Just in Time for April 15th

I'm not sure I will ever be able to blog from my back porch. The only time I can do it is when the weather is nice, and when I'm sitting on the porch swing in nice weather I can't seem to be snide, cynical or raucous. All I can do is a post like yesterday's. It is another nice day, but two posts in a row like yesterday's will drive away my last reader.

I will need to abandon my porch swing and back to the desk.

First an update on a post I did a few days ago on Clivden Bundy, the Nevada rancher the Bureau of Land Management was harassing. Apparently they the BLM has seen the light and pulled out, and returned his cattle in the process. Did my post have something to do with that? Probably not. But a Blogger can dream, can't he?

I don't follow Lame stream media at all; newspapers, TV news or the alleged news magazines, so I have no idea how they have been following or covering the IRS scandal and Lois Lerner's involvement, if at all. But it has been almost a year since the news broke of the way the IRS was holding up approval on 501 (c)(3) applications for conservative groups. Just in time to stop them from participating in the 2012 election. And now we find out that the ranking Democrat on the oversight committee was encouraging them, and targeting one outfit in particular; True the Vote.

I looked for a Lame Stream Media outlet to link to, but none existed. ABC; NBC; CBS. None are covering it. Is it because it isn't news, or is it becasue they Don't want it to be news?

I have said many times that News reporters have always been biased; a situation that goes back to the founding days of the Republic. What is different now is not the bias, but the declaration that their bias is not biased.

And that is wrong. I don't mind that  ABC, NBC and CBS are basically Outlets for Democrat propaganda. What I mind is that they aren't honest about it.

Even the folks on the left should be upset about what their friends in the media are doing. If you believe you are getting all of the news from these folks, then why aren't you upset that you're not?

Like this IRS deal. If you are only getting the part of the story that doesn't harm your elected officials, how do you know that its time to vote them out? If the Administration is as crooked as a ram's horn don't you want to know that? Or are you happy with the rainbows and unicorns you are being feed, and don't want to know?

Maybe I'm different, but I don't want to be represented by crooks no matter what letter follows their name on the ballot.

No Law West of the Pecos

There is a lot wrong with this story. Nobody comes away with clean hands, but the Federal Government's are by far the dirtiest.

It almost reads like one of the old pulp westerns I read so many of in my youth: Honest, hardworking rancher gets attacked by a hoard of villains who isolate his ranch, steal his cattle and beat up his children.

The only thing the haven't done yet is poison his well.

YET.

The trouble is, in the old westerns salvation always appeared in form of a few cowhands, some of whom helped out the rancher- and his pretty young daughter- while one rode 'hell for leather' to bring in the US Marshal; the only law in the territory. In this case, it is the law doing the terrorizing.

Not that Mr. Bundy is blame free; the story doesn't get into why he stopped/never started paying the fees for grazing on Federal land, but he did; that was the nexus of his current predicament. $1.35 a head per month doesn't sound like much, but with 1000 head that's $1350.00 a month; $16,000.00 a year. To graze on public land that the family has used for 130 years.

Fine; so he owes the Feds money. Do they come after him with a court order? A judgment maybe?

Nope; they come after him with 200 armed agents and proceed to evict his cows from the land. Do they run them back onto land owned by Mr. Bundy? Nope. They IMPOUND the cows. At an estimated cost of $3,000,000.

Yep; the Federal Government is spending over $3 million to collect on $300,000. Do you know now why we are TRILLIONS in debt?

But just like an infomercial at midnight; Wait; There's MORE!!!!!

Not content with wasting a small fortune to make a point, and not content with harassing a man and his family over what is essentially a trifle, they have also closed a public highway and the airspace over the ranch (that $3 million to impound the cattle is starting to sound cheap, ain't it?), but they have also co-opted the local sheriff (well, he was usually crooked in the pulp westerns too) into creating and enforcing a 'free-speech zone', so the folks protesting this atrocity can't get close enough to see what is actually going on.

But WAIT; There's STILL MORE!!!!!

This is just part of the story. They are also closing almost 187,000 acres of land to grazing permanently- one of the reasons for the bovine eviction- to reserve the ground for a 'critical desert tortoise'.

If you have been following the news lately, you know what has been happening to the price of beef. what do you think the closing of 187,000 acres of grazing land will do the cattle herds? And to the price of beef.

So the next time you hit McDonald's and your Big Mac costs more than your first car, remember what the Feds did to Clive Bundy.

Proud of Them Kids, Are You?

Do you think we live in a civilized society?

How deep do you think that veneer of civility goes?

I suppose you have heard about what happened last night in Connecticut?

These are college students; the supposed next leaders of the free world. And they descended into anarchy because some people they probably don't know won a game.

Why is that? What about this game was so special it required drinking to excess, rioting, property damage and arrests? What about this game required these 'adults' to 'celebrate' by descending into mobs?

The worst part is that this is not an isolated incident. College and pro sports team seem to have a rabid group of followers who seem unable to celebrate a teams success without violence and destruction. I could prepare a list- a very long list- of all the incidents in the last 10 years where things like this have occurred. I'm sure you could too.

