Smoking Gun

So everybody says (but the Democrats) that the 'Smoking Gun' email is out; the one that proves Obama lied about the Benghazi attack on purpose and for political motives.

Those of us who know Obama well knew this two years ago. Obama does NOTHING that doesn't have a political motive.

Like the whole Minimum Wage Senate vote. The whole thins was a sham; Harry Reid knew it wouldn't make it to the floor- Hell; I'll even bet him and McConnell had the whole thing planned out. The way the vote went plays well with both bases. So it was win/win.

But it was political.

Sorry for another short post, but my real job is breathing down my neck today, and there are only so many hours in the day.

I Must Be Missing Something

Well; first my apologies fro missing Sunday and Monday. Sunday was a up at dawn and work til dusk kind of day, and by the time I sat down I could stir enough mental acuity to say much of anything. I had a post written, but I doubt you wanted to see one that just said :"Tired".

And last night i had a minor family emergency to deal with; one that was more time consuming than a real emergency, but you know how it goes.

So tonight I am posting; but a short one. I have work work to do and I can't put it off anymore. But I will for a minute.

And I suppose I'd best spout off about that damfool billionaire who owns that one team or the other and said that stupid something.

As you can tell, I really care about basketball.

First; no matter how ignorant and opinion, you have the right to hold that opinion. If I want to believe that people who eat rice should not be allowed to vote, I have my right to that opinion. You also have the right to think I'm and idiot, and to call me an idiot. You have the right, as a private entity, to ban me from your insignificant little cabal.

So be it.

But the government has no right to do ANYTHING about my opinion. They can't fine me, they can't force me out of any insignificant little club I belong to; they can't put me in jail.

Does everybody understand that?

Now; can somebody explain why this damfool owner was set to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from the NAACP? All reports say these comments are nothing new; everyone has known for years that he is a bigot. Apparently everyone but the NAACP. They gave him some award or the other just a few years ago.

So; before this new evidence broke that this damfool was a bigot, everybody knew he was a bigot and the NAACP was still ready to give an award; one he was willing to accept (again) from an organization full of, and dedicated to the advancement of, people he despised.

Am I the only one having trouble making sense of this?

Foot-N-Mouth; Right Up to the Ankle

Well, apparently a couple of severe cases of Foot-N-Mouth disease have broken out.

One involves the challenger to the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, Matt Bevin. The first question I have is why all of the hype?

At a rally to encourage the legalization of Cockfighting in Kentucky, Senate hopeful Matt Bevin spoke. Not about cockfighting, or even the legality/illegality of cockfighting, but on states rights and the over reach of the Federal Government. There was no cockfighting at the rally at all, and no one spoke about cockfighting while Bevin was there. If Bevin was a Democrat we would have never known about the incident.

But he's not. And he is probably beating Mr. Inside-The-Beltway himself, Mitch McConnell. So the media will, between now and May 20, find any reason to bad mouth Matt Bevin. If Bevin gave a 5 minute speech at a Baptist Nursing Home, the media would use that to say he was calling for a return to Prohibition.

This is where McConnell is going. No attack ads on Bevin's positions, no discussion of the problems in Washington; no debates on the issues with Bevin. Have a field day on the fact that one day he spoke to a group who are LEGALLY advocating for a relaxation of the rules on cockfights. And Bevin is right; historically cockfighting was the purview of the wealthy. Some of the Founding Fathers would have attended cockfights, and doubtless some of them raised fighting cocks.

I'm saying that makes the practice fine; I'm saying that the activity was once not only legal, but accepted.

Bear in mind, I am not a fan of cockfighting. I think it is cruel to the animals and should be banned.

But that doesn't mean the effort to have it legalized should be banned. You have the right to free speech, not matter how vile your goal.

Or your speech.

Which brings us to case 2 of the Foot-N-Mouth Club; Clive Bundy. He is our 67 year old Nevada Rancher who is locked in a fight with the Federal Bureau of Land Management.

Yes; he open his mouth way to wide. Yes; what he said was offensive.

Now explain to me how his opinions on Blacks, Slavery and The Modern Welfare State have any effect on his battle with the BLM? Mr. Bundy has the right to hold and express any opinion he wants to hold or express. Can we call those opinions crazy, offensive, out-dated and worthy of the KKK? Yes we can. Can we let his opinions, however bizarre, become an issue in a situation that has absolutely nothing to do with anything he has expressed a stupid opinion on?

I also have my issues with this quote. Just like with Phil Robertson a few months back, I think a left leaning reporter created a situation from whole cloth. Not that he has put words into Bundy's mouth, but I do think a lefty reporter- like there is any other kind-  took an old man who has spent weeks under incredible pressure and let him talk until he got himself into trouble.

That doesn't mean I don't think Mr. Bundy holds these opinions, and that doesn't mean I agree with him, but it does mean that a sneaky bastard got an old man to spout off without his filter. And now is using that quote to discredit him.

