either that or it may be that Congress realizes that tanks are made in the good old USA. And more specifically in legislative districts. And no more tanks means no more jobs, making tanks. Ya know, I think I may have hit on something here. The government does create jobs after all. Like anything for the military and our infrastructure.
       Now some folks will insist government does not create jobs, only the private sector can do that. Well, except for military needs and infrastructure. Government dreamed up most of the infrastructure, designed it and built it, or rather I should say, paid for it. You never saw any private sector offer to pay for any of it. Although the private sector was quick to take advantage of it, and now that much of it is deteriorating, you do see the private sector doing it's part. They're complaining about the poor condition of the infrastructure they depend on.
       But what you don't see is the private sector doing anything about the poor condition of our infrastructure. Well, except for the complaining. Why is that? It's because it's not the private sectors job to build, care for and replace infrastructure when needed. Except that Congress knows we need to cut costs so we can reduce taxes, presumable so that the private sector can make repairs caused by failing infrastructure.

The Great arms, oops I mean, Helium Race.

       I want to talk to you today about a grave concern we all have over a topic that has Congress in a dither. Do we or do we not save the National Helium Reserve? Just how important is helium anyway? I'll tell you how important it is, our Department Of Defense has concerns over our falling behind 1925 Germany. You heard it right, back in 1925, Germany was taking the lead in producing military dirigibles and zeppelins. We couldn't allow that to happen, so we developed the National Helium Reserve.  The Great Blimp Race was on.
       That was 88 years ago. Well, we all know how that turned out. America won the day. And we still have a National Helium Reserve. It's made of glue. It's stuck to Congress and Congress can't get rid if it. Reagan tried, Clinton tried and Obama is trying, but so far nobody has been able to end a program for which there is no military need. The only use for blimps today is for Goodyear to fly cameramen over football games. And  additional uses for helium includes loosing balloons over birthday parties. To be fair, it's used in MRIs and for some research by scientists. None of which involves the military.
        So, the program is or was set to expire this year, but our trusty Congress has ridden to the rescue on it's flaming white blimp. After all, where will smiling clowns get the helium for the balloons for birthday parties if not from the federal military helium reserve? Ya see, the fear is that no private company is standing by to take up the mantle of helium king. Nobody is willing to lift the heavy weight of supplying helium to those in great need of talking funny after breathing in the stuff.
       Of course, one reason nobody is waiting in the wings is because the Federal Helium Reserve has been selling it at a much lower than market price. Trust our government to pay too much for what it buys and sell for much less than anybody else. There must be a message in there somewhere. But just because the government has things backward, doesn't mean the Congress doesn't want to continue operations.  Our Representatives and Senators have voted overwhelmingly to continue in this lost leader business. As a business model, any self respecting corporation would die of extreme laughter.

Incinerators vs Burn Pits.

       Well, the U.S. military is back in the news. It seems they bought two new incinerators for $5 million. They were to be used to replace burn pits to get rid of solid waste in Forward Operation Base Salerno, in Afghanistan. They were purchased from a Turkish firm and, as usual for military purchases, they went through rigorous specifications and inspection before delivery was accepted.
       Not surprisingly, the two units would not do the job they were designed to do. In fact they wouldn't work at all. There were significant deficiencies like "leaking hydraulic lines, missing pipe insulation and rusted housings on motors," according to an article in the Washington Post. These problems didn't bother the Corp of Engineers though. They were accepted even though the capacity of the incinerators of 16 tons per 24 hour period of operation didn't factor in that, because of the dangerous location of the camp, they were not allowed to be used at night.
       So now they sit, rusting in a makeshift dump in the camp. In the meantime a burn pit had to be dug, in order to burn all the solid waste. This is against military policy because of the potential danger to anyone who breathes the fumes and smoke. Which would include everyone in this camp. And don't ya just have to wonder what the solid waste they have to burn is?
       So let's take stock. There was a problem with using a burn pit, so two, under capacity, incinerators of inferior construction were purchased at a cost of $5 million to do a job they couldn't do. So they were thrown into a dump area and a hole was dug for a burn pit. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just dig a burn pit and move everybody out of the camp a safe distance. Maybe set the burn pit up to appear like a resort spa for the Taliban?
       What I can't get over is why we spend so much money on items the end users don't want, can't use and for which nobody had the foresight to just ask the folks who will use the items what they actually needed. Oh, and wouldn't you think the Corp of Engineers would think to check to see if the damn things worked as advertised? I wonder if there was any warranty that came with these incinerators? I'd like my money back.