Yet we call ourselves civilized. What will the punishment be for these thugs and hooligans? How many will be expelled from school? How many will do jail time? How many will pay a fine large enough to dissuade future nights like this?

Yes; I know you will point out that this was a special occasion; that this was only a few students; that alcohol was involved.

So I suppose when I next receive a promotion at work I should get drunk and destroy my neighborhood? Why would that not be appropriate? After all, I have something to celebrate.

Walter Williams has said many times; support behavior you wish to encourage, and tax behavior you wish to discourage. By not punishing severely the 'children' for their crimes we are only encouraging them to behave this badly next time.

Why put up with this? What gives them the right to not only destroy property but also break the civilized veneer and create chaos in its place?

James Naismith developed basketball as a way to control a group of rowdies; to give them a controlled way to burn off energy.

I'm he would be pleased to see how well that plan worked out.

The Goal was What Again?

Yesterday was the final day of Open Enrollment for ObamaCare. Maybe, kinda-sorta, depending.

And according to the REVISED required enrollment numbers where 7 million enrollees were needed, the goal was met, according to the Administration. But, then, no details or back up was available. We can take their word for it, right?

So; lets take their word for it, shall we?

Let's applause the fact that 7 million people now have health insurance. We'll ignore the fact that we don't know how many of these people have paid for these plans, or how many have actually received insurance cards or actually benefits from the insurance company. We'll also not look at the idea that it took 6 months to hit this revised goal; a goal that was revised because of the slow start the website had, or the multiple extensions it took to even get to this lower goal. We also won't question how many of these 7 million were a part of the 30 million previuosly uninsured, or how many were a part of the 7-8 million who lost their insurance because of ObamaCare.

We are going to focus on the what it took to get these 7 million enrollees.

It took over 600 million dollars to create the most dysfunctional website a government has ever produced- and that is saying something.

It took a total disruption of the health insurance industry- a disruption we have not seen the end of yet. Insurance is not a charity; it is a business. One that depends on risk management and costing. If there is no analysis of the risk pool, the costs cannot be assessed and policies costed effectively. Right now policies are priced by SWAT; Strategic, wild-ass guess. That system is unsustainable, and once true costs start rolling in policy costs will skyrocket. Or benefits will be drastically cut; take you pick.

It took the reassessment of staffing and hiring at companies all across the country, based on who was worth having for more than 35 hours a week, and paying the cost of benefits. All hiring is now based on the avoiding or complying with ObamaCare.

It took a possibly illegal maneuver to get passed in Congress, when the Senate passed a reconciliation to avoid Scott Brown's ability to vote on- and vote against- the bill.

It took the President of the United States to lie to the American People constantly and consistently. These weren't errors in understanding, these were calculated lies; lies considered and approved by the Obama Administration because they were needed to sell the program to the American people.

It took the Supreme Court to hear the Administration defend the program by definitely describe it as NOT a tax, only to approve the entire scheme only because the government has the power to tax, and then declared the NOT a tax program a Tax program.

And we still have, by the best figures available, 23 million uninsured.

Or more.

Now; you tell me; was it worth it?

Is That High Legal?

I was listening to Sean Hannity on the way home today, and he had a debate going on between a Doctor who's name I can't recall and one of his regular guests on the dangers of Marijuana.

This Doctor was an idiot.

It was his contention that occasional, recreational use of weed is so dangerous that it is lowering the IQ of the kids of the users, by affecting the genome of the parents.

Really? He wants to stand by that assertion?

Basically my belief is that nothing is harmful in reasonable amounts, and everything is dangerous in unreasonable amounts.

Pick a substance. Sugar? The detrimental effects of sugar are well known, when consumed in excessive amounts, yet it is a requirement for healthy living in smaller amounts. Same with salt; to much can kill you; not enough can kill you.

Vitamin A is a required nutrient, yet excessive amounts can kill. Morphine, in limited amounts, is a life saver for pain relief, yet in larger quantities can kill.

Beer was a staple for Medieval monks during Lent, when they were fasting, and was a staple drink of the Puritans at Plymouth Rock, in an era when the water was sometimes deadly, yet when consumed in excessive amounts- deadly.

How about water itself? The very essence of life in some respects, yet when consumed in excessive amounts, murderous.

Coffee; a few cups a day are very beneficial. A few pots a day on the other hand, well, that's a different story.

How about Digitalis? A miracle cure for some forms of heart disease in small amounts, and poisonous in larger ones.

Almost any substance you can name is beneficial in certain amounts and dangerous in other ones.

Even chemicals- and that's what we are talking about; chemicals- produced by our own bodies can be both good and evil.

Why do we make somethings illegal and others legal? Why are some uses of a substance legal, and others illegal?

Who sits on high and makes these seemingly random decisions; Where do they get that authority? Do they have some special wisdom?

As usual, I have more questions than answers.

Maybe its time for a re-examination of how we deal with what is legal and illegal.