And its working. Bundy's support is dropping away like the fall leaves from a maple.

Why? Does his opinion on anything but the BLM case matter to the BLM case?

Or is it that easy for the left to win? Coax someone to say something not generally accepted as a mainstream opinion and then the fight is over?

Clive Bundy's opinion on Blacks, Welfare and Slavery may not make him a more likeable character,  but it doesn't change his fight over land with the BLM.

Agenda 21; Ever Heard of It?

Have you ever heard of Agenda 21?  How about the United Nations?

Way back in 1992 President Bush went to Rio de Janeiro and signed a non-binding UN treaty to basically outlaw private property.

Okay, that is a bit of a stretch, but it is pretty much a master plan to control everything. as Wikipedia says:

Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.

How to define sustainable development is the next problem. Most, on the right and left, see this as expanding the cities and ending the idea of ever expanding suburbs. The left sees that as a plus; the right as a minus.

There are two things (well; at LEAST two things) wrong with city living; it limits your space and it makes you dependent on the government for basic necessities. I don't like either of those things. I want a yard- even if I crab about mowing it- and I want to be able to do as I please in that yard.

Monday night we had my sons and grand kids over for Easter dinner. It was a beautiful day, so we sat in the yard all day. I can remember the last time I ate Easter dinner at a picnic table. After dinner the kids ran in the yard and the adults sat around and shot the breeze.

Agenda 21 says that is wrong. Mowing that grass is now allowing for natural growth, and the flowers I have planted are invasive species that are killing off the native plants. We should have been in our 800 square foot apartment, or at a park if we wanted to be outside. we should leave the planting and such to professionals, trained in how to allow the native plants to thrive.

A few years ago I was watching This Old House, and as usual they were doing a home in the Boston area.

There was a controlled area at the rear of the property that was very restrictive as far as plantings, because it was near a navigable waterway. I have no idea why being near a waterway should determine what you plant, but this is Massachusetts. At any rate, the homeowner had to remove a common flowering plant (iris if I remember correctly) because it was not native, and could not touch the poison ivy, because it was a native plant. Yes; that's right. Flowers are verboten, but poisonous plants are not. Its all about the natural world, don't you see. Humans are interlopers. Humans have no rights. Poison Ivy does.

Another example; the Delta Darter. The state of California has restricted water rights to the San Joaquin River because low levels are endangering the smelt. Instead of endangering this 2 inch long fish, the state has instead cut off water to one of the most productive farming valleys in California. The smelt may eat, but we won't.


Maybe instead of San Joaquin Valley vegetables, were supposed to eat Soylent Green?

Your Offense Offends Me

I was on the internet looking for another article I saw today about London's Billionaires (yes, with a 'B'; apparently the Millionaires can't afford to live there any more) Row, where almost 20 percent of the houses are abandoned to rot and ruin. Apparently its a tax thing; its cheaper to let them rot for 20 years and then repair them (sales tax wise, on repairs the tax is 20%; on rebuilds its 5%). Wouldn't it be nice to be able to let your 70 million POUND house rot for a few years to save 15% on the sales tax on rebuilding it? More Dollars than sense if you ask me.

But while I as looking I found this article, going on up in New Jersey. Apparently 2 Senior boys wore a Confederate Flag to an after-school sporting event. And got permanently suspended for it. Apparently some other students found it offensive. Okay; fair enough. I can see that there may be some narrow minded folks who fail to see the historical significance of and what the Confederate Flag actually stands for, and have placed their own values on it. and those values offend them.

So what? Where in the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, or any government document does it say you  have the Right not to be offended? If you find it, let me know; there are lots of things going on that offend me, and I want to start doing something about it.

But I said the other day, one of the things about rights is that they cost you nothing for me to exercise any of my rights. You exercising some right not to be offended, cost me my right to Free Speech; something enumerated in the Constitution, and not divined from some penumbral emanation.

Why would you have a right not to be offended? How would that right have come into being? How could you EVER exercise that right without trampling on someone else's right to something? And even if this right existed, who would determine whether your right not to be offended was greater or less than my right to Free Speech?

I know who decides; the left in this country have already determined these rules, and are working their damnedest to enforce them.

Wear a Confederate Flag and offend someone? You have no right to Free Speech. Wear a Gay Pride Flag and offend someone? You have no right to be offended. See how easy it is? So how WRONG it is?

Your right to Free Speech cannot be determined by what you will say with that right. There are limits obviously; the old Fire in a crowded theater chestnut applies. (Which is one of my goals. One day I want find a crowded Fire and shout "THEATER") but that is a safety issue, not a Opinion issue. If your right to Free Speech can be determined by those in power its not Free.

And why would you choose to never be offended? Galileo's ideas offended the Church; and he was silenced, before he was proven right. Martin Luther King's ideas offended those in power, and he was silenced, before he was proven right. Thomas Jefferson's and James Madison's ideas offended those in power, and the King tried to silence them. And failed.