In Washington, Life Goes On.

       Here's more good news for you to enjoy. Two things have happened or may be happening soon. First, sometime last year Congress voted to make it illegal for themselves or their staffs to participate in insider trading practices. That was a good thing. But very recently, Congress rescinded the part about disclosure. So now it may be illegal to trade on insider information, but nobody will be allowed to know if they do. I guess it's the honor system. Question is; is there any honor in Congress?
       Secondly the Security and Exchange Commission thinks it should require publicly held corporations to report any and all political donations to their shareholders. You should hear the squawking over that. "The unions don't have to report their donations" which is true,  "Tax exempt groups don't have to report it either" also true, but then the SEC doesn't have any control over these groups.
       A petition to the SEC in favor has over half a million comments, with the vast majority in favor. But House Republicans and the US Chamber of Commerce are up in arms. They're ready to declare all out war against the SEC. Which is a shame because this would be a big help towards cleaning up our electoral system. I agree Non Profits and Unions should be required to do the same. But that's not what corporations and the GOP want. They want that money to keep flowing without any messy reporting that could get the corporations in trouble with their shareholders or customers.
       I can see their point though. What if they wanted to get some politician defeated in his campaign? What if their customers like this politician? Wouldn't that hurt the bottom line? What if the politician found out? Wouldn't that hurt their chances for a fat contract? I guess the real question is; why aren't these corporations willing to stand up and have the courage to speak out no matter if it might hurt them? I guess they'd rather show one face and secretly be another face. Wouldn't that make them two faced?

Enemy Combatants Or Background Checks.

       I love people like Senator Lindsey Graham. He's a Senator from one of the reddest states in the country, South Carolina. He's so conservative even his cheeks are rosy. Now he wants to have the surviving Boston bomber interrogated as an enemy combatant, even though there's no proof at all that he is. That's what he wants him questioned for. To find out if he is. Now I thought we had to have some sound idea that he is before we question him as one.
       Otherwise he's the same as Timothy McVeigh, or Ted Kaczynski, the unibomber. A home grown terrorist. It seems that lots of conservatives and even some progressives are willing to subvert the Constitution in order to get the kind of information they want. You know, like right after 9-11 when people were so frightened that they were willing to ignore the rule of law to protect themselves?
       The thing is though, while Senator Graham is willing to overlook the Constitution on this, he was totally unwilling to do something he claimed was unconstitutional, but wasn't. He refused to vote in favor of background checks to buy guns. Now a lot of people think background checks to buy guns violates the 2nd amendment. But ya see, if they would read the 2nd amendment, they'd see that it doesn't say anything about background checks one way or the other.
       What it does say is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So ya see? It doesn't mention anything about background checks, but it does mention a well regulated militia as being necessary. It looks to me like background checks falls under regulating, doesn't it?
       Now some folks claim that the militia wording meant only the militias the states had and since the states don't have militias anymore, that part of the constitution's 2nd amendment doesn't count anymore. Only it was never legally expunged or removed. That means it is still in the 2nd. And wishing it wasn't, doesn't make it so. From what I've learned, if it's in the Constitution, it's the law, if it ain't, it ain't law. Like the Federalist Papers. They were never passed into law, they ain't in the Constitution. They ain't law.

Cowardice On Display.