Or better yet, let competent adults make up their own minds, and get the government out of the way.

TESTING! TESTING!

I am giving you all a homework assignment.

Stop groaning; this information will, at some point in your life, be on a pass/fail test.

First; read this article.

Then read this article.

Your assignment?

Try to figure out who it was in the Ashtabula County 'Justice' System Mr. Wiser offended.

How's That Again?

I received an email today that just confused me. It was to a email group, which makes it worse I would think. It read (redacted):


(THIS PLACE) is very good they use (THIS PRODUCT) which is a family owned business  that is no longer in business  because the kids were not interested in running it

Okay; What? I think I get the jist of what the author was trying to say, but, holy cow!

Based on the group I was in I believe the author to be fairly well educated and fairly well off. So where did this statement come from?

How much of a family business can if be if the kids aren't involved? How much a business can it be if it is no longer a business?

Or am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? 

Does this statement pass for viable English in today's world? After all; it does communicate the idea it suppose it was intended to, and performs the basic function of communication. But does leave plenty of room for improvement.

Not to say I am an English scholar by any means. I do my best, and hope my words communicate what they are supposed to; let those without sin and all that.

But anyway; I have some rather extensive plans for this weekend, and will most likely not be posting Saturday and Sunday. If I do manage to get a post up consider it a bonus!

Idiots On Parade

Okay; this Global Warming bit has really gotten out of hand.

Really? A hiker trapped by a blizzard for two days? In Hawaii?!?!?!

How on God's Green Earth do you face the life threatening prospect of a BLIZZARD in Hawaii? Magnum P.I. was on for eight seasons and I never saw so much as a snowflake.

That's Dumass #1.

For Dumass #2 lets follow the SUV I followed yesterday on my way home. I first notice this idiot trying to pass a car stopped at a Stop sign. On a two way street. Then the idiot gets into a left turn only lane, and continues straight through the intersection. The next time I run into this Dumass is a block or two later; sitting in a left turn only lane at a Green Light. The intersection has two lanes headed north- the way our Dumass wishes to turn- and one lane of traffic westbound turning north and one lane of traffic eastbound, headed north. Our Dumass sits through THE ENTIRE GREEN LIGHT- with multiple horns sounding- and then turns left as soon as the light changes to red.

Wait; it gets worse. Dumass #3 is right behind Dumass #2, and does THE EXACT SAME THING! they must have been related. I am the fourth car from the light and sat through 3 cycles before I could turn. I am still half deafened by the horn of the truck behind me. You have heard the phrase 'leaned on the horn'? This guy was Standing on the horn. and being a truck the horn wasn't below my bumper, but right in my rear window.

Not the most relaxing way to start a Friday night.

Now lets move on to what I did with my lunchtime. I renewed my car tags. That was actually a fairly pleasant experience, for dealing with a government entity anyway. The line moved quickly, the clerk I dealt with was very competent and friendly and I was in and out in in about 10 minutes; on the last day of the month. In prior years that would have been a 30-40 minute exercise.

Ah; but there is a Dumass # 4 lurking in the lunchtime adventures; I just don't know who it is.

First, something I did not know until today, is that Driver's Licenses are handled by the same department of Kentucky State government as the the court cases are. In each Kentucky County there is a Fiscal Court Clerk and Clerk of Courts. I had always ASSUMED that the Court Clerk I saw for a driver's license was the same Clerk who handled the land records. But its not; its the same clerk you would see to file a court action. So when the County built its latest (UGLY) Taj Mahal, the driver's license department joined the Clerk of Courts in the new Court building.

Which means there is only one entrance to the building- as far from the parking lot as you can get- AND you must go through full COURT SECURITY to get in. TO RENEW A DRIVER'S LICENSE!!!!!!! Whoever designed this system is Dumass # 4.

Then I get downstairs to where the actual folks are who print your new license. Where there is a line. I am behind a woman, her mother and her 3 year old son. While Mom has to renew her license and change her address, is Grandma watching the kid? Nope; apparently the pattern of the ceiling tile has her fascinated. Kid is running around like the Tasmanian Devil, until he finds the water fountain. The he becomes as enamored in watching water flow as Grandma is in the ceiling tile. Mom turns around, sees Grandma starring transfixed at the ceiling and does not see son anywhere and flips out.

Mom hollers: Where is Dexter? Mom is able to reply immediately: Hell; I don't know. So why did Grandma visit the License Bureau if not to keep an eye on Dexter? Apparently her license needs renewal as well. And has since July.

I'm not sure how the situation turned out. Window 2 suddenly opened up and I had my own drama to become absorbed in. Well apparently if you have a debit/credit card the license folks can only use it as a debit card. Fine; I'll do the debit.  Oh; there is a $2 charge to use a debit card. No cash; fine I'll pay the $2. Oh; by the way, renewals have gone up to $20. Fine; I'll pay the $22. Just take my gawdam picture and let me get out of this Hell for another 4 years.

Please enter your PIN Number. My What? PIN Number? I have never used this card as a debit card; I don't know what the PIN Number is.