And now the left is trying to silence them again.

Its up to us whether they fail or succeed.

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.

Because Educator!

I am involved in an email group for a local community that is more our less urban. This community shares a school system- ranked as one of the worst in the state- with a rather more inner-city community. The email group is, for the most part, well educated and financially successful.

And incredibly divided on the local school system. All it takes is an email to the group that mentions the word 'school' and the acrimony flies like rice once did at a wedding.

 Today somebody made the mistake of asking for the name of a good school for dog training, or some such, and the 'debate' was on.

After one well reasoned email explaining why it was tantamount to child abuse to subject your children to this local school, when for a few dollars more you could send your kids to one of the finest systems in the state in a neighboring district, we have this response:

I would have to disagree with you and say that yes, I do and am sending my kids, who are from foster care, to the public school. After careful thought and consideration, my partner and I decided on this District for several reasons:
1) we want our children to be in a diverse school where they're not the minority;
2) the believe that we have the ability and the desire to help improve the school where we live and spend our money; and lastly,
3) we don't want our kids to be isolated and in school with kids whose parents are bigoted, classist, racist neanderthals, who believe that just because they have, they do.

As an educator, I believe we have a responsibility to help prepare out kids for the real world - a world that includes, like it or not, people of different cultures, experiences, and income levels.  Granted you can send your kids wherever you want, and if you have the means, do what you feel is best. We've chosen to help support our own and have even volunteered at the local school to help make it better.  This is not a slam against you or anything you choose to do, but it seems to me if instead of sending our kids away, we all worked to make it better, these conversations wouldn't be necessary.



Wow. All I can say is Wow. Shall we break this down a bit?



I would have to disagree with you and say that yes, I do and am sending my kids, who are from foster care, to the public school.
Right off the bat we have to note that these are not her kids, but some she is being paid to raise; let'em go to Hell.

After careful thought and consideration, my partner and I decided on this District for several reasons:
DING DING DING DING DING; "PARTNER". So an unmarried couple, who are being paid to raise somebody else s kids choose the cheap way out. What a surprise.

 1) we want our children to be in a diverse school where they're not the minority;
Ooops; it seems the DIVERSITY Card has made an early appearance. Can some one explain to me why diversity makes an iota of difference in primary education? Why does your color, culture or social status affect the learning of 2+2=4?

2) the believe that we have the ability and the desire to help improve the school where we live and spend our money; and lastly, 
Admirable sentiment. And typical lefty tripe. Long on good feelings and very short on specifics. 

3) we don't want our kids to be isolated and in school with kids whose parents are bigoted, classist, racist neanderthals, who believe that just because they have, they do.
The Money Quote. The "You-don't-agree-with-me-so-you-are-every-evil-thing-I-can-think-of" response. Apparently having the ability to select a better education for your child, and having the ability to pay for that education makes you all sorts of nasty things. Go ahead; sacrifice your children on the alter of political correctness so this silly twit won't call you names anymore. Oh and you have more money than I do and I am bitter about it.


As an educator...
I rest my case; no further review is required. We MUST support the public schools, no matter how much damage they have done and will do, because EDUCATOR. That means whatever opinion you have on schools is wrong, because EDUCATOR. I spent $200,000 getting a degree that pays me $40,000 and that makes me smarter than you, because EDUCATOR.

Face it; we cannot force a child (or an adult) to learn anything we can present the information, and can ask them to learn, but they will only absorb what they want to learn. Books, computers, iPads, PowerPoints, movies or filmstrips; the presentation of the information is incidental to the child's desire to learn.

Abe Lincoln educated himself with borrowed books and the back o a shovel to practice on, because he WANTED to learn. He may have learned faster with an iPad, but the tools didn't effect the basic desire. Drug dealers who couldn't pass 5th Grade math can run a successful business because they learned what they wanted to and what they needed to along the way; the same way every past generation learned what it needed to survive and prosper.

We don't need to spend millions of dollars on schools; we don't need computers and iPads and tutors and hundreds of hours of testing.

We need to convince the child that the information we are giving them will be worthwhile retaining.

It is that simple.

And that hard.

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.

Allowance? What's an Allowance?

I had several things I considered blog worthy today, until late this afternoon when I saw this. It blew everything else out of the water.

Remember one name: Tanya Helfand. She is the attorney- the hopefully soon to be disbarred attorney- that represented an adult child, one who is suing her parents for Child Support.

No; you read that right. an adult child who is suing her parents for Child Support. And Tuition. And her Allowance!

As always, the stories differ some. But some facts are not in dispute.

Last October Rachel Canning turned 18. At that point she moved out of her parents' home. The parents are claiming she left because they were requiring her to adhere to a curfew and do chores around the house.

She is first claiming that they threw he out of the house, and then claiming, through her mouthpiece, “Her home life is an "abusive unhealthy situation,". To be fair, to an 18 year old chores and a curfew are considered abusive.

But; I digress.