       On Wednesday, the Senate of the United States of America showed what they're made of. Fear of the gun manufacturer's lobbying arm. Fear of the NRA. Fear for their jobs. But the real question is unanswered. Does the NRA really represent over three million members? Or does it represent the gun manufacturers, even in opposition to what it's membership wants and expects from it's elected officials in Washington?
       I can tell you that gun owners and NRA members don't want to be forced to give up their guns. But that's already been decided. By the constitution and by the courts. Nobody can take your gun. And so the fear mongering that the NRA relies on is simply untrue. Nobody's coming for your gun. Period! Get over it. But realize that the NRA gets the vast majority of its funding from the manufacturers of guns here in America and abroad.
       Also remember that these manufacturers are "for profit corporations." They're in business to sell the products they make. And the more they make and sell, the more profits they make. They engage registered lobbying firms to convince congress not to regulate gun sales. They provide the NRA with much more money to do the same thing. The NRA then uses this money to try to convince gun owners the government wants your gun. It, the NRA, also spends its time lobbying congress by means of threats of retaliation for votes in favor of gun legislation. If you vote for even the slightest bill to regulate firearms, they threaten to spend money to try to get you defeated in your next election.
       It's these strong-arm tactics, this bullying, that's at the heart of our problems with gun legislation. And it's the lack of sound gun legislation that permits lawless and unstable people to commit unthinkable crimes. No, gun legislation won't stop every tragedy. And it will take time for the laws to work. The alternative is to allow this madness to continue. Thank you U.S. Senators for you lack of concern for your fellow Americans. Your votes to stop legislation will allow the danger to continue to increase.
       So what's the best argument the NRA teaches legislator? These proposed laws won't work. They won't stop the killing. Okay, but based on that philosophy no law either proposed or already on the books works. We set speed limits on highways, but some people speed anyway. Murder is against the law but people murder anyway.  Based on NRA arguments, I guess we shouldn't have any laws.

Politics, Food For Thought.

       Have you ever wondered why millions of people around the world are starving? Have you ever wondered why there's a push to grow food to convert it to biofuel when plants like switchgrass and sugar cane can be used instead? Have you ever wondered why the U.S. government pays farmers not to grow food? Now I assure you that the government and everyone else knows that all these people are starving to death, and I'm sure the government and pretty much everyone else knows that farmers are getting paid not to grow food.
       You'd think government would figure out the correlation between the two, wouldn't you? You'd think everybody else would figure that out too, wouldn't you? Well, apparently nobody has figured it out. Either that or nobody really cares one way or the other. I'll bet it's because the folks that are starving to death can't afford to buy food, even if it was available.
       But why not subsidize farmers to grow food, and then send it to the people who are starving, and not charge them for the food. I mean, as long as we're paying farmers anyway, doesn't it make sense to have them grow food? And doesn't it make sense to send the surplus to starving people?
       The other advantage is that we wouldn't be paying any farmers who have no intention of growing food anyway, or the land is so worthless that they can't grow anything on it anyway. I have no idea how many people that would affect, but if their intent isn't honest, we shouldn't be paying them anyway.
       Now I suppose that would add up to bigger government, but that's the kind of bigger government we should all applaud. Then as people begin to be able to pay for the food we send to them, then they can begin to pay what they can. That way, they'll feel like they are beginning to control their own destiny.

Ten Figures.

       How'd you like to make a ten figure income from now on? Ya know how much that is? It starts at one billion dollars and goes up from there. The top 25 hedge-fund managers in America made a billion or more last year, and for some it isn't the first year to do so according to an article in the New York Times. What's even better is they don't have to pay nearly as high a percentage of it in taxes as you do on your paycheck.
       But just imagine, one billion. What could you do with a spare billion? What would you do with it? If I started now, I could't count that high in the rest of my life. 1, 2, 3, nope, I wouldn't make it. And besides, think of all I'd miss, doing all that counting. But dreaming about it might be fun. If you're the kind of person that likes to dream a lot. Of course, if you are, then you're likely not to actually make a billion. You can't do both ya know.
       If you want to make a billion a year, whatta ya have to do? For starters, I'll bet you have to stop saying "ya" or "whatta" and folksie words like that. You'd have to up and say it like they teach it in school. Ya would become you and whatta would become what do. More importantly you'd have to learn how to pick winners and losers in stocks and bonds. That's what these guys who are making these kinds of  incomes are getting paid for.
       Even if you're a great pro football player or coach or a great heart surgeon or teacher or mathematician or anything else, you ain't gonna make that much money. Nope, the only guys that make ten figures a year are these Hedge fund guys. Not even the CEO of the largest companies in the world make that much.
       I can tell you for sure that writing a blog ain't gonna get ya that kind of dough either. Not unless you all start kicking in your whole salary. Email me, I'll send you my address. I guess the question I have is why these guys get so much, but the folks who are the most deserving in this world get so little. Look at a soldier protecting your way of life. Think he's getting that kind of pay? And yet he's putting his life on the line. How about farmers? Where would we be without farmers? They sure don't make ten figures a year. Now I know a sure bet. I'll bet nobody reading this blog made ten figures last year.