Well then; they can't accept the card. 20 minutes of my life (and my lunch hour) down the tubes. And no renewed license.

So on Saturday I will need to visit the other Driver's License Bureau, where it will be packed, because it is the first of the month, and waste half of my Saturday morning doing something that should have been able to do on Friday. And I will have to stop and get cash; I'm not going through that debit card business again.

Or wait until Monday and leave work, go through security and wait in line behind yet another set of Dumasses - which for some reason appear to be attracted to government service windows, at least when I am in line- to make sure I can legally drive myself around for the next few years.

Maybe there something to be said for a streetcar. Except then I would be dealing with government employees daily instead of just every four years.

Allow me a few minutes to re-think this....

Yes; Again

You have probably read about the latest Florida shooting. One version of the details are here. Another set here, and a better set here.

First and foremost, this is a tragedy for both families. A young family is now without a father and husband, and, if the Zimmerman/Martin fiasco is any indicator, the Reeves family will be stressed to the point of fracture by the media and the courts as well.

That being said; so many things I find interesting in the case. First is the fact set.

Based on the published reports (which don't seem to have too much variance in the facts reported, just the number of facts reported).  Chad Oulson, the victim, only really has 3 things known about him; he is 43, married, and father of at least one child. Our shooter, Curtis Reeves has a more detailed history. 71, a retired police captain who also spent at least some time as head of security for Busch Gardens. We are not dealing with a neighborhood watch wanna be; this man has been there, done that, for 50 years.

Fact 1: The victim was texting during the opening previews of the movie. Our shooter asked him to stop, most likely because the noise and light were distracting and bothersome. Strange thing 1: He is texting his 3 year-old daughter. What? I'm sorry, that is just goofy.

Fact 2: The victim declines to stop texting his 3 year-old daughter. After several requests, the shooter leaves the theater and supposedly talks to management.

Fact 3: The shooter returns to his seat, and is confronted by the victim. The victim seems concerned that the shooter has reported him to management. A shouting match ensues.

Fact 4: Popcorn is thrown; how much and by whom isn't clear, but the shooter claims he was hit by the popcorn.

Fact 5: Feeling threatened, the shooter pulls his weapon out of his pocket and shoots. Strange thing 2: he manages, with one shot, to hit the wife in the hand and the victim in the chest.

Fact 6: An off duty police officer is nearby and disarms the shooter, maintains control of his weapon and keeps him in custody until armed officers arrive.

Here is the scene, as I see it. Once the argument heats up things will get fuzzy on both sides, but the shooter is not only a trained officer, he setup the Tampa Tactical Response Unit. He knows how to defend himself, not just in normal circumstances, but in tense situations. In his mind he saw one of two things that heightened his sense of awareness and made him fear for his safety. First he has a much younger, angry man within a couple of feet of him. A method of distraction used prior to a physical attack is the throwing of something at the eyes or face. It distracts the target and puts them off balance.

Once the popcorn flew the shooter reacted to his years of training and experience. He may have pulled his weapon at this point.

Fact 7: The wife's injured hand. Was it her motion towards her husband, in a vain attempt to stop a bullet with her hand, cause our shooter to think the victim was trying to disarm him, causing him to shoot?

Remember; these folks aren't feet away on a brightly lit street; they are inches away from each other in a dark or darkened theater, in the middle of a confrontation. it wouldn't take much, I would think, for the training ingrained by years of working the street to take over when an action, or actions, perceived as threatening takes place.

Just like in the Zimmerman/Martin event of a  year or so back; a few minutes changes the course of many lives forever.

A friend of mine sent me a text as we were discussing this topic in which he said: I just think we should live in a country where it's not okay to shoot people because you got into an argument with them.

Well, I agree with that.

But I also think we should be able to live in a country where we don't have to walk around in fear. For old folks, fear of the younger. For women, fear of the men. The weak of the strong, the small of the large. The honest of the crooked. The unarmed of the armed.

It wasn't the argument that got our victim shot; it wasn't the flying popcorn either. It was that he had no fear of an old man, and thought he could bully him.

And, tragically, found out he was wrong.

What a Comment on our Society

I did a screen capture yesterday morning of my Bing homepage.

As usual, the photograph is stunning. Capturing an owl in flight, and starring directly into the camera; incredible.

But not as incredible as the line of text across the bottom of the screen.

These are the current 'hot' search terms. Isn't it nice to know that with everything going on in the world, in this country and in Washington DC. the biggest concern on everyone's minds is David Cassidy's second DUI? Or that some actress may be anorexic? Amanda Knox? Do we really care what happens to Amanda Knox?

Bing has a whole list of the top 20 search terms (With Pictures!!!) that will scroll across the bottom of the screen. I took a look at the whole thing. Even the Chris Christie bridge debacle, the hot topic among the media darlings, is no where to be found.

There were reports from last year of Google 'scrubbing' certain terms and search results of any reference to Daniel Snowden, so that he would not appear as one of the hot topics from 2013 as far as the Google search engine goes.

