Consolidated diversifications

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

WARNING! this next link is racist because it talks negatively about "black people." And, uh, the guy doing it is a college professor of recent African descent as well.

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-living/ci_18847167

Some folks are still gonna complain, whine and accuse the professor of not understanding. Tavis Smiley comes immediately to mind as does Cynthia McKinney and a few other idiots.

•••

Now he's catching grief from the party he supposedly leads. Can I get a witness? Or, as the case may be for those who support this crock of a plan, a witless?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63456.html




Shrub's stimulus plan didn't work. The current president's previous stimulus plans didn't work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

•••



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-grizzly-shot-20110913,0,6452581.story

Not so cute when your face is being ripped off.

I'da done the same EXACT thing. In fact will, should the opportunity arise. Where I presently live, bears are very rare, but we have one now and then. They ain't grizzlies, so I'd probly just watch it a while. But the first hostile move toward me, bear burgers and a hide on the wall.

I also note: wildlife attacks on human beings are on the way up. Coyotes are in the news out west for attacks on toddlers. Painters (cougar, mountain lion, panther, whatever) attacks are also up. Rabies incidents are up in the South.

Where are the animal rights activists? Why aren't they doing something about this?

Me? I'm doing something about it in a very personal way. Wanna join me? May go varmint hunting Saturday night if the weather holds. I guarantee a shot on at least 1 varmint and may have as many as 20.

More hair, less substance

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yes buckDharma, I think he's a liar too. Not that I expect many people to listen to even believe me, unless they are Damnocrats.

The "he" in this is the current Reboobican Party darling du jour - Rick Perry.

The Rick Perry Campaign platform, if truth be known.

In this week's candidate fertilizer production forum, the Texas governor was pretty much listed as the most well fed bull. At least that's the way I see it.

Perry said if elected he wants to make the US government as inconsequential as possible in the lives of Americans.

He lies.

When Rick Perry became the governor of Texas in 2000, the total spending by the Texas state government was approximately $49 billion.  Ten years later it was around $90 billion.

This is NOT making government inconsequential. This is increasing government involvement in your life. This is making government an even bigger part of your life.

Texas' per-citizen debt load is also higher than Kalifornia's, per capita. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/first-look-rick-perry.html
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/04/bill-white/white-says-texas-debt-has-doubled-under-perry/ 

Government's idea of a balanced budget.

Balanced budget? I think not.

Perry attempted to pass into Texas law a law that would force parents to have their children vaccinated with the new HPV preventative. When that didn't work, he made an executive order. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/rick-perry-hpv-vaccine_n_961159.html

Is this REALLY getting government less involved in your life or is this government dictating how you may live? Ask me? It's also socialized forced medicine the kind of which the national healthcare plan attempts.

Perry has, repeatedly, hiked taxes in the Lone Star State. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/nov/01/rick-perry/gov-rick-perry-says-he-has-track-record-not-raisin/

Read his track record. He's a politician. You can tell when he's lying because his lips are moving.

In collating reactions to the talking head exhibition earlier this week, I found out one thing that absolutely did not surprise me:

A real change. Which you don't want.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, managed to say Ron Paul talked out of both sides of his mouth and threw his voice in all kinds of directions. Everyone, like him or hate him, had to say Ron Paul's comments were consistent with his voting record, consistent with his long track record of comments and consistent with his voting record.

That means Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. Ron does not say what people want to hear - like the current president and the rest of the crop of Reboobican candidates - he says what he will do. And he means it.

In space no one can hear you go "Hmmmm."

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wanna blow your mind? Google "decline effect" and read the stories about it.

I listened to a 15 minute segment from On The Media last night about this.

Here's a pretty good one


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer

Here's the transcript of the bit I listened to:


http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/may/13/the-decline-effect-and-scientific-truth/transcript/

If you need me, I'll be the redneck in the corner with the reeling mind.

Rebels with a cause

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Even as the president announces how he proposes to pay for a new spending bill and cut the deficit at the same time (hint: creative accounting that would get him arrested & sued if the United States were a publicly traded company) the very same federal government is not paying its due bills.

And it's about time too.

Yep. I am not kidding.

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/12/140407306/cook-county-ill-bucks-immigration-enforcement

For a long time county and state jails and prisons have held illegal immigrants at the request of federal authorities. The federal authorities have also not paid for housing these inmates, which means the local taxpayers are picking up the tab.