       The obligation to own and carry ax gun comes directly from God.

Just Being In Washington Doesn't Give Them The Answers.

       If you step back and listen and watch, you get some insights into the needs of America. Take two departments of our government. The military and Border security. We've about cleaned up the second of two wars we've been fighting for a decade or more. That means, or should mean we can let about a hundred thousand troops go. Keep them on active reserve status if you want, but we don't need them for active war at this point in time.
       On the other hand, we keep hearing how we need more border protection and enforcement. Hey, are you listening to this back-and-forth chatter coming from Washington? We've got a hundred thousand people ready for work. They've already got uniforms, the Army has extra guns for them. Why not take about twenty five thousand, give them the needed training and put them along our borders and at our sea ports. That would give us about five thousand along both borders and all three coastlines. That would go a long way to making us more secure.
        But does Washington listen to us? I mean we listen to them, how is it that they only listen to us if we have lots of money to donate to their reelection campaigns. I understand it would be a difficult trick to get Defense to transfer the money it takes them to keep twenty five thousand soldiers, to border security. Not to mention how difficult it would be for border security to figure out what to do with that money and all those extra people, but hey, figure it out folks.
       Another advantage to this idea is that those twenty five thousand jobs would be permanent jobs, not the temporary combat jobs these folks are doing now. Of course there are those who believe we need to keep all the military we have now and then some. But then, we spend more than the next sixteen or seventeen countries combined. Washington needs to know that we won't be fighting sixteen or seventeen countries at the same time any time soon. So let's think about lightening up, whatta ya say?

A Great Idea Nobody Wants.

       There's a potential for some new technology that could win the praise of fossil fuel advocates and renewable energy advocates both at the same time, for the same technology. Yes, I know, it sounds like the come-on for a joke. So what's the punchline? I mean can you imagine a red state ultra conservative Congressman singing Kum ba Yah with a blue state greenie liberal Congressman?

       Well, don't get your hopes up just yet. I said 'potential', remember? But I know, just having the potential of such two agreeing on anything is cause for hope and a party with all the flavor of Mardi Gras. But it's true, there is such a technology being readied for testing according to the Washington Post. And no, I'm sorry, but it isn't a free, no cost, stmulis for job creation that eliminates debt and deficit and adds to social services for the needy, not to mention doubling the budget for defense. 

       No it's none of that. What this technology promises to do is use solar power to cut the amount of natural gas needed to provide energy and reduce greenhouse gases at the same time. In other words, if it takes a million cubic feet of natural gas to provide electricity to a city for a given amount of time, by using this technique it would take, maybe, only 900,000 cubic feet and it would give off less greenhouse gas. 

       Neat trick if it works. Of course it only works if the sun is shining, but never the less, it would be a useful option. That is unless you don't believe in the use of solar energy or fossil fuels, either or both. And that could be the biggest stumbling block for this technology. Ya see, some folks do not believe we should use solar energy under any circumstances, not even for getting a tan. On the other hand, some other folks think that using any kind of fossil fuel for any reason, including a signal fire when you're marooned on a deserted island in the South Pacific should be taboo.

       Anyway, it apparently has to do with chemical engineering and mechanical engineering. It's supposed to work best where natural gas is expensive or the power company gets paid not to produce so much carbon dioxide. Which means in the current world, where nobody can agree on doing what's necessary to curb global warming, it may never get used. 

Let's Break It Down.

