Working class poetry

       Well, it happened.  Someone noticed that there is no modern, working-class poetry.  (http://sundresspublications.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/working-class-poetry-by-sarah-chavez/)  I will not criticize the author of this piece, since, after all, she is the one who noticed.  She mentions her father being injured at work, in a tomato grinder.  I'm guessing she knows about the struggles of the working class first hand.

       Oddly, the only poet I know personally, can also tell you stories of the struggle.  One of a host of blue collar kids, in a blue collar neighborhood, in the most blue collar city the world has ever known.  But apparently he isn't enough to fill the giant void in the overly-academic world of poetry; where there should be lurid tales of suffering.

       Actual suffering, not entitled college student suffering.  To do my part to fill this void, I will compose something.  I am not a poet, mostly because I suck at poetry.  Modern verse especially eludes me.  Nor will I pretend to fully understand the plight of the day laborer, because, following my father's example, I fought my way out of that tax bracket.

       I'm no working class hero.  I own my home (well the bank owns most of it).  But I am familiar with what it is to have no end in sight.  My grandfather died from a terminal condition called: "Coal-Mining", and my father enlisted rather than do the same.  He landed a factory job, only to have the factory sold, sold again, and finally closed, less than a decade before retirement.  So while I am not the perfect example of "working-class" I can sing the songs well-enough.

       The problem is, there aren't any working class poets, because they are all working.  They don't have computers to send an email pestering a publisher to look at their work.  They don't have the time, or energy to write any if they did.  Poets have become, or maybe have always been, mostly the privileged, the entitled, and the well-off, and you write what you know.

       The best we have, therefore, are those who have seen it.  Those who used to be a part of it, but through hard work, or more rarely, luck, now have the time to write; are the best we can do.  I feel a need to do my part to fill the ranks of blue collar poets.

       The piece, I have decided, will be called "Indigo"  not because this cash crop of ages past represents the exploitation of workers, but for a very modern reason.  Take a look at the "Diversity", or "Rainbow" flag.  If you remember your color spectrum (See TMBG if you dont), there is a color missing from that flag.  Indigo.  While this missing stripe might represent anything, I like to think it represents those who have more immediate problems than diversity.  Things like; like "Where am I going to get three bucks for my kid's milk?"

       So without further preamble...



           Indigo

While you are rubbing last night's party from your eyes,
I am sweating my golden years through my shirt.

While you are deciding where to eat breakfast,
I am eating my lunch standing up, one-handed.

As you drive to your air conditioned classroom,
I am dying by inches for someone else's gain.

As you head home, wondering if there is anything good on TV,
I am praying the bus isn't late again, so I can keep my second job.

As you bitch about how hard you have it, because the barista used whole milk,
I kiss my already sleeping children, wishing I could see them awake for a change.

Your life is tied to mine in ways neither of us will understand.
Your death will be listed in the paper.
Your family will receive a check from a man in a suit.

When I go, my family and friends will be too busy to mourn.
They can't afford a suit anyway.

Officer Peterson would be on "Administrative Leave".

       Occasionally it happens.  We get a report of a police officer crossing the line and beating someone.  When a cop crosses that line, even if the person on the receiving end of that beating clearly had it coming; there is due process.

       That officer is put on administrative leave, or suspended with pay, until such time as the incident is resolved.  Many say they should be put on unpaid leave, but then we always presume innocence in this country, so that would not be fair.  They are not presumed guilty, but they are kept from their duties.

       Any complaints from the town, or department, that they don't have enough officers without this one on the job are disregarded.  Any complaints that the limited budget that the department has is now paying someone to sit at home are also, rightfully, disregarded.

       The reason being that we can't take the chance that the officer is found guilty, and we did nothing.  They are supposed to be role models, after all.

       So now we have the NFL.  From them we accept the "innocent until proven guilty" logic in allowing an accused player to keep playing.  This is backed up by the logic that they wouldn't have enough good players if they benched this particular player.  And then we pile on the reason that it would be unfair to bench someone when there is a salary cap.