Now little Miss Rachel Rich has discovered something her parents apparently never taught her; Money has to be earned. She apparently has no appetite for work, but does have the name and phone number of a shyster willing to risk their license to practice law.

Before I continue, let me explain something. Attorneys are officers of the court, and as such are not supposed to waste the court's time. Attorneys can be sanctioned for doing so. I would think this case fits that bill.

But; to continue; she has sued her parent to pay not only her high school tuition, some $5,300.00, but also her college tuition, her allowance and 'Child Support' as well as her attorney fees.

Tuesday the Family Court Judge in the case ruled that they parents do not have to pay her high school tuition bill, but must pay her an allowance and Child Support. The unnamed judge has delayed ruling on whether or not the parents need to pay for her college, but did deny her request for attorney's fees.

Did I mention this is NEW JERSEY? While I am disbarring an attorney for a frivolous waste of the courts time, this nutcase judge is AGREEING with her.

According to her father: "Private school, new car, college education; that all comes with living under our roof".

Oh, but damn the bad luck, all that largesse also comes with rules. Want the goodies without the grief? Hire a lawyer and sue.

Core of this case, in my opinion? What claim on a parents' assets does a competent adult child have?

My answer? None; nadda, zip. A parent is required to raise a child. hopefully they have done a good job and turned that child into a successful adult by the age of 18. A adult who can support themselves; feed clothe and house themselves. Find and keep a job. CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY.

If they haven't; they apparently can get sued for support. And Allowance.

Disgusting.

Here is another problem I see with this scenario as well; does this situation remind you of anything? People who want the goodies without the grief? You know; food clothing and shelter without the issue of needing to actually, you know, EARN any of those things?

Yep. Exactly.

UPDATE: the article I read and linked to yesterday has been changed. Originally it said the judge had approved the allowance and support for our young adult; now it says otherwise. Which is good in a lot of respects, but it does make me look like I have a reading comprehension problem.

I also read a few more details today that really put the slime into this situation. Apparently our plaintiff is living with a friend and their family, and it is the father of this friend (an attorney) who is currently footing the bill for the lawsuit, and recommended the filing of the suit to the plaintiff. The article doesn't describe the friend; that makes me wonder if she is living with her boyfriend's family? And why is Dad pushing this suit?

Something doesn't pass the smell test; at least to me.

On the Butcher Block

Well; they are at it again.

Carter did it; Clinton did it and now Obama is doing it.

Read the US Constitution. It is written in pretty plain English, unlike some modern laws that seem to be written in Sanskrit. There is a direct charge to the Federal Government to pay for an Army and Navy. Defense of our borders is, in some respects, the ONLY charge to the Federal government.

Yet when money gets "tight" (yes I am using that word sarcastically) the first cuts are in Defense. There are so many things wrong with this announcement  i don't know where to start.

How about here: The cuts assume the United States no longer becomes involved in large, prolonged stability operations overseas on the scale of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Really? And what happens if that assumption is wrong? NO problem; call up more of the National Guard and Reserves. Except, damn the bad luck; they are getting cut too. So with less regular Army and less Guard and Reserve Units, what happens when the manure hits the fan? What happens when Iran and North Korea conspire to attack Israel and South Korea at the same time, plunging two areas of the globe into chaos at the same time?

I'll tell you what happens. Have you ever locked two feuding boys into a room without parental supervision? Then come back a hour later to the utter devastation? Without the US as a stabilizing force a Korean conflict will drag in Japan and China at least. An Iran- Israel war will drag in Iraq and Syria and probably Egypt as well. And maybe Russia, as a 'silent' partner. Which side of the world would we respond to? Where would the limited resources get allocated?

Which ally will we throw to the dogs? and don't mention the United Nations as a solution; without US firepower (both figurative and literal) they are a laughing stock.

Don't misinterpret me; I don't want the United States military to be used the world's policeman. I don't want out best young men dying between the fighting factions in a backwater Civil War. But like it or not, our country has international interests; both treaty and trade related.

Those interests need to be protected. We can no more abandon South Korea than we can, should she require our help, England.

But these cuts may force just such a decision. There is a reason we have not had a Army smaller than it now for the last 70 years; its because we need to be prepared to not just fight a war on two continents; we need to WIN both wars.

Have you ever watched a show on the nature channel? Have you ever watched a pride of lions chase after a herd of wildebeests? Have you ever seen them take on the biggest meanest one they could find? No, they are chasing the old, the sick, the weak. The vulnerable.

Have you ever watched a how on a wolf pack, or a wild horse hear or a any other group of wild animals? They all have A leader. When is that leader challenged? when he is at the height of his power? Or during his decline?

Like it or not it has been both the United States' power- and willingness to use that power- that has kept the world largely at peace since 1945. What happens when that power is no longer there?