Here is my problem: aren't these search engines supposed to deal in information? Maybe it is just me who thinks they should be dealing in UNBIASED information.

Can we assume, for the sake of discussion, that you are on the board of directors of a corporation. You and the board are responsible for staffing a manufacturing plant, and already have a team in place, but are considering making changes. You hire a head-hunting organization to report on the fitness of the current staff and the applicants, and believe their report to be the truth.

After decisions are made and the staff are in place, you discover that certain members of the current staff and some of the applicants had conspired with the organization you hired to falsify some of the data you had used in your hiring decisions. These falsifications varied from ignoring some minor infractions of company policy to the commission of felonies that were not reported against some of the employees/applicants. Personal habits and family misadventures of some applicants were given prominent spots in the reports, while in other cases this derogatory information was completely ignored.

Would you feel betrayed? Both by the organization you hired and the people who had conspired with them? People who were now your contract employees?

You know where I am going with this, don't you?

In a few months- May and November to be exact- we will be hiring new staff to serve us our employees in Washington. To use their talents to best serve us. And they will be under contract for 2 or 6 years.

We need valid, unbiased information to choose which employee to hire. Where will we get this information?

Isn't it strange that in the era we are calling The Information Age we are having all kinds of trouble with our information?

Since we seem almost unable to control our personal information, and because of the failure of people we have relied on to supply us with correct information, perhaps (especially since 2008), we should call this The Disinformation Age.

Whats worse?

I don't know what is the worst thing about this post; that there are people in college with a third grade education; that these people have sports scholarships; that people are actually surprised that you can get a sports scholarship with a third grade education, or that I have actually linked to something that inhabits the dregs of internet society, Huffington Post.

I saw and read this the other day, but didn't do anything with it. But them this morning I saw it linked on Instapundit, and thought, Well; If Glenn thinks its post worthy, who am I to argue?

Here is the problem, one I have been making an issue of for years: college teams in Football and Basketball are nothing more than farm teams for the NFL and NBA, with one exception. If you're playing AAA ball for a MLB farm team, your career is over when you want to retire, and YOU GET PAID. NFL and NBA: you get paid with an "education", and after 4 or maybe 5 years you are out on the street.

And since you went into college reading on a 3rd grade level, your 'education' consisted of the few remedial classes you actually showed up for when you were a freshman, before you realized as long as you could hold the line or drop a ball in a basket, nobody cared if you showed up or not.

Well, except for the guy the college was paying to tutor you. And he was happy when you quit showing up; he was tired of trying to educate a brick that knew a little ball handling. And now he gets paid to show up and do his own homework.

Is there anybody out there who doesn't know about the 'we pretend to educate them' payment clause? Yes there are exceptions; it is the exceptions that prove the rule.

Is there a list somewhere of inner-city kids who went to college on a sports scholarship and then was successful, outside of the NBA or NFL?  If there is, I'll bet its a shorter list than of the ones who wound up dying from a gunshot wound on a street corner. And that is a BIG IF; the NCAA does not want you to know what the real purpose behind these 'scholarships' is.

To make the colleges money.

Which is probably where the death threats are coming from. Not the kids who got ripped off playing for these schools for nothing- the ones who SHOULD be angry- but the NFL/NBA/NCAA officials who don't want anybody to upset the free labor applecart.

So; my modest proposal: colleges should have two levels of sports teams; the farm team level and the amateur level. Let Ohio State keep its football program that had millions of fans world wide. But also let them have a team of real students; students who are in college for an education, and happen to be good at a sport. These students may get a partial scholarship, or may not.

But then we come to the farm team; what is the cost of a years tuition at Ohio State, for an out of state student?

Hmmmm. Apparently it is a little over $25k; plus another $10k for room and board. How about we pay the farm team players that amount in either cash or trade, which ever they prefer? If the player wants to live in a dorm and get an education, he can. If he would prefer to live off campus and ignore the whole college thing while he prepares for an NBA career, give him the cash.

The point is transparency and honesty. Show of hands; who doesn't think this wouldn't be a better system? Anybody really believe that 95% of the sports scholarship students, in Football or Basketball, really leave college with an education?

It's time to do what is right by the athletes, the real students and the public; end the charade of the major sport student athlete. Stop the charade of the 'no-pay-for-play'.

Lets bring some honesty back into college sports.

A Street Car Named Disaster

There are I would imagine, some very upset voters in the City of Cincinnati.

For those of you from out of town, or in town and under a rock somewhere, the last election was a referendum on the Cincinnati Street car. And all of the candidates who came out in favor of the Street Car Named Disaster lost.

So it was toast, right? No more Choo- Choo through The 'Nati?

Well, yes. And then maybe. And then no.

Half of the folks elected solely because they opposed the Streetcar CHANGED THEIR MINDS.

Yep; within a week of being sworn in the the Little Engine That Shouldn't was once again the Little Engine That Was.

Here's the thing: I ain't got a dog in this fight, so to speak. I don't live, work or pay taxes on that side of the river. The only thing I will spend money on in Ohio is a 12 -pack of Yuengling, and then only because I can't get a 12-pack on this side of the river.