       In short we accept excuses as valid reasons from the NFL that we would never accept from a public official.  Good thing kids can name more police officers than NFL players...

   Oh, wait...

The Facebook cloistering effect

       I have a few select friends on facebook that, to the outside observer, I shouldn't.  Myself being a staunch libertarian, (A real one, not a tea-party version), also a Lutheran, and all around conservative.  I am not one who typically shares my faith, but I am making a point.  I have friends that run the gamut from just like me, to atheists, uber-conservatives, socialists, and every possible admixture of these.  Unlike most people I don't find this to be a problem.

       See, most people have used the power of being connected to anyone on earth, to actually narrow their exposure to new ideas.  They winnow down their friends list based on who agrees with the thoughtless political talking-points they spew.  In the end they have only like-minded friends.  This is nonsense.  I add or remove people based on the amount of thought behind what they are saying.  And believe me, it is readily apparent.

       How did we get to this point?

       Before computers united the world, you had talk to people you knew, or had met.  Friends of friends, guys at the bar, the local society of Odd-fellows, the Moose lodge, the people at the union hall.  That is, people who couldn't be ignored with a single click.  Sadly this is what most have reduced themselves to.  They cloister themselves in the monastery of online thought policing.  The end result being a group of friends that share nothing really in common, other than political opinions.

       As for me; why do I maintain a group of friends I disagree with constantly?  First, it keeps us all sharper.  Second, if I am right, arguing against a well-though-out opposing viewpoint will only strengthen my own arguments.  Third, I actually enjoy debating the finer points of political thinking, and so do they.  (Which puts us all one-up on the politicians).  Fourth, and this is a long-shot; there is a chance, however infinitesimal, that I am wrong.  If that should ever occur, I would want to know.

       So folks, it may not seem like it; but that irritating

MR Goals vs. SMART goals.

There exists in the business world the idea of SMART goals. (accepted definition)  Basically this breaks down as: any goal needs to be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, (sometimes this is replaced with "Relevant", which is better),  and Timely, or more accurately, Time-Bound.  You have likely been on one, or maybe both sides of setting such a goal.

Such a great, simple, little tool to remember the proper way to create a goal, isn't it?  Nice little acronym, powerful direction, good methodology.  But really it is a bit verbose isn't it?  Let's take this little helper apart and distill it to the aqua vitae, shall we.

Specific, and Time-Bound are covered under Measurable, if you think about it.  If a goal is not specific it cannot be measured.  Simply defining the measurements to be used creates it own specificity.  By that same token, is not Time simply a measurement?  Therefore by defining the measurements, we have a goal that is, be default, specific and time-bound.

The other letters of this acronym are even more vexing to me.  Any realistic goal is, by definition, attainable.  Any goal which can be attained, recursively, has to be realistic.  So we can eliminate one of those.  In the case of "Relevant" as the fourth element, this will be instead covered as part of defining the measurements.

This leaves us with either MA goals, which is easily remembered, but sounds like "My goals"; or MR goals.  MR. Goals is your new friend in the fight against vague, unattainable performance standards.  MR. Goals is also as easy to remember as SMART.

So let's then cover all of our bases with our new partner MR goals.  First, define the measurements.  In doing so, you must know what you are attempting to measure (against benchmarks, if possible), who you are measuring, when the measurement (or measurements) will be taken, how they will be taken, (data-analysis, raw numbers, customer satisfaction reports etc.), and why you are taking them.

The why is simultaneously obvious and obscure.  Obviously, you want a way to gauge performance against a goal, set of goals, or benchmark.  Less obviously, you need to know your motivation in selecting these particular goals, for this particular person.  Essentially, ask yourself: "Are these goals the right ones, for this person?"

Next is the acid test of comparing what we want, with what can be done.  No one will give you any form of good performance, if they don't feel the standards they will be held to are unrealistic.  Why would they?  This is really just ensuring you are not de-motivating with what is supposed to be a motivational tool.

How to prevent multiple murders. The Elliot Rodger Story.