Its not just our way of life we need to worry about (although I do see an increasing testing of US resolve in the last 4 years; and there will be more and more incidents to test 'President Bluster' in the coming year; watch carefully the response to his 'line' in the Ukraine), but also that of our allies. Yes Israel is a potent force, but it is the looming US Club that has helped keep the rest of the Middle East at bay. And yes; we have interests other than Israel in the Middle East; a conflict in that area would be disastrous to energy prices, not to mention the possibility of Moslem uprisings in any country in Europe that joined in on Israel's side. Yes; quite a few countries have sizable Moslem populations, like France, Belgium and England; enough that could swing a balance of power in a 2015 Mideast War.

The thing the Obama Regime doesn't think about when doing their figuring: Cutting Defense is easy.

Dealing with the results of those cuts will be hard. Hopefully not harder than we can cope with.

But I have my doubts. And the history of this Administration does nothing to ease those doubts.

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.

Is a Polar Vortex a Rock Band?

I hate to constantly blog about the weather, but right now the weather is a hot topic, no pun intended.

Few days ago we had a high of -10 degrees. Today we are looking at a high in the low 50 degree range; a sixty degree difference in less that a week.

Almost like I had hopped a plane from Alaska (which was actually warmer than Kentucky last week) to northern Texas. I went from sweating how I would pay my heating bill to sweating inside a light jacket.

What a January this has been. And it is supposed to be chilly again this coming week, as the Polar Vortex swings back into town.

I want to be on the committee that sits around and dreams up these names, I swear I do. Okay; I'm not certain there is a committee, but I'd bet there is. Not bet the farm certain, but bet a strawberry milkshake certain.

How else do we wind up with meteorological terms like Polar Vortex? Or Wintery Mix? Or my personal favorite: microburst event.

I mean seriously; Polar Vortex? it sounds like a movie title, for a cheap James Bond style rip-off. Or maybe a Captain Video style Saturday Morning Serial Hero.

I can hear the snorts and laughter in the background; So I think I could do better?

Yes; I think I could.

Just off the top of my head, how about:

Cold Snap

It describes the weather event, conveys all of the information the listener needs to know and doesn't require anything more than a free phone app to understand.

Of course , it does fail in some ways that really don't matter.

It can no way be connected to "Global Warming"; "Global Cooling" or even "Climate Change".

Which I don't actually consider a fault.

Isn't that where these newfangled terms come from? I mean it is Really hard to connect a cold snap to any Man Caused Global weather change. My Great-Grandma lived through cold snaps.  My Dad knows what a cold snap is. They were common when I was growing up. Nothing new about a cold snap.

BUT a Polar Vortex; that is something new. We have never had cold weather caused by a Polar Vortex before. There just might be something to this "Global Weather changy-thingy" after all.

But I would be willing to bet that every cold snap this area has ever lived through was caused by the same phenomenon that is now gloriously called a Polar Vortex.

This may sound like a meaningless issue, but it isn't. Language has to mean something. Not just once, but consistently. And it has to be free.

The idea that a cold snap can suddenly become a Polar Vortex means some part of the language has lost its meaning. How far is it from the point where language is controlled to the point where language is forbidden? And then the concepts behind those words forbidden?

We have a lot of freedoms in this country, but the freedom from being offended isn't one of them.

Unless you happen to be in a legally protected group. As a male Christian, I am not in any protected group. I am legally not allowed to be offended by anything, but am legally bound to not offend anyone that may disagree with me.

So I think a Polar Vortex is a cold snap, dressed up in a borrowed tuxedo, and I dare you to disagree with me.

Arguing about the weather is still the one area we can discuss without me causing any offense. At least it was the last time I checked.

I'll Take the Ferrari, Thanks

I was perusing Instapundit this morning and saw this headline: "When Going to College is Like Buying a Ferrari on Credit.". Yeah, that caught my eye. It linked to this article on The Blaze, which references an article by Glenn Reynolds, aka Instapundit. If it wasn't such a good article I'd make some comment about shameless self promotion.

It is especially timely because I was talking to my nephew last weekend, and he mentioned some schools he was interested in, and at one of them a four year degree costs $200,000.00.

I checked. You can't get a Ferrari for $200k. At least you can't get a NEW Ferrari for $200k. That amount of cash will get a very nice 2 year old Ferrari however.

The thing is, the government will lend an 18 year-old kid that $200,000.00 IF he spends it at a college of their choice.

They will not lend an 18 year old kid that amount for a used Ferrari.

I think that's a shame. How about a little analysis?

Lets say I buy an indocrina... I mean 'Education' with that money. What will that education be worth in 10 years? How about a show of hands? How much of what you learned during your four years of undergrad do you still remember and/or still use? And I mean what you learned in THE CLASSROOM! How many of you are earning a living based on the field your degree was in? How many of you are using your Geology Degree as a basis for your management position in the growing field of fast food?

Now lets buy that used Ferrari!

First; having a car like that will open lots of doors. Not a member of the Hill 'n Dale Country Club? Roll up in a Ferrari; I'll bet they let you in. Roll up in your 10 year old beater Taurus and flash you degree from the University of Beer and Broads; my guess is they will hand you an employment application. For kitchen help.