Cook County, Ill - Chicago - has said enough.

"The ordinance requires the jail to free inmates wanted by ICE unless the federal government agrees in advance to pay for the extended confinement — something federal officials say they don't do."

The Revolution will result in bloodshed.

Amen and God bless 'em! It's about time someone stood up. But this ain't gonna be pleasant.

I have LONG believed that people and governments should pay their bills.

If federal authorities want inmates held, then federal authorities should pick up the tab.

Before you say these are illegal immigrants and should be left locked up, I give you this quote from the story "County board commissioners who voted for the measure bring up issues beyond the cost. They say holding inmates for ICE violates due-process rights and erodes community trust in local police."

Furthermore, ever heard of something called "Innocent until proven guilty?"

So how should these people be treated? Does the Constitution cover them?

Let's not go there right now.

What if someone is arrested, and is here legally, but just doesn't speak English and so has to sit in jail past the legal hold time until a translator is found? What if the person simply refuses to answer questions - a legal right under the Constitution's 5th Amendment?

As for the issue of eroding trust in the local police, no comment.

The real issue here is who has the rights.

The history of this nation is pretty well split down the middle on that one, except on the really big ones.

Where the really big questions of rights is concerned, the historical record is clear - the federal government takes the rights away from everyone else - state, local government and individual. Sometimes this is done legislatively, sometimes judicially and all too often with an application of plumbum.

Remember the last time a group of people in this nation really stood up to the federal government? People died. Pick a time, an incident, a person, a movement - Randy Weaver, David Koresh, the Civil Rights movement and, of course, the War of Northern Aggression.

I ain't saying that folks in the Windy City are going to be cut down in a hail of flying lead delivered by the jack-booted Gestapo thugs.

I am saying that when the federal bureaucracy is challenged, those in power do not much tolerate those challenges.

Chicago is walking on some dangerous ground by standing up and telling federal boys to do what's right. Considering it is a Damnocrat stronghold, this is even more surprising.

Regardless, I'm glad to see someone standing up and demanding accountability from the federal government.

Can't lose for winning

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Today's column may be a less coherent than usual. My back went out Sunday and I'm still looking for it. Anyway...

It's got to be hard to show up and know that beyond the farthest shadow of a doubt, you are going to be massacred.

Yes. Georgia Tech.

In what HAS to be a serious case of consternation for most college football fans, Georgia Tech (which graduates its football team's seniors each year) holds a pair of records that will stand forever.

October 7, 1916 Georgia Tech scored 222, yes two hundred and twenty two, points against Cumberland College which failed to post any points. Tech was also coached by John Heisman, of whom College Football's most prestigious award is named.

So to all you "other" college fans, Neener Neener Neener.

But talk about showing up for a massacre. Jeez.

A similar thing happened Saturday in Tallahassee. FSU hosted Charleston Southern University.  FSU 62 - CSU 10.

The CSU team DID hold FSU at the goal line twice and the Seminoles had to settle for a field goal. I was impressed.

But still. Little CSU traveling to Florida to play FSU? You know they expected to get clobbered. The only question was how bad was the beating gonna be? Would they even score?

In case yer wondering, the middle-high school band here went down for Band Day at FSU. Being the Music Program Booster president and parent of two band students I went along to chaperon, complain, give kids money to buy stuff, document the trip and so forth.

Back on topic - Getting clobbered is not a pleasant experience regardless of how much you may learn from the experience. Anticipation can make it worse.

Ya gotta wonder. Why show up at all? Why put out an effort? What good will it do? Winning ain't everything, it's how you play the game?

Learn to be a gracious loser? Oooo. Yeah. Good sportsmanship and all that? Losing builds character?

Anyone who wants to be a gracious loser v. a winner of ANY kind, please let me know.

OK that was harsh (but I am in pain). There certainly are times I'd rather be a gracious loser than a certain kind of winner. Sometimes.

Sometimes when you win, you are actually the loser. That's a hard one to understand, unless you've been there.

Signs of intelligent life

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Like most people I did not listen to the president pontificate last night. Unlike most people, I did go get the transcript of his speech.


http://www.wwl.com/Text-of-President-Obama-s-jobs-speech/10852444

Premature hatching of one's egg collection.

Not that I expect you to read it.

I will now surprise you.

I liked some of the items in the speech.