And then I drive far enough to avoid giving Hamilton County any money, just in case.

So they can do almost anything they want over there; it won't effect me. Except for when they will try to export that insanity down South, or will try to form a 'Regional Coalition' to force me to pay for something I didn't even get to vote on. Like that mattered to the newly elected City Council anyway.

But here are a few facts they need to consider:

1) All of the cities with an extensive mass transit system had that system in place prior to the invention of the Automobile.
2) All of these 'viable' systems (New York; Chicago; London; Paris, etc.) have had over 150 years of building and investment; Trillions of dollars.
3) These 'viable' systems work because there are concentrated living areas and concentrated work areas.
4) All of the cites with those 'viable' systems grew UP because of the need for mass transit.
5) Any city that has grown since the advent of the automobile has grown OUT.
6) All of these 'viable' systems Still Need Taxpayer Funded Support.

These are facts that are inescapable; they can't be whitewashed, and shouldn't be ignored. and Cincinnati does not meet any of the points that would lead me to believe that mass transit would be viable in Cincinnati.

Viable mass transit is a pipe-dream, and in this case, most likely a crack-pipe dream.

New Year's Resolutions

I have found the perfect way to not break a New Year's Resolution.

I don't make any.

It's not because I am already perfect- depending on who you ask either I am durn near or far from the ideal- but because I have realized nobody keeps the Resolution they have created.

Sometimes the change they are making is not well thought out. Sometimes the liquor induced resolve of New Years Eve evaporates in the light of New Years Day. Sometimes events conspire against the Resolution, like when your resolve to lose weight runs up against a buy one get one free sale on Big Macs.

I have usually failed to keep a Resolution because the goal I set one day seems irrelevant the next. Yes, losing weight is a great goal. But compared with working toward World Peace? Can't hold a candle.

Really; think about it. Could you sacrifice losing 10 pounds in order to work toward World Peace? Isn't the goal of World Peace worth almost any cost?

Besides, working toward World Peace will help you meet Miss America, or Miss USA, or Miss World. Aren't all of those young women working toward World Peace? Think about it; when they are asked what they hope to accomplish in their year as Miss Whatever, have you ever seen ONE of them declare that they hope to lose 10 pounds?

Nope; they're all working toward World Peace. Or ending hunger. Ending hunger is easy; see the aforementioned BOGO Big Mac Sale.

Yes, I am kidding.

Another reason Resolutions aren't kept; they are too esoteric. You have all met the individual who has decided to "become a better person".

Really?

Based on what standard?

Right now I am a better person than at least half the world ; especially if the half I am compared to involves anyone in Washington DC.

And then we need to look at what makes me better. After all; there are some changes that in one group's eyes would improve me, and in another group's eyes would devalue me. Going on the Atkins diet would be a great move in some circles.

But not if that circle is full of vegans.

Everything is relative; even losing weight. Ever seen a Ruben's painting? If any of those girls would have dropped 10 pounds they would have been out of a job. Sumo wrestler? 10 pounds is the difference between winning and getting thrown out of the ring.

All in all though improving yourself is a worthy goal. My criticizing the goals folks have set for themselves is probably overly judgmental.

I could resolve to be less judgmental, but I'll bet if I did this is the year I would be called for jury duty.

Well, That was a Big Bust

Well, that was a big to-do about nothing, wasn't it?

They were predicting 4-6 inches of snow for yesterday. All of the TV weather talking heads and hands have been talking about nothing else for DAYS. The Bengals game and the commute home afterward were going to be a flat mess because of the SNOW. Kroger's has been swamped since Friday; sold out of milk, eggs, bread and bathroom tissue.

The wife and I went shopping Thursday and got two loaves of bread. She was out again Sunday morning, and wanted to pick up BREAD, because of the snow. WHY!?!?!? We have two unopened loaves in the kitchen already! But the SNOW she says. What if were snowed in? Long enough to eat two loaves of bread? Not hardly.

And what did we get? 50 degrees and rain. Lots and lots of rain. Probably 2 inches of rain.

Not that I am really complaining mind you; I would rather have the rain. It's a lot easier to deal with. I have never in my life shoveled any rain off my driveway.

It's the disappointment; I was promised SNOW bygawd; DEEP SNOW. And I got nuthin'.

Well; its only January. we've still got a few weeks to get dumped on.

But here is my question; will any of these TV 'experts' explain WHY we didn't the storm they have spent a week hyping?

My guess is no. Why won't they? Is it because they won't own up to the error, and will dump this whole episode down the memory hole, or is it because they don't know why we got 2 inches of rain instead of 6 inches of snow?

I sometimes think I could do as good a job as any TV weatherman.

After all; I've got the free app on my smart phone.

Miranda Rights

Have you ever heard of a fellow called Ernesto Arturo Miranda?

Probably not. Ever heard of Miranda v. Arizona?