       If you didn't know already, Elliot Rodger was a troubled young man in California.  His father was an assistant director of the Hunger Games.  He killed 6 people on the 23rd of May, as part of a revenge plot.  (source).  Apparently he felt that not getting laid in college was the fault of the women who didn't sleep with him.

       This story is much worse than it sounds, however.  The police had several run-ins with him, at the behest of his family.  The most recent on April 30th.  Each time they completely failed to do what was needed.  The insane young man even wrote up a long winded rant about how, if they had bothered to search his place, he would not have been able to move forward.

       So, in short; his family, feeling concerned for his mental health based on documented, easily referenced, online actions, contacted the authorities.  The same authorities we are supposed to trust to protect us, despite supreme court ruling that they are not required to.  (Unfortunately factual ruling, source.).  These authorities did what they always do.  Nothing until someone dies.

       So we all know that making something illegal can't keep anyone from getting it.  So where he got the guns is no mystery.  No one is currently saying if they were attained legally or not, but since legally purchased firearms can be readily traced, I'm guessing they were black market.  (Edit: it has since come to light that his firearms were legally purchased.)  This has not stopped that paragon of unbiased reporting, the Daily News, (Heavy sarcasm), from employing their typical tactic of demanding more gun control, by quoting someone stating exactly what they want to say.  (Source).  Oddly, no one is talking about the housemates he stabbed repeatedly, after writing that he would do it.

       Apparently it is never too early to politicize the deaths of the innocent at the hands of a madman.  So on that note I will do the same.  Since it was asserted that more gun control would fix the problem, despite happening in one of the most restrictive states in the country, (funny how often that happens), I will state: "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur".  Or in the modern vernacular: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".  (Hitchens' Razor).

       Insane persons are already unable to legally purchase firearms.  Logic dictates therefore, that more restrictions would not have fixed this.  To be fair the person they quoted was a grieving father, and probably not at his most logical.  I pass no judgement on him, only the press who trotted him out as an excuse to forward a misguided agenda.

       This is a case where all of the rules were followed, and the authorities failed.  They failed each victim.  They failed their families.  They failed us.  Mostly though, they failed the gun-control agenda.  Had they acted, when they were informed of the problem, this troubled young man would still be alive, and getting help.  As it stands they have proven that lax enforcement, is now as it ever was, the problem.  More laws wont fix laziness.



      

Why I shoot.

       Recently a friend on Facebook decided to organize an outing to the range.  A group of people expressed interest that could be accurately called: "diverse".  In a hobby that was, in the past, dominated by old men, I was seeing a change.  Nothing unusual to me.  I grew up with my mother embarrassing the men at both the archery, and trap range.

       Having just been to the range  myself I can say this is no longer a hobby for old men.  About 25-35% of the shooters were female.  About 70% were under 50 years old.  This is a change welcomed by most shooters.  The more accessible the hobby is, the more accepted it becomes.

       I am not a gun nut.  I have a modest collection that is almost entirely comprised of gifts from the enthusiasts that I find myself related to.  I do enjoy shooting though.  Any means of conveying a projectile from where I stand to a point far away with the best accuracy I can muster is a relaxing way to spend time.

       I say any means because I started with a bow.  I am not the kind of person who works at things.  I know that about myself.  If I'm not reasonably good at it the first time around, I typically abandon the hobby.  Archery was different.  I needed to be good at it.  I practiced at least three days a week for years, just to be good enough to suck.

       I eventually became better than the league shooters at the local range who used comically long stabilizers, mechanical releases, and levels.  They would hold each draw for almost a minute before releasing.  I used a finger tab, hunting stabilizer (short), and I drew back and fired in almost one motion.  I was their equal on my bad days.

       When it came time to try pistols I was a fair shot my first time out.  Rifles, the same story.  I assume that the practice in archery taught me the basics of form, consistency, breathing, and most importantly, how to quiet the mind.