       Do you know what the second amendment to our constitution says? Here it is. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So conservatives are correct that we can't take away peoples guns. At least partially right.
       The amendment, if you read it carefully, states that the reason people have the right to keep and bear arms is in order to have a militia to protect their rights. But it doesn't say any old militia. It says a 'well regulated' militia. Now that makes a difference. You can't have a well regulated militia if you don't know who belongs to the militia or even what kind of guns they have, now can you?
       So it sounds very much like the government has the right to regulate the militia. The government can't stop you from being part of the militia, unless you have proven yourself to be dangerous to the people and their rights. The government can also regulate what kinds of firearms you can have. It just can't stop you from keeping and bearing any guns at all.
       So if the government decided to provide you with a militia uniform to wear when you bear those arms, I suppose they would have that right. In order to have the militia be well regulated, it might reasonably require that you have a certain type of firearm. That way it could more easily supply you with ammunition. By the way, the second amendment never mentions the type of magazine or capacity thereof, now does it? So large capacity magazines aren't protected by the second amendment at all.
       Actually for a militia to protect our rights from a government gone haywire, we need to be allowed to keep and bear all sorts of firearms. But in order to protect the people from individual unstable militiamen, we do need to limit some types of firearms to the active army.
       Ya see? If you just read for comprehension, you get to understand why the second amendment is so important. It clarifies why you have some rights and why those rights can be regulated in common sense ways for the good of all.

Checks And Balances Are Sometimes Good, Sometimes not.

       Well, that dastardly demon of the depths of depravity, the United Nations, has tried to do it again. They tried to take away the rights of all freedom loving people around the world. Yes, and they succeeded in pulling to wool over the eyes of everyone except the favored five. It seems that every country has agreed to the treaty that calls for making it illegal for any country to sell weapons to any terrorists, their organizations or any country who is a terrorist nation.
       It's true, every country in the entire world voted in favor except for the five saviors. They are Syria, Iran, North Korea, the NRA, and the U.S. Senate. These five have single handedly kept the world safe for the gun manufacturers and exporters. Now North Korea can still sell a nuke to anyone it chooses, Iran can still support Hezbollah, Syria can still plan to use it's chemical weapons or sell them at their own discretion, the NRA can still collect it's commissions from gun manufacturers and can still support their favorite Senators. Who, coincidentally, supported the NRA's position to support the gun manufacturers.
       Surprisingly The United States voted for the treaty, but because of the Senate's vote, will be unable to enter into the treaty. The reasons given vary from, its a threat to take away all our freedoms and rights, to, we won't be able to sell any weapons to our enemies anymore. This last is surely a real danger to our economy. How will our enemies arm themselves in order to get us to go to war against them, thereby producing more gun sales to our own military.
       Let's hear it for the fabulous five. Without them, the world might not be able to enter into another game of All Out War, our favorite pastime. How would we ever justify our Department of Homeland Security? Our soldiers would be forced to give up their mangled bodies and death and would have to yield to good health. These five are truly a blessing.

Good News And A Maybe.

       I just read, in the New York Times, that educators have introduced the Next Generation Science Standards which includes a section on climate change and requires students learn about evolution. Twenty six states have already approved these standards. I'm thrilled at such a display of support for science and the way it's taught.
       The article mentions several of the states that have already approved it including Arizona, Arkansas, California, Iowa, Kansas and New York. It did not list Pennsylvania or the other 43 states. Remember 26 have already adopted the guidelines. So I went to the website for the Pa. Dept of Education. After a lengthy argument with my computer and the website, I called the Pa. DOE. I got the usual recording which told me the usual, that I should listen to the recording in its entirety since the menu had changed. Do you think the menus change all that often?
       Finally, at the end of the recording it told me to press '0' to reach the receptionist. I shouldda known. So I pushed '0'. Another recording came on. "The receptionist is busy assisting other customers and will answer your call in the order it was received." Now here's where it really gets special. "The recording then told me that the approximate wait time would be nineteen minutes.
       Did you ever sit nineteen minutes waiting, while holding the phone to your ear expectantly, for a receptionist to answer your call? Not the person you ultimately hope to speak to, but the receptionist? I figured that if I would have to wait that long just to speak to the receptionist, how long would I have to wait for the secretary and then the actual person you want to ask the simple question: Do we subscribe to these new guidelines or not?
       I guess I'll never know. Unless something gets mentioned in the local paper some day. What're the chances of that? Or that I'll notice? I guess the point is that austerity hits us all. Even the number of receptionists at the Pennsylvania Department of Education.

Oh My. What Can We Do?