The president said of his proposed bill (and I await proof this is the truth):

"It will provide a tax break for companies who hire new workers, and it will cut payroll taxes in half for every working American and every small business.

"Pass this jobs bill, and all small business owners will also see their payroll taxes cut in half next year. If you have 50 employees making an average salary, that's an $80,000 tax cut."

You took HOW MUCH from my paycheck?

Now THAT is something I can get behind. I got a detailed quarterly wage report for myself yesterday. The amount of taxes paid out of MY salary stunned me. This is not ALL the tax which must be paid either; my employer picks up the tab for other taxes before my pay is ever computed. Seeing what's taken out of every paycheck is one thing. Getting an itemized report for several months of pay might stun you as well. 

"Everyone here knows that small businesses are where most new jobs begin."

Truth. 85 percent of jobs in the nation are created and maintained by small business. Small business is also the one hit hardest by government regulation and taxes. Small biz simply does have armies of lawyers to fight government.

" Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get extra tax credits if they hire America's veterans. We ask these men and women to leave their careers, leave their families, and risk their lives to fight for our country. The last thing they should have to do is fight for a job when they come home."

Amen. I FULLY support this idea. As I have said before, I will agree to cut ANYTHING in the federal budget EXCEPT veterans' benefits. If anything, this needs to be increased.

Work it baby, work it.

"Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job. We have to do more to help the long-term unemployed in their search for work. This jobs plan builds on a program in Georgia that several Republican leaders have highlighted, where people who collect unemployment insurance participate in temporary work as a way to build their skills while they look for a permanent job"

Less excited about this, but I can support it for a while. But only for a while. 

Which brings me to the part of his speech (and depending on the details of his plan) the parts I cannot support.

Yeah. He's right about that. But...

"Pass this jobs bill, and we can put people to work rebuilding America. Everyone here knows that we have badly decaying roads and bridges all over this country. Our highways are clogged with traffic. Our skies are the most congested in the world.

"The American Jobs Act will repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools. It will put people to work right now fixing roofs and windows; installing science labs and high-speed internet in classrooms all across this country. It will rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hit hardest by foreclosures. It will jumpstart thousands of transportation projects across the country." 

Rebuilding our infrastructure will not rebuild the economy. It MAY, and I stress MAY, help. Construction is a necessarily time-limited job. Once a road is built, it's there. Once a building is up, it's there. There are no more jobs to be had in construction for those projects.

He's got growth, but now what?

Long term sustainable growth means something is produced over and over at the same place for which there is an ongoing and continuing market. Think food. Think computers. Think cell phones. Think clothes, Think of anything you use which has to be regularly replaced. 

That is where sustainable growth comes from. Nothing in the president's speech points to this. His goals are all short term, fixed time span with nothing beyond them.

At the same time I must agree our nation's infrastructure is tumbling. Much was built with federal dollars. Where did that money come from originally? From taxing sustainable and long term industries which have now relocated overseas. 

Nothing in his plan points to a return of what made America an economic superpower.

As for the budget part of his speech...

The reality of the forced budget cuts later this year.

The idea that forced budget cuts will come about later this year if Congress can't agree to budget cuts is, frankly, bull shit of the highest caliber. This was not really the president's idea, but needs to be said.

Congress passed the law saying forced budget cuts will happen. Congress can JUST AS EASILY VOTE IN AN EXTENSION or abolish the law. Congress has a LONG LONG LONG history of changing uncomfortable rules. I expect 'em to do it again. 

 Nowhere did the president elaborate on his budget cuts. That'll come later with his plan.

I continue to maintain, he won't actually cut anything. Instead his plan will call for not increasing spending in the future. See comments just about regarding fertilizer.

Bottom line? The president promised much in his speech. I seriously doubt his proposed plan will be able to deliver. 

Extra axel grease please...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not too long ago the nation was in an uproar when a judge in a United States Courtroom cited Sharia law (law based on Islamic traditions and the Koran) in making his decision.

Islamic law in action.

The decision regarded a man and his wife and his ability to have sex with her against her will. The judge ruled for the man, based on Sharia, and was quickly overturned.

Do religious beliefs have a place in the law?

You sure?


The United States Constitution states religion DOES have a place in the law. The First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

At the intersection of Reality Drive.

By putting into the Constitution that government CANNOT create an official religion, the law then carves out a place for religion. That place is outside the scope of governmental control. Government admits religion exists. Kind of a backhanded way to put religion into the law, but it's there.

