A Mind from Nowhere to Nowhere

These unseasonably warm days can leave a fella parched. So, I stepped into an unfamiliar bar for just a quick one. Just as I got settled in with a nice cold draft, the guy on the stool next to me decided to comment on something that came on the corner television. “Bullet train! With all the gun carnage these days, that’s just what we need – more bullets.”

Surely, I must have heard this guy wrong. “What was that?” I inquired.

“The Bullet Train. They just said on TV that it’s coming to California.” He said, “Don’t these shooters have enough bullets without bringing in another train load?”

All right, he’s a little mixed up. “The Bullet train is a train that goes something like 150 miles per hour.” I said.

“Geez, these nuts can’t get their bullets fast enough?”

Now I am bewildered. “Did you vote in the 2008 election?” I asked.

“Sure, I voted for Obama … and again for him in 2012.” He said proudly.

“What about the propositions? Do you remember prop 1A, also known as the California High-speed Rail proposition?”

“I don’t even look at those propositions. I only vote for the President. The other stuff on the ballot isn’t very interesting so I ignore it. Sometimes, I might even vote for some of the other Democrats, though.”

“Wow! How do you decide which ‘other’ Democrats to vote for?” I had to ask.

“Easy. I watch MSNBC. If they talk about a Democrat, he’s worth a vote.”

Trying not to visibly shake my head, I said, “Do you have any idea how the government works?”

“That’s a stupid question. Of course I do. The President runs everything. He tells all the states what to do.”

Given the way the Obama administration is shaping up, that might be a hard point to dispute, even though that is not what the US Constitution or State Constitution says.

It was time to get this conversation back on-track. “Okay, let’s get back to the Bullet Train,” I said.

“The Bullet train is not a train full of bullets. It’s a super fast commuter train that will supposedly run from San Francisco to LA. A $9.9 billion bond issue to raise money for the line was voted on in 2008. The referendum passed by a 52.7% margin. The original cost estimate when the proposition appeared on the ballot was $33 billion, but it has now mushroomed to $91.5 billion for full completion of the 800-mile line.

“During the lifetime of this boondoggle, our illustrious Governor, Jerry Brown – a Democrat – has insisted on pushing this train down he throats of Californians. The controversy is enormous, including the massive cost increase, route selection, use of existing – low speed – tracks, and phasing of the project that lead to calling it the ‘train from nowhere to nowhere.’”

A look of amazement crossed his face, and I mistook it for understanding. “No bullets?” He asked.

“No! They are not carrying bullets on the bullet train.” I said.

“Good,” He said. “The Democrats don’t like bullets.”

“Are you married?” I asked.

“Going on five years.” He said.

There goes the gene pool. I thought to myself.

“Congratulations, “ I said, and left with half a glass of beer standing on the bar. I just lost my taste for it.

Olympics: Synchronized Yawning

 Did you get to see much of the Olympics? Maybe I’m just getting to be an old grouch, but the winter Olympics just don’t seem to be as exciting as I remember in years past. Okay, for you youngsters who can’t remember anything before the ‘80s, I’m talking about games in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Even clips of games before then seemed more … special.

In my mind, sports should be tests of strength and endurance – things the Greeks thought useful competitions—who could throw a spear furthest or run fastest for the longest distance, who could take another man down, who could shoot straightest for the farthest distance. Sure, these were more militaristic than Basketball, but they proved the physical and mental value of the contestants in activities that really counted in those days.

I’m sorry, but ice dancing just doesn’t fit my idea of a sport. Disney on Ice just doesn’t generate the same excitement as hockey. Snowboarding – skateboarding on snow – may be fun for the snowboarder, but of what real-life use are all the twisting and turning and other antics?

And what happened to the Biathlon? Was it broadcast? Skiing and shooting, now that is a useful event.

Maybe Bode Miller could out ski Franz Klamer, but when Klamer was on the slopes, the crowd went wild. Today we hear more about the politics and behind the scenes hijinks of athletes than the actual competition.

No matter what the Olympic Committee President says, politics are a major issue in the competition. If they were serious about being non-political, they would not announce the nationality of contestants. This time we even have sexual orientation foisted on us as an issue. When did this become a sport? Although things could get interesting in Sochi, where restrooms have twin commodes and unisex restrooms.