       Whatever in the world is happening to America? On the one hand you have wildly extreme conservatives and in response you get liberals willing to fight against them. Who ever heard of liberals willing to fight about almost anything? For that matter who ever heard of so many people so filled with hate for a lone black man in a position of such authority? I wonder what these haters would have done if he had been a conservative? Would they have become liberals?
       I watched an interview the other day of Wayne LaPierre, the VP of the NRA. He was finding fault with the multiple polls that show over 90% of Americans favor background checks for gun purchases. First he claimed the polls were biased because of the wording. Then in the very next sentence he claimed the NRA's poll showed a majority was against background checks. Do you suppose the NRA's poll could have been biased?
       In a democracy where the majority is supposed to rule, and where a majority of Americans voted for democratic leaders, not just the president, in 2012, the Republicans hold a majority in both houses. Well actually the Republicans hold a majority in the House but hold enough minority seats to deny the Democrats the right to pass any legislation what-so-ever, in the Senate. Unless any party holds 61 seats in the Senate, they cannot get anything passed without the other party's permission.
       I realize that the filibuster is an old and established custom in the Senate, but when such a custom becomes a stumbling block for any legislation, not to mention appointment of badly needed federal judges, then it seems time to change that custom so as to allow for the work of the Senate to move forward.
       Have you looked at the shape of the congressional district you live in? Is it relatively square? Or does it look like a snake tied in knots? That's called gerrymandering. That means the party in control of your state's legislature has drawn the lines in order to provide for a super majority of party controlled districts where none existed before and should not now. But neither party wants to stop it. The minority hopes to be able to use it when they get back in power.
       That's what's happening in America. When people try to stop other citizens from voting, when killers are allowed to buy guns and gun trafficking is allowed, and presidential appointments are blocked because one lone person says no, there's a problem, multiple problems, and something needs to be done about them.

It's Your Bees Wax.

       Well. bees are back in the news. Now pesticide manufacturers think it's none of our bees wax. But they're wrong. Bees are our wax or at least bees are our business. They're necessary to our food chain. And nearly every other animal's food chain. The problem is the bees are dying off. In 2012, it is reported that of the commercial hives in this country, nearly half of the bee population died. Half the hives are empty.
       Now a company faced with half it's workforce gone would begin to wonder why. They'd also demand that the other half work double shifts. But it's hard to get the remaining bees to work twice as hard. I mean, just like the old saying, bees are as busy as bees already. Now, a company that lost half it's employees would try to hire new employees. But where ya gonna get more bees to hire?
       Well it seems that one of the problems causing bee deaths is a relatively new pesticide inserted into or affixed to seeds. These pesticides remain for the life of the plant.  Which means from seed to harvested and consumed veggie or fruit. So like I said once before, you're eating this stuff right along with the bees. They claim that the bees lose their ability to find their way back to the hive. Therefore they die.
        Have you noticed any loss of direction yet? If not, perhaps you haven't been eating your veggies and fruit as recommended by your doctor. Of course it may not affect you at all, but what about your children and grandchildren? Might they start wandering away from home? And not coming back? In fact don't they do that already along about 18 or so?
       But seriously folks, there's no decision out there to stop using these dangerous pesticides. The manufacturers claim they're safe. But what if they're not. And there's good reason to believe they aren't safe. Wouldn't it be nice to know that the EPA is doing something about it? Yes, it would be nice, but they're not.

A Case Of Rights.

       Americans are allowed to own and carry firearms. It's the law, it's a basic part of our freedom. It cannot be infringed. Voting is a basic part of our freedom. It is a right. So why is it that so many conservative legislators are opposed to any type of gun legislation, what-so-ever, but at the same time these same legislators demand that everyone acquire a photo voter ID in order to vote?
       It seems to me that if you won't allow for any restriction on gun rights, it doesn't make sense that you think it's okay to put restrictions on voting. Both are rights protected in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or in one of the Amendments to the constitution. Now we do restrict somewhat the right to vote. We restrict it based on age. We restrict it based on your address and you must register to vote.
       So why is it unreasonable to restrict gun ownership based on a criminal background check? Or on gun trafficking or type of gun or magazine capacity? I think even the type of ammunition should be regulated.
In the second amendment, it states that gun ownership may not be infringed. But before that, it states that we must have a well regulated militia, as the reason for allowing gun ownership.
       The thing is, when it comes to voting, almost nobody is ever in danger of being attacked simply from the act of voting. But when it comes to unfettered gun ownership, there is a much greater potential for violence. And that violence carries far more potential for killing. Because without restrictions, unstable citizens might be carrying a gun and using it.
       If we must have photo voter ID, then we have the responsibility to make sure it carries no costs to acquiring that ID and that it be as convenient as possible to obtain. At the same time, we need to do everything possible to keep guns out of the wrong hands. And if it is absolutely imperative that citizens be allowed to carry guns, then there must also be a free and convenient way to provide proof of competency.