Roll up to ANY hot spot in the city: Ferrari- you have a girl. Degree- you may get a free beer and some commiseration from the bartender, using his $200,000.00 Humanities Degree to mix drinks and change out empty beer kegs.

I could go on (And on. And on. And on...) but you get the picture. Plus; most, if not all Ferraris appreciate in value. Historically, the older a Ferrari gets the more it is worth. So your $200k investment today will net you double that in 15 years. Give or take.

Economists talk about something called 'Opportunity Cost of Money'; spending your cash one way means, as money is individually finite, you cannot spend it another way. Meaning every dollar you spend on rent is one less dollar you have for beer. Or vise versa. Every dollar you spend repaying that $200,000.00 in student loans is one dollar less you have for a house payment, car payment, 401k funding. Or beer.

I'm not against a college education. In fact, for certain positions I am positively for it. What I'm against is the ubiquitous nature of the college degree. One purchased at fantastic cost, on credit, and never used.

What are you buying for your Two Hundred Thousand Dollars and no sense (pun intended)? The piece of heavy stock paper with you name on it (which cost the college $1.45- it pays to buy in bulk) or the education that you allegedly obtained in your chosen field of study?

So; just how often will a discussion of the finer points of Women's Studies come up in the slack times between asking "do you want fries with that?"

I know some folks in the Payday Lending field. Before you can borrow $200 they must fully disclose the terms, interest rate and how much you will be paying back.

When you borrow $200,000.00 in student loans, some student- working at the school to avoid student loan debt- will advise you to "sign here to pay for next semester".

How many 18 year-olds would hesitate to sign if they knew the money they were borrowing today would still be coming out of their paycheck when they they are 40?

And that this debt will cost them that used Ferrari?

Do Emission Standards Equal Horsepower?

Amazing how, at times, a simple article can start a massive discussion on several other, tangentially related, topics.

Take this post over at The Truth About Cars. Starts off with a rant from a used auto dealer about the deals he has missed because his county still has emission control checks.

Then it sways into the difficulty of diagnosing a glowing Check Engine Light, and the various ways to defeat, where it is legal to, the emissions systems.

And then swings off into the Constitutionality of Emissions checks as opposed to emissions systems, with a swing back to whether the checks and the systems themselves serve a public purpose, and should be a legitimate function of government.

Wow; that's a lot of territory.

Ya wanna know what I think?

Of course you do; you've read this far, haven't you?

Back in the day of the big block engine with points and a carb we re getting about 10% of the power of the gasoline to the road. The rest didn't burn, and washed into the oil or trickled out the exhaust pipe.

Yep; we was polluting. Part of the advances in emissions have lead to less gasoline being a pollutant, and more of it being turned into horsepower. That's how you can have a Ford Focus with 420 horsepower. These systems have also become more reliable. Fuel injection is not new. Automakers experimented with it in the 1930's. Chevrolet had a production FI unit in 1957.

But they were about as reliable as $3.00 watch. So the idea was shelved until it had to be revived.

Not that I think the current state of automotive technology is solely the result of emissions standards. Physically engines could only get so big in an automobile; 500 cubic inches was about all there was. New ideas had to be developed to squeeze more horsepower out of a drop of gasoline. The technology that was developed would have been developed where there were emissions standards or not. Maybe not as quickly, but it still would have been developed.

Things would have worked just like all the others advances had; high end manufacturers would experiment and develop; the mid-level would  produce thousands of units, and the consumers would do the road testing for a few years until the bugs were worked out.

Without emissions standards would we have street legal cars pushing 600 horsepower? Oh yeah.

The market would have demanded it, and the automakers would have made it happen.

Repent! The End is Near!

Oh Crap.

I agree with John Kerry on something.

But, in my defense, I have been saying this for years; he has been living it for years.

And, I'm not sure we both mean the same thing.

Our Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, allows us freedom to be in charge of ourselves. We aren't wards of the State, to be cosseted and controlled.

We can, for fun and recreation, jump out of perfectly good aircraft. We can climb shear rock walls, depending solely on our fingertips and toes. We can jump off of cliffs, and hang suspended by 10 yards of fabric and an aluminum frame.

We have the ability to determine for ourselves what is fun and safe.

Do some of us make bad decisions when it comes to safe and fun?

Indubitably. The phrase "Hold my beer and watch this" comes to mind.

Some also make the wrong decision when it comes to what is recreation, or over indulge in that recreation. Drugs and alcohol in particular. A few beers every now and again isn't a problem. Staying drunk for weeks on end is. But we are allowed that stupidity. We may have family and friends who will work toward making us sober up, but the state cannot intervene without being asked to.

The symptoms can be addressed- public intoxication for example- but the state cannot forbid us from purchasing and consuming alcohol.

That is our right; the right to be stupid.