       There are countless movie quotes, and idiot celebrities that will tell you how firing a weapon is a "rush" because it gives you the power of life and death.  This is pure idiocy.  Make no mistake, one person shooting another is frequently fatal.  But a "rush" from shooting is counter productive.  Adrenaline makes you shake.  A small twitch at your end of the gun makes for a large miss at 100 yards.  The guy who yells after a good shot is laughed off the line, or told to calm down.

       So why do I shoot?  I shoot because for a second, just a second, there are no problems.  There are no concerns.  There are no other people.  There is nothing but you and the target and the beam of concentration between.  The entire world has been distilled into a perfect, clear, focus. The timing of the breath comes natural at this point.  The form is held, but completely forgotten.

       There is a reason the Zen masters chose archery as a means of achieving focus, rather than say, sweeping.  Either one would work, but the focus to send a projectile to it's mark makes this transition to pure "empty-mindedness" much easier.  The calmness achieved persists long after the guns are cleaned, oiled, and put back into their cases.  This too is part of the ritual.  This too can quiet the mind.

       In today's fast-paced, distraction-filled, mind-scattering world, it is no wonder that a more diverse group of people are taking up the hobby.  Word has gotten out.  We all need a break from the chaos.  Shooting meets that need.

       It also doesn't hurt that shooters have long considered themselves a persecuted out-group; and as such, are the most welcoming, friendly bunch of people you are ever likely to meet.  They are almost as free with lending tools and helping out, as they are with advice.  (Almost).  They make new shooters feel welcome.  In fact my first trip to the rifle range in Eagle WI. someone asked what I was shooting, only so they could give me a key ring made with the correct caliber round attached to it.

       So to the new people at the range: "Welcome.  Good to see a new face.  I hope you enjoy this hobby as much as I do."

The invisible tax and you.

       In discussing school fees today I became agitated.  Both sides, in this two party system, have managed to sneak in "Invisible" taxes.  What I mean is the tax that derives itself from indirect means, thus it is not immediately obvious as a tax.

       For example: the invisible tax in schools comes from chronically under-funding them.  This causes the schools to impose "fees" on the students who enroll.  Individual states have, in their constitution, that they will fund schools to make them "free" for residents.  Illinois does.  In fact, according to the Illinois constitution:   "The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education."  (http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con10.htm).
       So how on earth, when the state says it is their responsibility to pay for education, are extra fees even allowed?  For that matter, why does everyone's property tax bill reflect LOCAL government collecting taxes to fund education.  (The largest percentage of the property tax bill for every county I checked).  Let them know how you feel, while you're at it.  (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/)(http://www.ilga.gov/house/).

       Another invisible tax is the under-reimbursement to hospitals, by medicare.  If the hospital has spent money treating a patient, and been kind enough to extend credit to the government for those services, (despite being the single worst payer in the system), for a previously agreed upon amount, the least they can do is pay that amount.  (mind you, that amount is already less than what everyone else is expected to pay)(Example).
       Instead they hire an army of politically-connected consultants to scour through the bills, looking for inconsistencies, and then refusing to pay.  Try doing that to the government.  If a doctor, or hospital is abusing the system, the government should be forced to make their case and prosecute; not refuse legitimate payments.
       So how is this an invisible tax?  The hospital needs that money.  Guess who's bill just went up.  Joe and Jane insurance-holder.  The insurance responds by only paying "standard and customary" amounts, and you get stuck with the rest.  To fix this: "All rates for services rendered will be paid at the standard and customary rates, determined by averaging all local healthcare providers, or those used by insurance, whichever is lower."

       In the interest of brevity I will stop at these two.  The most egregious examples I could find.  There are countless examples though. (ever pay a fee at a forest preserve?)  In the interest of transparency, this cannot be allowed.  A simple adjustment to state constitutions can fix this.  "The state shall impose no fees, over and above any tax rates, and shall pay all activities out of the general fund"  This means no licence fees, no usage fees, no tolls.  Would taxes go up? Technically yes, and technically no.  No, because you are paying those extra fees already.  Your tax percentage would go up, so you would see it, and thus more people would be aware of the abuse.

