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.