Just Who's Independant

        Here's an interesting factoid that was reported in the New York Times on Friday. The largest oil refinery in all of America, the Motiva oil refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, is owned by Saudi Arabia. Now that's no big deal in world business. Loads of businesses in almost every country are owned by outside interests. What's interesting is that it gives the Saudi's an outlet in America for it's crude oil. They own the refinery, they would certainly have the right to process their own oil, right?
       What's more interesting, though, is that America is trying so hard, and getting so close, to weaning itself off foreign oil, especially Middle-East oil. You don't suppose Saudi interests figured this out and decided to put an end to American efforts to WEAN itself off of anything, do ya? After all, the USA has been a very good customer of Saudi oil for many decades.
       But even more important than that, Uncle Sam has been the strong protector of the Saudi regime for all that time. We've protected them from nasty neighbors and from lost customers. But of late, we've been talking like we might not need their oil anymore. Which might mean we might not feel so inclined to protect them as much anymore.
       To the Saudis, especially the royal family, that would mean that their days of reign in the country would likely be limited. My guess is that the protection factor is far more important than the customer factor. By owning such an important piece of infrastructure as the largest oil refinery in America, just might ensconce Saudi Arabia in the American framework.
It could likely continue to make Saudi oil indispensable. Which would mean that America would continue to be under the foot of OPEC, and necessarily require America to continue to protect Saudi Arabia, it's royal family and their oil.
       The question for America is whether or not the Saud family is our friend. They support terrorism by their financial gifts to terror organizations and states. They subjugate their citizens, women aren't even allowed to drive a car or hold a job or office. They'd drop us in a minute if they didn't need us so much.
     

A Simple Explanation.

       Conservatives state categorically that they will not allow any tax increases, under any circumstances. That's a pretty clear statement. Progressives state categorically that they will not allow cuts to Social Security, Medicare or medicaid under any circumstances. That's a pretty clear statement. So what we have is one side saying no and the other side saying no.
       That leaves the social safety-nets, pork and defense to choose from. The social safety-nets don't amount to much in the overall financial scheme of things. Pork is far too important and necessary to the function of our government and the economy to be considered by Congress. That only leaves Defense. It would appear that of all the functions of government, Defense is it. If it were a game of tag, Defense would be IT.
       Between taxes, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Safety-nets, Pork and Defense, Defense is the only expendable area of the budget. After all, who needs Homeland Security? Americans are the most heavily armed people in the world. We could field an army of somewhere near twenty million heavily armed citizens. Of course, they wouldn't all be willing to fight a common enemy, some would rather fight each other.
       Never-the-less, we'd still have all the cannon fodder we need. What enemy would be so foolish as to try to invade America. As for actual defense department personnel, all we need is the guy that carries the briefcase with the button in it, for the president. You know, the red button that sends the missiles at the enemy. I'm not sure how that button knows which enemy, but that's a political decision anyway.
       So that's all it would take to solve our budgetary problems. Of course if you don't want to unleash our twenty million member militia, then it looks to me like both sides are going to have to give in a bit and compromise. That or continue to squabble like spoiled children right up until our country goes belly up.

There's Lot's Of Good Ideas, Mostly Not.