       In fact, while we're at it let's go all crazy-town and propose that: "Only income shall be taxed, and income from all sources, be they interest, sale of property, capital gains, or wages, will be taxed at the same rate.  Bartered goods or services will be taxed at listed cash values."  Under this system the appreciation of your home would only impact your income, and net worth, at the time of sale.  So you would not be taxed on an assumed value you do not benefit from.  Like you are under the current system.

       But then I live in a dream world where politicians have the interests of their constituency at heart.  They don't. (Rules are for thee, not for me.)

       

Why would you ever buy Scotch?

       Many of you will rage-quit reading this blog after this.  Read the whole thing first though, you might learn something.  I was reminded today of the necessity of writing a post on the relative virtues of Bourbon, and scotch.  (Irish Whiskey is another matter entirely)

       A warning, this might be a long read.  I am well read on the production of scotch, because I wanted, like hell for some time, to like it.  There are some that are OK for me, but I will always reach for Bourbon first.  Now, I will not go into any great detail the likes of which Alton Brown would, but this is a favorite topic of mine, so I apologize upfront for any boring detail.

       Whiskey, or Whisky, which is the correct usage for scotch, derives from the Gaelic usquebaugh, meaning water of life.  As we all know too much will kill you, and you should never drink and derive, so it is a bit of a misnomer.  This derivation is repeated with Akvavit (from the Latin "Aqua Vitae") from Scandinavia, which is also how scotch was first recorded.  The assumption being that the "life" or essence was distilled from grains as something like water.

       Picture scotch.  You can't even think of it without calling to mind images of rugged wooded highlands.  Congratulations, you've swallowed the marketing.  In contrast Bourbon calls to mind redneck culture and deprivation, but guess what; the people who settled the areas that produce bourbon are the same Scots that (ahem) left Scotland for greener pastures.  They settled areas that reminded them of home, and more importantly, had the same kind of water for making Whisky.  Priorities man.  I am myself distilled from those displaced Scots.  Though, I guess I am no "true Scotsman."

       If you have never met me, let me explain something that should quickly become painfully obvious.  I ride for the brand.  That is to say, I would tell you that Bourbon was better than scotch even if I thought it wasn't, just because it is made here in the USA, and scotch is, by law, made in Scotland.  Thankfully the truth is on my side.

       So since they share a history, and similar base materials, and since both are aged in oak, what makes one better than the other?  Well, the water is substantially the same, the source grain and barrels are not.  Scotch is made from barley, and cooked over a peat fire (in many cases), and Bourbon is made from at least 51% corn.  Also Bourbon is aged in new charred oak barrels, scotch is aged in the used barrels from  Bourbon or Sherry production.  (paragraph 7).  So if the flavor of Sherry or Bourbon is what you are after, I can think of a much better way of getting it.  Just sayin'.

       Bourbon is generally considered sweeter, as such things go, so there is some degree of personal preference involved, but overall the difference is not like a sweet vs. dry wine, or a Pedro Ximénez vs. Fino Sherry.  it is a very small difference.  But the flavor of each really is not even close to the other.

       So which is better?  Obviously I prefer Bourbon.  The flavor is smokier and woodier (Johnnie Walker red excepting), the body a touch thicker (although that might be in my head), the taste superior, and until recently, it was vastly less pretentious.  (now it is only greatly less pretentious)  In times past scotch was an adjective meaning "Cheap".  Given the relative cost of this drink vs. others, it fails, often horribly, in that regard.

       Some of you are thinking that clearly, I have only tasted inferior, blended, cheap scotch.  That is part true.  I have tasted those as well as the "superior", single-malt, regionally coded, highly (over) priced labels.  Like I said, I wanted to like it.  I wanted to be a "gentleman who prefers scotch".  I tried the good and the bad, the expensive and the cheap.  I am still a Bourbon man.  (or rye, or moonshine, but again, that is another post)

       The one thing I think scotch has going for it is mystique.  It is expensive and harder to procure, and therefore, the thinking goes, must be better.  As stated in Ayala's Angel:

"It may be said that nothing in the world is charming unless it be achieved at some trouble. If it rained ‘64 Leoville’ — which I regard as the most divine of nectars — I feel sure that I should never raise it to my lips." -Anthony Trollope-

If that is the measure of quality, it is flawed.  Haggis is far less common than steak, even in Scotland, but that doesn't make it better.