There are fifteen categories for the winter  “sports” and forty-one summer categories. But how can synchronized swimming, artistic gymnastics, and rhythmic gymnastics be even remotely considered a sport? Maybe they could add Swan Lake and the Nutcracker as Olympic events.

Many of the Olympic “sporting events” exclude countries because the seasons (winter and summer) aren’t universally the same. Jamaica made news when they sent a bobsled team one year. But where are the Jamaican snowboarders skiers. And don’t look for a Siberian synchronized swim team. Did you see the Saudi ice dancers? Neither did I.

There are many sports, popular in a number of countries, which the Olympic committee has skipped. How about including calf roping, bull riding, or American Football?

Maybe the running of the bulls could liven up the Olympics. Gold medals could go to the person watching the last bull go by without being gored or trampled. How about bull fighting? Gold could go either to a bull or a fighter which ever leaves the arena alive and not critically injured. They could save big on silver and bronze medals.

Formula racing is bound to be more exciting than ice dancing or curling. To add real excitement, though, they could even race the cars on an ice rink.

Imagine the excitement an event combining javelin throwing and, say, 1000-yard sprint would generate. Combining shot-put throwing with shot-put catching would sure open eyes.

Unfortunately, any new events will be more on the order of synchronized basket weaving, and combined paint drying and political discourse.

Gun-grabbers: 1, Citizens: 0

 Politicians – mostly in “Blue” states – are desperate to impress their left-leaning constituents with their  “tough-as-nails” stance on gun violence. And in California they are well on their way toward winning the thinly disguised goal to altogether eliminate privately owned firearms.

For years, they have been chipping away at the second amendment rights of Californians through asinine legislation on ammunition and firearms with little or no affect on the crime rate regarding violence in which a gun is involved. Each year, it seems that each legislative session would not be complete without a massive number of bills restricting gun ownership and use.

It looks like this state’s gun-grabbers have finally hit the jackpot with the microstamping law. Every new weapon sold in the California is now required to have a laser-etched serial number engraved on the firing pin and breach.

The idea is that when the firing pin hits the primer it will leave an impression of the serial number on the primer of the spent cartridge. In Addition, the force of the cartridge against the breach (bolt or breach block) will leave an additional serial number impression on the edge of the cartridge.

So now you have easily identifiable rounds left at a crime scene. Ain’t technology great?

Sturm Ruger and Smith and Wesson don’t seem to think so. They have ceased all sales in California. That’s right folks; of all the hoops and hurdles being forced on gun makers, microstamping was one too many. The gun-grabbers have obtained their real objective  of forcing gun sales out of the state – at least for two of the high-quality brands of weapons.

Neither Ruger nor Smith and Wesson have ever made what could be remotely considered “Saturday night specials.”

Apparently, it makes no difference to the misguided lawmakers that their over-the-top law won’t work. They got the result they were after from two manufacturers and others are sure to follow the exodus.

Reason and logic have always been in short supply in Sacramento. Here are some of the things our not-so-astute lawmakers might have overlooked:

Topping the list is that Law Enforcement weapons are exempt from microstamping. This is absurd from two standpoints. First, how will cartridges from legally exempt weapons be recognized from those fired from weapons bought before the law went into effect? Second, now manufacturers are forced to make a civilian model and a police model just to sell in California.

If we discount the not-insignificant cost of laser etching firing pins and breaches, the concept falls flat on its face when you realize how easy it is to defeat the stamping. Due to the very small size of the etch, it would be easier to grind off the mictostamps than it is to remove the serial number from a gun’s frame.

What happens when a broken firing pin is replaced? Even if the replacement has been microstamped, it is unlikely to match the etching on the breach. Will that be a problem? Will the owner need to re-register the weapon?

And that’s another flaw in the law. Obviously, the original purchaser will need to register the gun – microstamp serial number and all. Additional buyers (second, third, etc.) will need to re-register, but how will they get the microstamp code? What happens if the weapon is stolen or lost and the owner is unaware  it is gone? He could now be charged with a crime he didn’t commit simply because he didn’t know his gun was taken without his knowledge and didn’t report the loss.