Religion also enters the law in another way - Ministerial privilege. A minister cannot be forced to testify about things told to him by a person, under the seal of confessional. There is an ethical quandry in that one which I shan't go into today. This same right extends to doctors and lawyers and counselors.

Religious exemptions are also allowed for certain churches when it comes to jury duty and a few other things.

Is this wrong or right?

If you say wrong, then you are saying you are willing to force someone to go against their core principles, ethics and morals. Do you want to go there? Remember, if you can do it to someone else, they have the right to do it to you. Do you want to be forced into a 180 on your mostly closely held beliefs whatever they are?

THE  BANISHED INKY CHICKEN!

If you say it is right, how far are you willing to go? Look long enough and hard enough in any established religion (more than 500 years old) and you can pretty much justify any action you wish to take based on the holy texts. Are you willing to sit as judge on whether or not someone is genuinely sincere in their beliefs or is faking it?

Same rules still apply. Do you want someone to judge if you are sincere or just faking it?

Looks like it's time to order up a semi load of grease 'cause this is gonna need WAY more than originally thought. I remind you that grease makes uphill progress exponentially more difficult, downhill progress exponentially faster and lateral progress varies but is generally easier.

Before you accuse me of pursing a lubricated Sus scrofa possibly crossed with a Branta canadensis, consider this:

Does this explain things a bit better?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/rabbi-moshe-zigelman-tax-evasion-us-district-court.html

Should the Jewish gent in question be tossed in the clink for refusing to testify?

This is not falling under any of the aforementioned already-established prohibitions on testimony. Instead it relies on an interpretation of the Bible which the majority of Jews do not agree with. For that matter, I could point you to Bible passages which state his interpretation is wrong.

If you let him go, then how many others are you also willing pass?

The incurable optimist shot down again

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/09/07/obama-to-propose-300b-jobs-package/

Apply constantly.

Reuters  Sep 7, 2011 – 11:14 AM ET

 

"WASHINGTON – U.S. President Barack Obama, facing waning confidence among Americans in his economic stewardship, plans some US$300-billion in tax cuts and government spending as part of a job-creating package, U.S. media reported on Tuesday."

Sing with me!

I read this opening and was immediately happy. TAX CUTS! Here, I felt, was something the president was proposing which I could support. HUZZAH!

Ah foolish me. I am an incurable optimist. I'm really looking for something where I can support the president. But, I forgot of whom I was reading. Comes the remainder of the sentence - more government spending. No more happiness, only some wariness.

"The price tag of the proposed package, to be announced by Mr. Obama in a nationally televised speech to Congress on Thursday, would be offset by other cuts that the president would outline, CNN reported, citing Democratic sources."

Ah. So we have to wait and see what he proposes to cut. OK. I can live, albeit not very happily, with that. But if you expect me to believe he's gonna propose REAL cuts as opposed to not raising spending in the future, naw. I just look stupid.

Looks can be deceiving.

He IS NOT going to propose spending cuts. Watch and see. He's gonna propose not spending more in the future. This is not a spending cut, unless you live in Fairyland or Washington D.C.


Spending cuts mean you quit spending money now. Except in Washington.

"Bloomberg News said the plan would inject more than US$300-billion into the economy next year through tax cuts, spending on infrastructure, and aid to state and local governments."

This is Washington-speak for "we're not cutting spending, but we are raising taxes." Wanna bet? Keep reading.

We now have his signature on his lie.

State and local governments need to learn to take care of themselves. If they ain't got the money to do something, it don't get done. Quit leaning on the federal government. Why do taxpayers in California need to pave a rural road in South Georgia? Why do taxpayers in Alabama need to pay for a Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska?

"Mr. Obama would offset those short-term costs by calling on Congress to raise tax revenues in a deficit-cutting proposal he will lay out next week, the news agency reported, without citing sources."

Normally I trust anonymous sources about as much as I trust politicians. This time I believe the anonymous sources.

The president is gonna propose raising taxes. Which in Washington means he is proposing a spending cut and lowering how much taxpayers have to fork over to government.

Pretty simple eh? Once you realize the object of a career politician is to stay in office, support government and ignore the people, then you can understand why they act the way they do.