Again; probably not. But you have heard of Miranda Rights, or the Miranda Warning. Especially in the last week. But what are they, exactly, and why are they 'read' to a suspect? And why is the the fact they are read or not important to the Boston Bombing Case?

First; we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights (do those words sound familiar?) Those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Some of us will never need to know about some of those rights; they only come into play when we become involved with the government in a possible discreditable nature.

In English? When we get busted.

If you have ever watched a cop show you know the drill: You have the Right to Remain Silent (anything you say can and WILL be used against you in court). You have the right to an attorney (one the state will pay for if you are broke enough). And of course, the first piece of advice from your mouthpiece is SHUT UP.

Here is where the Miranda Rights come in on Live Bomber (as with all mass murderers, I will not name either of them; for sake of difference they are Dead Bomber and Live Bomber). We want to know some things; things only he and Dead Bomber knew. Once we have Mirandized him, if he tells us how this action came about, and maybe admits to a few more crimes while he is at it, we can use that information in court. It is to his benefit to follow the sound (and expensive) advice of his mouthpiece and shut up.

If he isn't Mirandized, then we can act on the information in all cases but the defendant's. He hadn't been told that we could use the information against him, so we can't use it.

In practical application, let's say that Live Bomber says he was part of a larger conspiracy and names names. If he states that information before he is Mirandized, then we can find his conspirators and charge them, but not him, with the conspiracy. Same information after he has been read his Miranda Rights? Then we can round up the gang, AND add a conspiracy charge to Live Bomber.

This is why the decision to read him his Miranda Warning was a poor one, provided he has his right mind. Who in their right mind wouldn't lawyer up and shut up? Information we might have obtained if we couldn't have used it against him now can and will become a part of the case.

Granted, I think we have enough to fry Live Bomber and send him to where ever it is he has earned in his God's eyes. He couldn't incriminate himself anymore than the photos and other physical evidence has. We can't fry him twice; who cares what else he could incriminate himself in?

This is Massachusetts for crying out loud. They may not fry him for the murders and the maimings, but they will for not filing an Environmental Impact Statement before he set off the bomb and polluted the atmosphere.

Here is the other problem with our Constitutionally protected inalienable rights: Live Bomber is a United States Citizen and entitled to all of the rights every other citizen has. Considering that he has blown the oath he took into as many pieces as he has his pressure cooker, and considering what he is charged with, I'm not happy about it.

But I would rather have him acquitted than I would have a precedent set of trying him as a foreign national.

Sometimes Justice is not pretty. Sometimes the rights of the one must be seemingly misused in order to save the rights of the many.

I hope it doesn't happen in this case.

Just How Stupid Can One Man Be?

And no, for a change, this post is not about Obama.

It's about this guy. And no, it's not about how stupid it was to break into his former employer's store.

And no, it's not about him wearing a bucket on his head.

It's about the gun. Allegedly the crook said this:

He also said he tried to break into the pawn shop to steal a gun because he was afraid of the possibility of future gun control laws being passed, according to a statement issued Tuesday by police.


He was STEALING a gun to avoid future gun laws?
You just can't make this stuff up.

Obama in a Nutshell

Do you want a shorthand view into Obama's character?

Take a look into the brouhaha that has surrounded the 'Fiscal Cliff'.

The country is facing a meltdown on December 31, so on December 20 he takes the family on a vacation to Hawaii. As far from Washington D.C. as he can go and not leave the country.

Then when things are heating up he flies back. 11 hours in the air at $182,000.00 an hour, or a total of $2,002,000.00.

Then he puts Biden in charge of the negotiations, when it become apparent he has the negotiation skills of a stalagmite, and then steps in front of the camera to announce the big deal.

AND THEN SPENDS ANOTHER $2,002,000.00 TO FLY BACK TO HAWAII.

And has the final bill signed by the auto-pen.

What was so important that he had to get to Hawaii? Senator Daniel Inouye's funeral; Obama gave the eulogy.

Where he used the word 'I' 30 times.

You people who still support him:

Why?

Did Anybody Else Lose Two Days?

I almost feel like I had a Lost Weekend. I can't believe I missed posting Monday and Tuesday. Well, a belated Happy New Year!

I did have a lost couple of days; I was lost in a book. Started it Sunday and finished last night, along with a few other things. I had to finish before I started back to work; I knew I wouldn't have time to read for the next few weeks.

I intend to do a review here in a few days, as soon as I collect my thoughts. I read the whole book- 1087 pages- and there is a lot to digest. It will be an interesting review; trust me.

The New Year so far has been good. The weather hasn't been too bad- 20's but sunny, and the family is all healthy.

And the 'Fiscal Cliff' has been avoided.

Well; postponed anyway. Maybe.

Interesting vote, wasn't it? According to the NBC News Article:

More Republican congressmen (151) voted against the Senate bill than for it (85), meaning that Democrats' support was needed to advance the final deal. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, took the rare step of casting a vote, and did so in favor of the legislation. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the former Republican vice presidential nominee, also supported the package. But Boehner's top two lieutenants, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., each opposed the deal.