Are our lawmakers so inept and naive that they haven’t considered these flaws? Or are they merely sly enough to know that if they impose ridiculous regulations on manufacturers that gun makers will just quit selling in the state?

Today this oppression exists only in California, but you can bet other “Blue” states are taking a hard look at the underhanded tactics used here. The only question is how long will it be before microstamping laws spread across the country. Now that the gun-grabbers have found that they can achieve their goals by imposing economically restricting regulations on gun makers, they are very likely to create even more until there are no more manufacturers left in this country.

Our grandkids will ask, “Grampa, what was the second amendment all about?”

The 50 Years War

 No, I’m not talking about Lyndon Johnson’s war on the Vietnamese people or even the war in Afghanistan, although it seems like it has been at least 50 years long. Time flies when you’re getting shot at.

It was around 50 years ago that Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. I remember it well. At the time, I was earning barely enough to put food on the table for my family – wife and three daughters. I didn’t consider us as impoverished, but going to University full-time and working two jobs left me tired and broke. A war on poverty didn’t sound so bad then.

Of course, the devil is always in the details. I soon found out that a rising tide doesn’t always float all boats. Mine must have been stuck in the mud.

Then President Johnson managed to create a HUD sponsored mortgage program for low-income applicants. It was the centerpiece of his war on poverty, intended to give everyone a chance at the American dream of home ownership. It sure gave the home construction industry a shot in the arm.

At that time, I lived in Indiana, just along the south end of Lake Michigan and had to drive through the city of Gary along I-94 to get to school and one of my jobs. Almost overnight the swampy and run-down area on both sides of the Interstate became filled with houses.

In the ‘60s the demographic of Gary was about 70 percent poor Blacks. President Johnson’s HUD program seemed to give nearly all of them a fine new start in the brand new houses along the Interstate. The new developments filled quickly, but within the next couple of years, the area became increasingly depopulated. It wasn’t long until it could easily qualify as a slum.

One day, as I drove by, I noticed heavy equipment leveling the area where just a few years before they had built fine new houses.

If you can remember, the ‘60s was also a time when the civil rights movement provoked huge changes in the racial tenor of the country. When I applied for a HUD mortgage, I was turned down even though I am certain I made more money than many of the people in the Gary housing developments. HUD said I didn’t earn enough to qualify. Really? They might as well have said I wasn’t black enough.

After 50 years, I believe we can declare Mr. Johnson’s war on poverty has fared no better than his war on Vietnam. Both were abject  -- and costly -- failures.

In his recent State of the Union address, Mr. Obama indicated that the middle-class is sinking ever deeper into the region of poverty despite the government’s relentless attempts to regulate and tax the life out of free enterprise. And now the Democrats are certain that raising the minimum wage by phenomenal amounts will pull people out of poverty.

Obviously, you can always tell a socialist, but you can’t tell them much. It looks like they will never learn that by strangling the life force out of business they are merely hastening the departure of the middle-class into poverty. Companies are not philanthropic enterprises created for the sole purpose of providing jobs.

As wages are forcibly increased, businesses will need to make adjustments to maintain their “bottom line.” There are only two ways to accomplish this: reduce the number of employees or raise prices. Either way results in everyone paying more for goods. Eventually, when wages and costs balance out again, those making the new “minimum wage” will find themselves in the hole again.

The best way to win the way on poverty has proven to be through free enterprise. If the politicians want to get serious about winning this war, they need to get out of the business of regulating and taxing businesses to death.

Pole-a-ticks

The political spectrum is made up of many people with a wide range of thoughts on political issues. If we were to chart the number of people and politicians holding beliefs from the left to the right – Progressive to Tea Party Conservative – on the issues, it would likely form an inverse bell chart. That is to say that the center area would be less populated than either end. So where would you be on this hypothetical curve?

You may be a Progressive if you would rather be called Progressive than Liberal but can’t explain the difference.

You may be a Progressive if you are bad at math and believe anyone earning more than you is a One-percenter.

You may be a Progressive if you believe all One-percenters should be taxed to support your lifestyle.

You may be a Progressive if you believe the people serving your $1 hamburger and fries should earn  $25 an hour.