       Coming soon to a school near you. Fort Sumter. We can build eight foot high walls with concertina wire on top. We can have watchtowers with automatic weaponry. Let's include roving SWOT teams in the halls of our elementary schools.  Perhaps we can devise drones for our high schools. All sound ideas for the school of the future. Classroom doors could be automatically closing and made of three inch steel. Six inch thick windows would be a nice touch too, I wonder if we could convert armored cars into school buses?
       Just one thing though. Do not stop anyone from buying guns for criminals. Proposed laws making it illegal to be involved in gun trafficking should clearly be defeated as being anti-business and against the best interests of the gun manufacturers, not to mention the NRA.
        What about background checks? What, and have the government find out some criminal wants to buy a gun? Well, what about banning those hi-capacity magazines and assault weapons? Why, again, the gun manufacturers and their lobby, the NRA, won't allow such profit busting schemes.
        What we need here is smaller government. Small enough so as not to be able to stop anyone from buying guns, but large enough to fund those SWOT teams in schools. Small enough to allow for 40 hours or so for training for Miss Daintylady to shoot an AR-15, but large enough to place a company of special forces troops in each and every school in America.
       But what about home-schoolers? Shouldn't we provide weaponry for each mom and dad? A gun in the hand is worth two in the bush. Instead of hiding a key under the mat, make it a 45. Taking a shower? There's nothing wrong with an AK-47 slung over the shoulder. A bubble bath? Make it a glock. I can see the dollar signs mounting up at the NRA.

Who's Second Amendment?

       I've listened to the argument that our forefathers inserted the second amendment to the Constitution in order for the citizenry to protect themselves from the government. I reject that argument. Here's why. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that tomorrow morning, the government decides to begin to subjugate the people by force of arms.
       Who exactly do you think will help you resist. Who will help you protect yourself and your family? Your neighbors who are hunters? They would have deer rifles and shotguns, and some few might have an assault rifle or a handgun. The average hunter probably fires his deer rifle, maybe twenty times a year. One box of ammunition. He may keep two boxes on hand.
       Or would it be your neighbor the militia member. A member of one of the many secretive militias around the country. They all have assault rifles modified to fire automatically allowing them to fire up to the full thirty rounds of bullets in a single burst. They have stockpiled tens of thousands of bullets. They likely also have hand grenades and maybe even hand held rocket launchers. So, which neighbor would most likely come to your aid?
       Almost without exception, the hunter will be there to help you. And likely he'll have to protect you from the government and the militia. The government will come to subjugate you, but the militia will come to rob you of your food, money, guns, clothing and anything else they see. They might even kill you so you can't identify them. Then they're off to their hiding place to wait the government out.
       So, do you think the second amendment was put in place to protect those who would endanger the citizenry or protect the citizenry? Many, if not most modern day militias are against any government at any time that is not of their own creation. In a time of need, they would most definitely become lawless. It's a part of their belief. They're trained to think that way.

Look! There's An Elephant In The Yard. April Fool.

       Ahhh, today is April first. April fools day. So what exactly is an April fool, or perhaps the correct question should be, WHO is an April fool? This seems to be the easier question to answer. An April fool is someone who gets fooled by other people into believing a lie for the express purpose of being able to say APRIL FOOL. I mean, that's it. There's no big payoff. Just call somebody else an April Fool.  I love it.

       Some people are April fools all year long. They never get it. You can stick a note on their backs that says kick me and all they do is tell people not to kick them. They're insensitive to the pain and the plan. These folks never figure out what's happening. Voters are April fools. They listen to campaign promises and they take note of what the campaigners are wearing and how well groomed their hair is. But in the end they vote for the wrong candidate. No matter which candidate they vote for.

        Then you have the perpetrators of the April fool. They're known as April foolers. They're always trying to play tricks on other people. Politicians are such perpetrators. They make promises and they seemingly fight the good fight. Then they rush to their donors to reassure them it's all in fun. They never meant to do any of the good they promised, honest. If they get elected, and invariably some do, they go to Washington and they do exactly as they please. No, that's not exactly true. They do as they're told to do by those donors.

       I think that in the next election we should all vote for a rock. Just think, a rock would never tell you a lie. Rocks can't even filibuster. Imagine the shock on the faces of all those politicians if a bunch of rocks got elected. You might think that nothing would get done in Washington if all we had was a bunch of rocks in Congress, mightn't you? Wouldn't be much different than now, would it? 

       Ya see, April Fools day isn't just for fools and foolers, it's for all of us.