(written "Dry")

       

Why would you buy a tankless water heater.

       You can't turn on a "handyman" show without some bearded, flannel-wearing, guy telling you that; "Of course, you should always install a tankless water heater".  This is because they are so efficient, that for each one installed, 50 trees spontaneously sprout.  The efficiency of these device is not in question, as they are around 24% more efficient than their larger tank-having cousins, but are they worth it?

       While apparently you could devote over a year and many pages to researching this, like the Minnesota Office of Energy Security did, you don't need to.  (http://www.mncee.org/getattachment/7b8982e9-4d95-4bc9-8e64-f89033617f37/)  I have read their report, corroborated their findings, (didn't need to, they were quite thorough) and will tell you.  In short, no.  Not worth it. and not as good as you think.

       One reason is, like hybrid cars, they take a claim that is good, and pad it until it becomes untrue.  See the testing for tankless heaters is supposed to be for a 77 degree rise in temperature, matched to a volume of output.  Many decided the numbers sure looked better with a 45 or even a 35 degree rise.  So they base their numbers on that.  What is 35 more than 40?  Not "hot" water.  Fine for Florida, not so for the rest of the country.  So check the numbers.

       Another item of concern is that what you save in gas, you might waste in water.  There is a significant "time to temperature" lag.  Since it only heats on demand, if you aren't running water, it isn't trying to heat.  There is also the fact that a slow trickle of water, such as used for shaving, usually isn't enough to activate the heater.  So full flow for shaving.

       Now to be fair the cost of wasted water will not exceed the savings in gas or electricity, but it does cut in to it.  In a new construction scenario you avoid one of the main issues, and that is the cost to install.  Substantial re-piping, re-venting, and an electric line to run the fan.  (High-efficiency water heaters and furnaces exhaust sideways through PVC instead of up.  This is due to relatively cool exhaust temperatures)

       Other things being equal though the main question is: over the 20 year life of either product, will you save the difference in purchase cost?  That answer is a firm "No".  They do not pay for themselves.  This is not counting the other issues mentioned above.  Dollar for dollar you lose money with a tankless heater.

       Now if your goal is saving the earth, and you don't mind paying more to do so, by all means, buy one.  But until these things come down to a price equal to their tanked cousins, they are not an economically viable option.  I guess when all of your tools are provided free by a sponsor, and someone else is paying for the appliances, like on those shows, you lose sight of the value of a dollar.

How to argue Pro Second Amendment

There was something of a stir the other day on the reddits about the argument that "criminals don't obey laws" not being a valid point in the gun control debate.  User Frostiken raised the point and I was blown away.  

First, it was stated, quite correctly, that the above line of reasoning is an argument against having any laws, not any particular one.  While I know people so Libertarian/Anarchist, that they would argue in favor of that point, (not having laws) I am not one of them.  OK, so now you have my attention, please continue.  (http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1wrfcy/found_in_my_local_paper/cf605d6?context=3)

The example given was for drunk driving.  This roughly equates to murder, for our argument.  See, it is not illegal to drink.  Nor is it illegal to drive.  It is not illegal to own a car and drink, or to own booze and drive.  It is only illegal to both be drunk, and be driving, simultaneously.  This does not inconvenience the law-abiding, but it does allow for the punishment of criminals.  

Compare this to the laws about owning firearms and you quickly see that A: murder is already quite illegal, and B: the laws are not put in place to punish criminals, only to hinder the law-abiding.  The presumption, much unlike alcohol, is that merely owning a gun makes you a danger to your fellow man.  I won't bore you with the details of firearm deaths vs. driving deaths, you can google that.  (or click here, that's cool too.  http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/firearm-deaths-vs-vehicle-deaths)

All of the gun laws we have are a direct punishment on people who have done nothing wrong.  (Paraprhasing u/Frostiken)  And bearing in mind that this is for something that is supposed to be a right, unlike driving which is a privilege.  Frostiken then listed several analogs of gun laws, expressed as regulating alcohol.  I have copypasta-d below in it's entirety.  