You may be a Progressive if you believe the government has a duty provide you with everything you need in life.

You may be a Progressive if you think anyone against Obama’s policies is automatically racist.

You may be a Progressive if you believe bills should be passed without reading when sponsored by Democrats.

You may be a Progressive if you believe that it is more important for public school curriculum to boost students’ self esteem than teach the fundamentals (reading, writing, and math).

You may be a Progressive if you believe the primary function of companies is to provide jobs.

You may be a Progressive if you believe guns somehow manage to drive their owners to commit heinous crimes.

You may be a Progressive if you take every word spoken on MSNBC as gospel.

You may be a Progressive if you believe babies should be killed on demand, but murders should only be housed at taxpayer’s expense for the rest of their natural lives.

You may be a Progressive if you believe everything but drugs should be regulated by multiple agencies.

You may be a Progressive (and probably delusional) if you are certain Mr. Obama has your best interests at heart.

You may be a Progressive if you believe humans are responsible for causing natural disasters.

You may be a Progressive if you think patriot is a bad name and pledging allegiance to the flag is a subversive action.

You may be a Progressive if you believe the Constitution is outdated and the Bill of Rights is merely a suggestion.

You may be a Progressive if you believe that pornography is free speech but God is an obscene word.

You may be a Progressive if you love the tenets of socialism and are convinced that Karl Marx was a great philosopher.

On the other hand:

You may be a Tea Partier if you think the Tea Party is merely a patriotic conservative faction of the Republican Party and not a group of goose-stepping fascists.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe in a thoughtful, informed approach to legislation rather than blind experimentation for the sake of change.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe that a14 trillion-dollar debt is obscene and borrowing more just to pay the interest on the debt is an act of stupidity.

You may be a Tea Partier if you know that government is far too engaged in your life.

You may be a Tea Partier if you hate every dirty aspect of socialism.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe that wars should only be waged when the interests of our country are at stake.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe government is bloated and full of unnecessary and duplicated bureaus.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to provide public service for their handouts.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe that Unions have far too much influence in politics.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe Union members should not have to pay for political contributions to candidates they would not vote for.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe immigrants should wait their turn in the quota system and those here illegally have broken the law and should be deported.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe the Dream Act is in fact a nightmare.

There’s more, but I think you get the point. The spectrum is wide but these days it is more like pole-a-ticks than politics due to the polarization of the two main parties.

Colorado Goes Up In Smoke

It’s a new year, and Coloradoans celebrated by lighting up a doobee. No, not all Coloradoans smoked weed, but a great number did – and still are. It seems the term “Colorado Mountain high” has taken on a whole new meaning.

There are reported lines of customers outside the pot shops rivaling those seen at bakeries in communist East Germany. It makes me wonder just how safe it will be to drive in Colorado once these pot stores get a full inventory.

Not to fear, the state government says. They have laws against driving high. Right, they also have laws against driving drunk, but booze is legal, people buy it legally, and get in their cars and drive illegally drunk. At least when pot was illegal, it was more difficult to drive while high. It’s too early for comparable statistics, but if and when they are made does anyone doubt the rate of driving under the influence will be up?

I’m no teetotaler  (not to be confused with tea partier). I enjoy a beer or two now and again. Okay, maybe more than a beer or two on rare occasions. But alcohol is not a “gateway” drug. Sure, alcoholism is a terrible disease, and yes, it is an addiction. Alcoholics only look for more booze, not stronger stuff.

Marijuana has been termed a gateway drug. It leaves the user craving for an even bigger high, which frequently drives the user to stronger drugs.

Colorado claims to have strict laws regarding the use of this dope, but they haven’t even figured out how to tax the stuff. To keep outsiders from buying the drug a valid Colorado ID is needed for each purchase. Those who can buy it are prohibited from mailing or transporting it outside the state. Just how they intend to enforce these well-meaning safeguards has not been reported.

The laws against driving high have not been repealed, so we should be able to get data on the increase of violations soon. Of course, employer drug testing is still legal and pot smokers can be fired or not even hired.

One thing the sellers of this drug should seriously consider is the report that the cartels that illegally smuggle pot into this country are very displeased with marijuana legalization. These are the same cartels that lop off heads and hang the bodies from bridges in Mexico. How long will it be before the violence takes hold in Colorado?