And in case you missed this one on the FB feed -

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/2/im-exactly-whats-wrong-with-barack-obamas-america/

Neither rain nor sleet nor snow but lack of money

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Unless something gives, the US Post Office is gonna tank. The question is: What does this mean to you?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=138690714

One way to crash a Post Office.

The problem is government interference. No surprise there, right?

Here's why. In 1971, the Post Office was set up to be self-supporting. It is supposed to generate enough revenue to operate.

It never has.

So, Congress has stepped in with subsidies. This means Congress gets to dictate how the Post Office operates.

This also means things are run incredibly irresponsibly. No business can stay in business if it is forced to keep and run unprofitable locations. The Post Office is ordered, by Congress, to operate unprofitable locations.

The government dance.

Take the county where I live f'rinstance. A PO in a one of the towns here shucks out $1,500 a month rent for a building the size of a house. $1,500 a month would get you 3K feet plus of commercial real estate downtown. The Post Office is several miles from the mail commercial district and in a residential neighborhood.

If you tried to rent the place out as a house, you MIGHT get $500 a month. Sell the building and you MIGHT get $75K. Last time it sold, this being well before the peak of the housing market, it went for $200K - because of the Post Office rental income.

If (which is unlikely on the order of me liking any of the past 5 presidents) the Post Office makes a major change in operation how will it affect you?

In more ways than you can imagine.

1) SCOTUS has ruled that the US Post Office is the only agency allowed to deliver first class mail. While you may do much of your bill paying online, indeed you may do all of it online, this is not universal. Some business still send bills through the mail.

Actual laws.

2) Certified mail (which is a major crock as I have opined before) is the legal method for notifying you of certain government and court related activities which directly affect you. Such as being sued, IRS notice, etc.

The IRS does not send emails to individual taxpayers. If you get such an email, it's a scam.

3) Because certified mail is a legal standard, even if the letter is not accepted, it allows you to send information and notices out and not worry about the receiver saying "I never got it."

4) Doing away with certified mail will dramatically increase the cost of correspondence that is handled that way. One CL may run $5. Getting it hand-delivered? No telling what that'll cost.

5) As I mentioned, some businesses don't take online bill pay. You may not have any, but many people do.

6) If you get caught in Identity Theft, your accounts get hacked and so forth, eventually you are going to need certified mail to get this corrected.

7) Complain as much as you like - the US Post Office is dependable. At least at the local level. Neighborhood carriers are people you know (especially in rural areas like where I live). I have more success sending stuff (except newspapers) through the mail than any of the parcel carriers.

When it comes to newspaper delivery, the farther you get from the originating county, the less likely the paper will get delivered. In large part because of this, we're recommending out of town subscribers take the online version. More and more newspapers are going to this - which means even less revenue for the Post Office.

8) Some stuff simply can't be sent electronically, which means you take it, go through a shipping company or the Post Office.

9) Money orders. You can go to a convenience store or you can get a world-recognized money order at the Post Office.

10) Passport applications.

11) The simple convenience of being able to put a letter in a mail box and know it it'll get there.

But mostly the Post Office is an outfit we take for granted. If it's gone, then you'll really see how much you miss it.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Gleefully swiped from Rep. Ron Paul.
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1907:were-from-the-government-were-here-to-help&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69




We're From the Government. We're Here to Help.

In the wake of hurricane Irene, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is expected to come hat in hands asking for more money from Congress.  Like the rest of the government, it is broke.  It has been suggested that any additional funds allocated to FEMA should come from cuts elsewhere.  This seems harsh and lacking in compassion to big government advocates who do not understand economics, but I would go a step further.  FEMA should never have been established.  It is based on misguided ideas of disaster relief.

This seems shocking to those who have never been subjected to the secondary disaster that is the arrival of FEMA on the scene of a catastrophic event.  But explaining FEMA’s ineptness is not the same thing as saying no one should help people affected by disasters.  Quite the opposite.