Banning every alcoholic drink over 35 proof (Hughes amendment)

Banning any alcohol bottle or can that holds more than 360ml (Magazine limits)

Banning mixed drinks that contain more than two alcoholic ingredients (Assault Weapon Ban)

Require a 30 minute 'waiting period' between all purchases of shots (Handgun waiting periods)

In several states including California you'd have to buy a special 'liquor license' that requires you to undergo mandatory training and pay annual fees to the state to be allowed to drink (Licensing)

All bottles and cans in California have a little plastic device inside that blocks the neck or the mouth when you pour it, so you can only drink a little bit at a time (Bullet buttons)

Buying a hip flask would require getting permission from the ATF and a background check and another tax (NFA)

Any alcoholic container with a 'wide mouth' is banned and requires going through the ATF as well (Caliber limits / Destructive devices).

Drinking alcohol near a school is a felony (Gun Free School Zone Act)

Drinking near a road is a felony, drinking pretty much anywhere except your house or a place with a license to serve alcohol is pretty much a felony (Various laws regarding where a firearm can be discharged)

Successfully fight the '7-11 loophole' where 'anyone can buy alcohol face-to-face without showing their ID!' by mandating that you go down to the nearest liquor store before you hand your friend a beer, so that the clerk can verify that he's 21 (Banning private sales)

Vast majority of alcohol made overseas is completely banned because it has 'no recreational purpose' (922(r))

Any alcohol that is imported must have a certain number of ingredients that are sourced from the US. If you make a mixed drink with these with another ingredient that isn't from the US, you're committing a felony (922(r))

If it seems this is a bit ridiculous, it is.  It is completely, absolutely ridiculous.  Not the example above; the fact that we are allowing the chipping-away of a sacrosanct right, guaranteed not granted, by our constitution.  The rights listed there are inherent to being a free people, and therefore can neither be granted, nor removed.  We need to remember that.

Despotism and you

       By now you have either watched, heard, heard clips of, or analysis of, or read the transcript of , the President's State of the Union address.  I will not address here the finer points of it.  Nor will I list the parts I disagree, or agree with.  I am using this space to point out something that should scare the hell out of you.

       The President of the United States of America is charged with, and sworn to, upholding our laws.  The backbone of our republic, is that our elected officials will voice our wishes, and vote them into law, in congress.  For good or ill, congress is the vox populi.  So it is important to understand that the voice of congress, is the voice of the people.  Maybe not each individual's voice, but as a people.

"America does not stand still, and neither will I, so wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."

-President Obama-

(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-2014-state-of-the-union-address-full-text/)

       At the outset this sounds good.  Sounds like a man fed up with congressional inaction, and honestly, who isn't?  But who is he to say what will or will not expand opportunity?  Also, when  a President uses an executive order, it is typically for something like: pardoning someone, protecting a marsh, or getting something done in an emergency, not setting policy.

       Now I have seen it quoted that this President has used fewer executive orders than any in recent history.  I don't doubt that.  But when he says he intends to bypass the due process of law, on things that require it, such as economic policy, we are going down the wrong path as a country if we do not challenge him on that.

       So when our President says that this will be a year of action, with or without congresses' consent; when he says that he will use executive orders, and any other means at his disposal to get things done, even if congress does not cooperate; when he makes it clear that he knows better than the people of this country what is best for the people of this country; what separates him from a despot?

Hopefully this was just the grandstanding of a lame duck, wanting to make things better.  Hopefully these were the words of a frustrated man who realizes he doesn't have the time left in office to do the things he wanted to do.  Hopefully he was merely angry at not just the Republicans who have not cooperated, but also his own party which failed to support him on many issues.  But that is really my point.  When your own party does not get behind you, you need to consider that you may be wrong.