So far, there are 20 states allowing the sale and use of medical marijuana. Colorado and Washington are the only two states where anyone  18 or over can legally buy and use the weed. It may be safe to say that medical marijuana laws have led to the desire for even more liberal use.

The ridiculous idea that a medical professional – doctor, Physician’s Assistant or Nurse Practitioner – can “prescribe” pot for any malady a patient complains of and requests using marijuana has made a mockery of the law. I have to wonder why this drug is not dispensed by registered pharmacists at legal pharmacies like other legitimate medicines. Has the FDA or any drug company researchers actually found any beneficial use for pot?

California voters rejected the unrestricted use of marijuana twice, but there is currently a possibility that the 2016 elections may see yet another proposition attempting to legalize the weed in the state. We can only hope that two years worth of data on unrestricted use will be enough to show the very real dangers of legalization.

So, now that Coloradoans are now enveloped in a blue haze of pot, will the next call to be the legalization of cocaine, crack, meth, or heroin? How many lives need to be destroyed by this crap before we reject at least one aspect of the sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll legacy of the ‘60s?

All Hail the Imperial Presidency

When George Washington was elected President of the United States, no one knew how to address him. Suggestions included Your Highness, Your Majesty, and other royal sounding titles. Washington rejected them all saying they made him sound too much like a king. Since we had just fought a war to overthrow the yoke of a tyrannical king, he thought it best not to be seen as a ruler. After all, the presidency is merely the executive arm of the three branches defined in the Constitution. He had no authority to make laws or levy taxes. That privilege had been reserved exclusively for congress. He could only veto a law once congress sent a bill to him for concurrence. Washington was determined not to be a ruler.

Forty-three presidents later, our government has a top executive who apparently believes he is the ruler of our country. Congress and some sketchy wording in the Constitution gave the president the ability to directly administer the office through executive orders. This was intended to create policies and state how federal laws should be executed. George Washington issued eight executive orders. Franklin Roosevelt issued 3,522. Barack Obama has taken the use of executive orders to a dangerous and possibly unconstitutional extreme. Several of his 166 orders could be interpreted as bordering on unauthorized legislative action.

Then there are the “Czars”, appointed directors of policy replete with staff and responsible only to the president. Franklin Roosevelt started the use of czars by appointing eleven policy directors, mostly for economic advice. Since that time, each president has had czars. Eisenhower and Reagan both had only one czar. Obama has the distinction of having the most at 38. Again, these czars all have departmental staff, budgets and are responsible only to Obama.

With the Affordable Care Act (aka. Obamacare) train wreck we now find the terrible consequences of passing a thousand-page bill just to find out what is in it. People are losing the insurance policies that they had selected to suit their individual needs and finances. They then find that the government approved replacement policies will cost considerably more, cover unnecessary medical items, and have a higher deductible.

Oops! The father of this legislation flatly told the country, “if you like your policy you can keep it – period.” Did he lie? Maybe. But he is now forced to backpedal. So what does he do? You guessed it. He issues executive orders to make corrections to the ACA.

But wait, the ACA is the “law of the land.” We know this because Nancy Pelosi adamantly told us. The only way it can be changed is by legislation. That doesn’t stop Obama from ordering changes, though.

Huffington Post reports that on December 26 a letter signed by Attorneys General from eleven states to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius specifically criticizes President Barack Obama's executive decision to give insurance companies another year to continue offering health plans that had been canceled for not meeting ACA standards. That decision came after the political turmoil surrounding hundreds of thousands of canceled insurance plans.

“We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action,” states the letter, authored by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. “The illegal actions by this administration must stop.”

While the correction of one of the many flaws in Obamacare may well be in order, it is not within the authority of Obama to make the changes. This is the sole purview of the US Congress – which, incidentally, has voted 44 times to repeal this abominable law, only to have the action killed by Harry Reid in the Democrat controlled Senate.

In this New Year, we have the opportunity place both houses of Congress under Republican control and give Barack Obama the message that he is not a ruler, king or emperor. His job is merely to implement the laws enacted by Congress.