Victims of disasters should get any and all help possible, and there is virtually no limit to the generosity and compassion of good American people after devastation hits.  One only need to remember the outpouring after Katrina to know this is true.  FEMA, however, did more to get in the way of relief than to actually provide and facilitate it.  The examples are numerous.  When the call was put out for volunteer firefighters, they volunteered by the thousands.  It was FEMA, for reasons of control and bureaucratic ineptitude, who made sure they were not, in fact allowed to actually help.  When a group of firefighters arrived from Houston, instead of being put immediately on the job, they were told to sit around and wait.  After waiting for two days doing nothing, they were simply sent home.  One thousand volunteer firefighters were sent to Atlanta to undergo sexual harassment training while fires actively raged in the city.  The ones that remained through this stupidity were sent to escort the president around or to distribute fliers instead of putting out fires.  Computer engineer Jack Harrison was told his skills were needed to rebuild technological infrastructure.  After being given the runaround for about two weeks, he was misallocated as head of security on the cruise ship FEMA had leased, when he should have been using his skills to help.  All manner of help was turned away or mismanaged by FEMA while people suffered and waited.  Even the Red Cross had its hands tied by FEMA.

It has only gotten worse since 9/11.  Compare the stories of two flotillas - one after 9/11 and one after Katrina.  Within an hour of the 9/11 attacks, the largest boatlift in history was organized spontaneously by locals who saw an immediate need and responded immediately.  Over 500,000 terrified New Yorkers were taken off the island by ferries, tugboats, pleasure crafts, fishing boats and barges when all other access points had been shut down.  A similar flotilla attempt was privately organized after Katrina.  500 boats caravanned to New Orleans to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and desperate.  Unfortunately, FEMA had taken over by then and they were turned away, empty, while the patients languished, still stranded.  Tragically, the Vermont Air National Guard helicopters were in Iraq when Irene hit, and they were desperately needed here.

The establishment of FEMA is symptomatic of a blind belief in big government's ability to do anything and everything for anyone and everyone.  FEMA is a bureaucratic organization.  Bureaucracies, while staffed with well-meaning people, are notoriously slow and wasteful by their very nature.  When people are starving, injured and dying they need speed and efficiency, yet FEMA comes along with forms and policies and rubber stamps.  This sort of thing is bad enough at the DMV, but in matters of life and death where seconds count, this is just not acceptable.

True compassion would be to get FEMA out of the way.


Ben's comments: Rep. Paul is correct. Unless you have gone through a major disaster in which FEMA showed up with blazing colors and promises to help you cannot understand the ineptitude of this organization. For every one good thing they do, the organization commits at least 5 instances of exacerbating the problem.


I know. I've been there and see it happen. In person. When FEMA finally shows up, recovery efforts which were moving wide open slow to a crawl and in some cases, back up.


FEMA gets in the way of organizations like the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, some state agencies and private groups of people who show up to get things done.

Dissolve FEMA. Send the money to states if taxes have to be collected for relief effort. Otherwise, eliminate that part of tax bill.

The road to hell ...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... is paved with good intentions. 

The national power grid.

In the Massachusetts Legislature, one of the senators has introduced a bill which he hopes will get power companies to move faster to get power restored.

His bill requires power companies to give customers two days worth of rebates for every day the power is out.

It's hard to tell if he's serious. I say that because sometimes legislators will introduce a bill on behalf of a constituent. The politician knows the bill has less of chance of passing than I do of being elected sheriff in my county. But. For whatever reason, the bill is introduced.

It being in Massachusetts, I sorta don't care if he is serious. However, if this passes up there, other legislatures and legislators may take note. That makes me care. A lot.

A lot of people look at this idea and say "YEAH! We need that here!"

Light me up.

Why?

"Cause the power companies really don't care about us when the power goes out. But be late with paying the bill and they are all over us cutting the power off," you say. "Make 'em get a move on to get the power back on!"



Do you know that you will have a bill each month? Bah.


Have you ever tried to restore electrical service in a line that carries enough power for an electric chair? What do you know about setting up high power lines? erecting poles? repairing damaged substations?

If you don't know about all that, how about leave it to the experts?

A few more questions:

How will the power company cover the cost of supply the free electricity to customers?

"That's their problem. They have the money to do it. They should do it," you say.

Gotta get me some of these trees.

How does the power company make money.

"Well, duh, they sell electricity," you say.

Who do they sell it to?

"Baker, you are an idiot. They sell it to me, you, other people, business, industry and so forth," you say.

Is this their only source of income?

"Yes."

So if they have to provide electricity at no cost to people who were without power, who'll pay for this?

"Nobody. The power company."

It costs money to generate power. Repair crews have to be paid. Equipment has to be maintained. Loans must be paid off. Damaged lines, powers and such have to be replaced and repaired. This costs money.

How many of you get this one?

"Not my problem," you say. "They should supply the power because it was their lines that went down. The customers are inconvenienced."