The Constitution created a limited Federal government, and the Bill of Rights further limited the reach and scope of that Federal Government. Why was that?

Look at two Amendments in particular; the Second and the Ninth.

Take a look at the Aurora, Colorado shootings. One person in that room had weapons. That person became the one in control. He alone determined who would leave that room unscathed, wounded or dead. Everyone else had been disarmed, by law and custom, and were, barring random chance, at the mercy of the armed shooter. He was in control, and it was the weapon (a weapon held illegally) that gave him that control.

The Second Amendment hands us the ability to be in control of our own destiny. We can use that weapon to hunt and feed ourselves. We can use that weapon to defend our lives and property. We can use that weapon to defend our liberties, just as the men who wrote the Constitution had done.

The choice is ours. We determine what is worthy of defense; which life, which property, which liberty.

We also have the choice not to arm ourselves. To choose not to defend our lives, our property, our liberty. To submit to the control of a cosseting government; to surrender our labor to the government for a doled out share of health and wealth. a share not determined by how hard we work, but by a far off bureaucrat, more interested in our political worth and reliability.

But that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

The Ninth Amendment also limits the power of the Federal government; reserving to the individual all of the powers not reserved to the Federal government.

And believe it or not, not withstanding a lot of.... Well; most of the recent activity in Washington, the Federal government did not retain the right to act with acute stupidity.

I have no idea what Kerry meant by his statement, but I do know what I meant by mine. 

We may have used the same words, but I doubt we really had the same meaning.

UFOs Don't Exist Either

Two things I seem to remember from last years election; One- the entire election would be determined by Hamilton County, Ohio; and Two- there is no voter fraud.

Having spent many hours trying to figure out how Obama got re-elected (I admit I am probably the guy who has caused the shortage of Maker's Mark. Obama isn't only a good gun salesman- he has also increased the sales of hard liquor) I think this video answers a lot of questions.

How Much Did You Miss Yesterday?

Was yesterday a bust-ass day or what?

Half a dozen bloggable things happening and I, to use my Dad's phrase, felt like death warmed over.

I'm a little better today, but not by much. Now I'm only a near death experience warmed over.

Rand Paul hit Hillary rather hard yesterday, didn't he? Not hard enough, but still, harder than anybody else did.

And he's right. We not only no longer keep score in kid's sports, apparently we no longer keep score in government.

Who was responsible for the four deaths in Libya? What  is/will be their punishment?

What are we doing to make sure this does not happen again?

All questions that should be asked and answered.

But won't be. We don't want to ruin somebody's career over a little thing like this, now do we?

Even Hillary's. She will bail on the job of Secretary of State- a 'post turtle position' for her for sure. And don't even get me started on Kerry's "QUALIFICATIONS"- and retire to her estate in New York or somewhere, and start showing up at shopping malls and diners in Iowa in a couple of years.

And no one will ever mention it was her inadequacies and errors that cost us the lives of 4 Americans, including an Ambassador.

And then we have Biden hinting he will be in the running in 2016. Why? is he looking for another 4 years as Vice-President?

And last, but by no means least, we have Leon Panetta stopping on his way out the door as Secretary of Defense to announce the end of the ban on women in combat roles.

Really? Talk about dumping a hot mess into the lap of whoever is next Secretary. Who is the current sacrificial lamb? Is it still the RINO Hagel? But that description even gives RINO's a bad name. When was the last time we actually had a Democrat as Secretary of Defense? The middle of the Clinton Administration? 20 some years ago?

Why don't any Democrats want the job? Too much responsibility? You can lose a few diplomats an still keep your job. Lose a dozen young men and there is Hell to pay.

And of course they won't change the standards; any woman wanting a combat MOS will need to meet the same standards as the men currently do.

Yeah; that'll last. Only until the first batch of 250 women wing up producing 5 qualified applicants.

Three of which who will withdraw when they break a nail.

And then watch the race to the bottom.

I'll be blunt; I have never served in a combat unit. But I have served in the military, and I have seen what happens to a group of young adult males when a few women have been dumped among them.

It ain't pretty. The men lose all control and the women gain it. And nobody can resist following their instincts to protect the weaker sex.

It wasn't just in the military; I saw it happen in the workforce too. Not as pronounced- because the folks are older, in general- but still the same jealousies and conflicts.

Comparisons will be made to the integration of the services during the Truman Administration. Some of them may be valid, but I really doubt there were breakdowns in unit cohesion because the new arrivals stopped dating one fellow soldier and started dating another, or a breakdown in discipline because of an over protective attitude toward the black unit member.

Hopefully we can start reversing the damage before it's too late.

But I am starting to have my doubts.

23 times ZERO Equals Nothing

I was looking for a list of Obama's 'NEW AND IMPROVED' gun control measures so I could snark.

Instapundit lead me here. And he does teh snark at least as well as I could have, and with absoluteley no effort on my part.

Well, except for the pun in my headline.

You Can't Do That Here

I don't know what to say. This brought tears to my eyes.