When the President attempts to enact policy, without congressional approval, should that carry the full weight of law?  That is not an executive order.  That is a Royal Decree.

President Obama to grant full pardon, and award Medal of Freedom to Snowden.

On the anniversary of a much better speech, by a much better President, about the dangers of ongoing war and the intrusiveness of government that would result from the overgrowth of the military-industrial complex; the President today gave a rousing speech about the need to limit the scope of NSA authority.  Included was this gem:  "Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power. It depends on the law to constrain those in power." Funny how he doesn't see that also applies to firearms... but that is another post.

Since he gave such a well thought-out, and obviously earnest (can you hear the sarcasm drip?) speech calling on the NSA, and any other agency, to get permission to spy on us, he obviously has changed his mind about Ed Snowden.

Of course all of the details are left up to congress, and the agencies themselves, but clearly he feels that the unwarranted spying (which he authorized) on the American public (and foreign diplomats, and foreign nationals here and abroad) should immediately (or soon, maybe later, whenever, really) be stopped.  (unless we are talking about national security letters, demanding information from companies about anyone and everyone.  Those are OK)

Since he now feels that such comprehensive data-collection is reprehensible, he is obviously about to pardon the man who blew the whistle on the practice in the first place.  Given the insurmountable obstacles faced by Mr. Snowden, to come out to the media about such practices is tantamount to jumping on a grenade.

For this the President must, of course, be ready to give him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  We should accept nothing less.  After all Ed Snowden has certainly done a damn-sight more for American freedom than Oprah Winfrey.

All kidding aside today's speech was long on vague promises and assurances, short on detail or action.  

53 years ago...

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

-President Dwight D. Eisenhower-

Today...

"Effective immediately, we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps removed from a number associated with a terrorist organization, instead of the current three, and I have directed the attorney general to work with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so that during this transition period, the database can be queried only after a judicial finding or in the case of a true emergency."

-President Obama-

Colorado and Marijuana

       I am not going to bore you with Colorado's legalization of marijuana.  I'm sure by now you've all made your jokes.  I am going to analyse what I believe will happen, in the next year or so, in the form of several scenarios.

1.  The federal government maintains it's position that marijuana is illegal.  (this is currently the case BTW) They tell the state of Colorado that they need to repeal the law making it legal.  Colorado will not do this.  The feds are then forced to attempt to enforce it by sending in DEA agents.  This could:
       A: Cause the Colorado national guard, which is at the governors disposal, to oppose them.
       B: Cause the state police to oppose them.
       C: Cause Colorado to attempt to secede.
This scenario is highly unlikely.

2.  The Fed attempts to force Colorado to repeal their law with military force.  This would play out exactly as above, but with a violent outcome much more likely.  This scenario is highly unlikely.

3.  The Fed turns a blind eye toward Colorado.  This is a likely scenario, because they definitely do not have an easy way of addressing this issue without looking weak.  Ignoring it is one solution.  And government as of late, is very good at ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room.

4.  The Fed gives in and repeals their own law making marijuana illegal.  This might make them look weak, but played correctly, it could be shown to be a cornerstone of democracy.  In this scenario the states would have the authority to make it legal, or make it illegal, individually.  This would mean that someone who legally purchased marijuana would not be forbidden from obtaining a concealed carry permit.  (Due to the federal ban, if you admit to having smoked it, you will be forbidden from obtaining such a permit)

This is a likely outcome, given that it is exactly how they handled abortion initially.

See they really can't force a state to bend to their rules without potentially sparking a revolution.  No one wants that.  (well, almost no one) So they are most likely going to allow states to make their own laws.

I would love to see Illinois do this as well, since it could be taxed rather heavily, the prices would still be lower than currently, and we might just pull ourselves out of debt.  Also, let's face it, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa are all prime growing areas for any cannabis cultivar, and the farmers could use a break.

The downside of course is that corn, and anything that eats corn, (like cows) would become very expensive, since farmers would be growing something else, until the markets stabilized.