This is going to cost the power company money to do this. Where do you think the power company will get the money to cover the costs?

You. Your utility bill will go up to cover the cost of supplying the "free" power.

Power company rates in most of the US are either overseen by a government board or, as in the case of Electrical Membership Cooperatives, by the customers themselves who meet annually and vote on how to run the power company. Profits are tightly managed and are generally low but consistent and often plowed right back into improving services or the community.

If a law is passed forcing power companies to give free power to cover outages, rates will go up to cover this expense. The power companies won't have a choice.

Some things is just stupid, know what I mean?

This is not about universal health care

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Gotta admit, this is an EXTREMELY compelling argument for universal health care. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-year-dies-toothache/story?id=14438171

W/thanks to John McDuffie for the lead.

A non-disturbing view of an abscess.

Being one of those without health insurance and having suffered a couple of abscessed teeth, I can identify. Painkillers are a necessity when dealing with such a problem.

Fortunately I had enough wherewithal on hand to have mine removed. The dentist who did the pulling said he preferred to have a surgeon do a  root canal on the last one.

That much money I did not have.

So with some minor reservations, he pulled it.

But as compelling as this incident is, it still does not convince me of the need for universal health care like some other countries have.

Couple 'o reasons why.

Reason 1:

The donkey is named Obama.       oooooooooo....

Consider this quote ending the story: Silverstein operates three free dental clinics in the San Diego area. "We're overwhelmed right now," he said. "We can't take any new patients."

My community had a free dental clinic not long ago. We had dentists from a wide region come in, volunteering their time to work. Still took money to pay the light bill, a full time secretary and a hygienist.

In my career with newspapers, I wrote a story about a dentist who was being investigated for improper practice. She got off that time. A few years later, a child died in her office in one of the chairs. I believe she went to jail for that one.

The investigation stated she had too many Medicaid patients on her rolls.

Reason 2:

Takes money to run a doctor's office.

Dentists, like doctors, are in the business and must make money in order to stay in business. They have expenses which must be paid. Current government reimbursement rates are too low to cover those expenses, or so dentists tell me. This is why so many of 'em refuse to take Medicaid and Medicare.

Universal health care is going to raise the payment rates to the medical care providers. So, they wil not participate in the system.

Reason 3:

If you force medical care providers to participate in the system, the number of people in the field will drop dramatically, which will lead to overcrowding as enumerated in reason 1.

Besides which, do we as a nation really want to force people to work against their will when they have committed no crime or offense against people?

Testify!

Last time I checked that is slavery. Of course we can repeal the 13th Amendment if enough people want to.

If you force someone to work against their will, what is to stop them from forcing you to work against your will?

Reason 4:

Well, this ain't exactly a reason as much as it is an observation. The gent here, who died, and the other one referenced in the story could have been helped by a dentist. The dentist(s) refused to help.

He (and the other one died) because of a lack of humanity. I sincerely hope every dentist in that area(s) gets reminded of this (these) deaths on a daily basis.

Yeah. I want one. You knew that.

But I can't really levy the big guns on dentists alone. It is not fair.

To be fair, I have to line billions of people on the planet in front of the firing squad for similar offenses. We've all turned a blind eye to someone in need. Someone in genuine need, not someone looking for a hand out. Someone looking for a hand up.

Think about all the people you've turned away. Did any of them die because you wouldn't help?

Willing to bet on that?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Close enough for government work.

Drawing a blank today on the topic du jour. Had a couple of starts that fell apart a few 'graphs in. Looked all over for some subject matter and didn't see anything that struck me particularly.

So, got this one. Periodically some of the readers of this here ramblings will suggest a topic they want me to opine on.

Image from blog that failed to gel earlier.

How about you? Got something that you wonder what I may say about it? I fielded a suggestion a few minutes ago "addicting internet games" and I may get around to that one next week. Gotta let it gestate a bit since my thoughts on "addicting internet games" are well developed.

What about it? I'm pretty much game for about any topic, provided you understand there are some things I simply don't know anything about.

Which of itself could be a future column. Things I know nothing about. Except that one won't get very far. Ipso facto if I don't know anything about it, then it is impossible for me to write about it. How could I?

I note a complete lack of knowledge has never hampered politicians.

Eschew obfuscation.

I could write about things I am very passionate about, which I tried to do earlier with a peice about the coming deer season. Couldn't think of anything fresh to say.