Tears of laughter.

Having spent a year or two as a civilian Federal Employee I can verify that this could happen.

The only thing that surprises me is that a supervisor pulled the write-up. Most of the second level supervision is dumber than the most of the first line supervision.

Here's the other funny part:

Do you think this is the only stupid write-up this supervisor has ever done?

Yeah, I doubt it too.

Here's the unfunny part:

Your tax dollars pay these people.

The Zombie Apocalypse is Here

I ran into this article the other day about 'zombie foreclosures'.

Absolutely sickening.

Consistent readers will note that I have had a long term interest in the housing market and the attendant foreclosure crisis. Part of the reason for my concern was situations just like this.

I'll be blunt; the banks in this nations have been getting a legal pass for years in foreclosures, basically because the debtors never fight back. Statistically only a small percentage ever file a response, and it is not the court's job to protect your rights; its your job the spell out those rights and ask the court to enforce them.

Since the debtors rarely have done that, lenders and their attorneys have become increasingly lax about addressing those rights in their own pleadings and official paperwork.

Ever heard of Robo-Signing? Basically, in order to file suit you need an affidavit- a sworn statement- of the facts, and that statement requires the signer to state that they have 'personal knowledge' of the facts they have just sworn to.

Guess what? In some (maybe a majority, and maybe a VAST majority of the)  cases they did not. These sworn affidavits would be signed without  review of the file or any knowledge, much less personal knowledge, of the facts.

Another issue was banks foreclosing on mortgages they didn't legal own. In order to have the power to foreclose a lender either has to have a mortgage of record or a valid assignment of that mortgage of record in the county where the property is located, and usually the county where the foreclosure is taking place.

This was a requirement the courts have only recently- since 2010 or so- been enforcing, by requiring the lender to file a copy of the assignment with the foreclosure complaint. But for years banks were able to process a foreclosure through the Sheriff's sale and taking possession without ever legal proving they had the authority to do so.

So we have been through the robots and now we are on to zombies. One more way for the banks to steal by using the court system.

And why are the banks behaving like this? Well, I can think of multiple reasons.

1. The Cities and Counties are making the banks maintain the homes they have title to;
2. The housing market is still collapsing, and the banks know it;
3. The debt they are owed is well above the value of the property;
4. The costs of maintaining and selling the property cut into what little profit there is in the property;
5. The legal risks of owning the property outweigh the benefit of having title;
6. The legal fees are lower, because they have cut out approximately 40% of the process;
7. The judgment can be held over a creditors head for years, guaranteeing the creditor or collector will receive some payment.

Cities and Counties. I have some experience in two of the cites named in the article, both in Ohio. In these areas- especially Cleveland/Cuyahoga County- the government is cracking down hard on bank owned property. Some communities are requiring owners to maintain the property in a livable condition, meaning working plumbing and electrical, intact windows and doors and a good coat of paint.

The problem is these communities are incredibly depressed. Property values are basically the based on the amount of copper in the standing structure. Homes are selling for less than $10,000 on a consistent basis. Yet, as soon as the local thieves break down your door and steal all of the wiring and copper plumbing, the owner is required to make repairs. For the second, third or fourth time.

Although conceived as a plan to keep the community livable and to make sure the banks didn't become owners of vast swaths of decaying property, the banks quickly developed a work around. Knowing they held a $40,000 mortgage and a $45,000 judgment, the property would sell for less than $20,000, of which they would realize, after taxes, real estate commissions, transfer costs and the cost of the foreclosure action itself, maybe $10,000. Better to sell the judgement to a third-party collector than actually take the collateral for the debt. This instantly solves items 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

It contributes to item 2, but what do the banks care? Housing will depreciate whether they take title or not. Item 7 is the leverage the banks have when they sell the judgment. In most states this judgment will last 10-15 years, and be a lien on any property the debtor owns. They are unable to buy another home; the judgment would have priority the new mortgage, so the banks won't lend, and if they can scrape up enough cash for a home, the judgment can be enforced against the new house. The debt collector will get his money in better than 60% of the cases.

Not that I am against debtor's paying their debts or banks making a profit or taking advantage of a legal procedure. But a long standing process for the repayment of a bad mortgage has been established. It's the reason the property was pledged as collateral for the loan.

But the process of failing to complete the sale of the property is criminal. After all, no law requires these banks to purchase the property at sale. Let the property go to sale, accept the proceeds of the sale to a third party against your judgment and then file for a deficiency judgment for the balance, which they can then sell to the third-party collector.

Then it becomes a better situation all the way around. The debtor no longer has possession of the property; the bank has their mortgage satisfied; the property has a new owner who will start caring for it immediately, which helps the community, and the bank has no liability to assume or portfolio of real estate to manage.

There is probably a very good reason that banks have decided on their current course of action instead of the one I propose.

But I'll be honest; I can't see what it would be.

But maybe because I'm not a bean counter at some Lender or another.