I won't have a Congressman until tomorrow, so nobody to berate in the House. Paul Ryan's Yea surprised me. Was all of the deficit hawk just a campaign posture? Hard to tell at this point.

The Senate is another matter. I had to get after Mitch McConnell the other day; apparently I need to do it again. He needs to start paying more attention to the Junior Senator from Kentucky when it comes to voting the people's interest.

And then we go through it again in February. Oh well; no sense having the Republicans cave all at once. Lets break it up into 2 separate cave-ins.

But the good news is it is only the leadership that is caving; the rank and file are holding true. we just needed to change 45 more minds.

I'll have to see how many of those 45 were 'Lame Ducks' this session....

Cars Aren't Guns.

I saw this on a friend's Facebook page the other day- Post Newton obviously- and had to respond. Lets look at the points one by one, shall we?

First: Title and Tag at each point of sale. Anybody know why a car has a title? I mean, besides me? Well I'll tell you. Cars were initially treated like any other piece of personal property; horses; carriages; furniture for example. A Bill of Sale was prepared by the seller and given to the buyer along with the item. The Bill of Sale was your proof of ownership. The problem was automobiles were expensive, and usually left unaccompanied in public places. Unscrupulous individuals would drive off in your horseless carriage, forge a Bill of Sale to themselves and convert your property into cash. The only way to regain your property was through a lawsuit. So the several states decided to title cars and register the titles with the state in order to stop the lawsuits from multiplying with the number of vehicles on the road. That lead to licensing, and then taxing the automobile, until we got where we are today.

Yes; guns are stolen on a daily basis, and those stolen guns are re-sold and then used in the commission of various crimes. But I really don't want a state data base or each weapon and where it is to be created, especially since there is a small and vocal portion of the country who want to confiscate and destroy those weapons.

And just for the record, if a movement is ever created to confiscate automobiles, I would be in favor of ending the state control of the licensing and titling of automobiles as well.

Second: Training. Did you know it is entirely possible to legally own an automobile, and legally drive that automobile with out a license? You just can't drive it on public roads or property. But you can drive it on your own property. Same with a gun. You can legally own and carry a concealed firearm without a special permit. As long as you never leave your private property. I am all in favor of permits for concealed carry. When you are on public property and in public places your actions will affect others- including me- so a required training and licensing is not a problem for me. As long as it is the individual who is permitted, and not an individual weapon.

Third: Written Test- See Second, above.

Fourth: Practical Test- See Second, above.

Fifth: Health Requirements. One of the things a firearm does in level the playing field. It allows a 75 year old woman to be equal to her 25 year old attacker. What would a Health Requirement be? You can never be too old or frail to be able to use a weapon for protection.

Sixth: Insurance. Based on? A car is capable of doing expensive damage if misused, or even through no fault of the driver if there are adverse environmental conditions; rain, snow, ice or fog. There are statistics on everything on the insurability of an automobile- and its driver. The same car will vary, depending on the age, marital status, driving record and sex of its driver, just as the same driver's insurance cost will vary between a Camaro and a 4 door Accord.

What will be the standard? Last year guns were used in the commission of say, for the sake of argument, 300,000 crimes, from assault to robbery to murder. Who do we determine insurance rates? Out of the more than 300 million guns estimated to be in this country, 300,000- assuming each weapon was used only once to commit a crime- we are looking at a less than one tenth of one percent use for damage on average. And of the more than 200 million gun owners, again, less than one tenth of one percent have misused their weapons. And that demographic probably doesn't even carry car insurance.

The vast majority of gun owners are already responsible for their weapons. Insurance would be a superfluous requirement and an onerous burden for no practical purpose.

Seventh: Inspection and Renewal. For who? owners, concealed carry permit holders or the guns themselves? Inspections are a requirement that has been dropped for the most part for automobiles; Permit renewals are a requirement already for concealed carry, and again, I have no issue with that requirement. But a yearly requirement to have each weapon inspected would be just like insurance; an onerous burden for no practical purpose.

All in all, each of these requirements would be a gun banners dream; they could still allow gun to be 'legal' but practically outlawed.

All of you in favor of making those points requirements for a firearm, think about this:Each abortion performed would be required to have a permit issued by the state; training for the mother in what stage of development her baby is at; testing to make sure she has absorbed that training; she must have written permission of the father in order to have the abortion;a requirement that she be financially responsible for the proper burial of the baby and a requirement that she attend the burial.

Hey; what's your beef? Abortion is still legal.

Gas Drops = Economy Sucks- Says Obama

On the way home tonight I saw gas for $2.99 a gallon; down almost a buck since the election.

Remember what Obama said during the second debate with Romney about why gas was so cheap before he was elected?

Maybe a refresher?

OBAMA: Well, think about what the governor -- think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting.
So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/transcript-second-presidential-debate/#ixzz2FLzeEbTU

But if gas drops when the economy sucks; why is it dropping now, Mr. President?

Does your economy suck?

My guess is he doesn't think so.

And his probably doesn't.

It just that for the rest of the country the economy sucks, and has since 2008.