Running out of things to say is definitely a problem. 25+ years of putting my thoughts on paper for others to read has NOT left me with a dearth of things on which to opine, but some of the stuff is only relevant and interesting to a few people.

Not that this bothers me. Even as I ask you for topics, I assure you - I write for myself. That others find it worthy of reading I find immensely gratifying, but I still do it for me..

So why don't I write about those things of interest only to a few, as I just mentioned?

Damfino. Maybe it's ennui from two weeks packed solid with massive amounts of work and little time to recover.

Could be I just need a break to get a mental oil change. That being so, if everything cooperates come Monday, Sept. 12, I'll be recharged, realigned, resurfaced and re-whatever.

 Maybe I just need to go sit in a deer stand for a few hours.

And that's how I spell relief.

And swimming down

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

In my top 5 bands of all time. LP is good too.

As a professional journalist (please, feel free to hold that against me especially if you use Reba McEntire to do it) I get press releases. Boy, do I get press releases.

A small percentage of them are from idiots. OK, a large percent of them are from idiots, so I need to subcategorize. A small percentage of the idiots are out to spread fear, misinformation, hysteria and attempt to use fear mongering for less than salubrious purposes. Which supposes, I guess, that spreading fear can ever be a good thing. Bah. I digress.

The Second Amendment Foundation is one of those groups that periodically jumps off the deep end and starts swimming down. SAF was founded because the members felt the National Rifle Association (NRA) was waffling too much and giving into to politicians on important issues. In what won't be a huge surprise to you, I support the NRA and SAF.

Now crost my desk comes a SAF press release. "World-Wide Riots Coming In 2013!
" screams the headline. "ALERT: Will you be able to protect your family when riots and anarchy explode?"

AWESOME LP!

In case you are not presently panicking, the PR goes on to say "If we don't reduce food costs by 2013 there will be world-wide unrest. Marco Lagi and a group of researchers at the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI) in Massachusetts say when food prices reach above a certain margin the world will erupt into anarchy. NECSI is an organization of scientists who use mathematics, phsyics and computer science to solve social problems." Typo on the word "physics" is theirs. Which should tell you a lot about the people who put this PR out.

Panicked yet?

M'kay. Here's more: "Rising food prices have been the trigger for nearly every political revolution in history and it was the cause of the revolutions in France, Russia and China. NECSI reports, 'Social unrest may reflect a variety of factors such as poverty, unemployment, and social injustice.'

"Any society is three meals away from anarchy." [emphasis theirs.]

Music soothes the savage revolutionary.

Dunno what history books SAF is reading, but rising food prices are not the "trigger for nearly every political revolution" in history. The trigger for nearly every political revolution in history is some people getting tired of the way things are being run and they decide to try their hand at running show after taking the current leaders for a long walk off a short pier.

The PR from SAF is not about why it's important to stock up on food. Of course not. The following phrase appears in bold, underlined italics and highlighted in yellow:

URGENT ACTION NEEDED - Stop The Gun Grabbers
 & Sign The Gun Rights Emergency Response! [emphasis theirs]

The press release from SAF, typos, misguided thoughts and downright mistakes about history are all an effort to separate you from your money. Yep.

Rather than rely on solid facts, sound reasoning and logic, SAF is appealing on a far more gut-based level. Fear.

In keeping with our Rock LP image theme...

Why? Cause it's easier. People are easily swayed by hitting their emotions. SAF knows that. If you hit someone's heart, you can tap their wallet much easier.


Appealing to the rational mind is far far far more difficult, not only because so many people lack the ability to be rational. It's more difficult because being rational requires mental effort.


It's much easier to be stupid.


One emotion-laden statement may take 30 seconds to spew out. An intelligent rebuttal takes considerably longer. The majority of people aren't willing to sit through the necessary explanation. They'd rather take another gut shot.

While I agree with much of what SAF says in the press release, it's very tone annoys me to no end. Which of itself is a gut reaction, just not the kind SAF was hoping for.

Mo good stuff.

Worshiping at the altar of emotion, like SAF is doing and like so many others do (Reboobicans, Damnocrats and Tea Baggers come to mind) does not edify. Far worse, it inures. What once would guarantee an expected reaction now generates a yawn.

Worse yet, it conditions the audience to eschew cogitation.

And that is how people are truly and well controlled.