They all need to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress

       So here we are day one, 2013.  Back sometime last year we were made aware of a looming "fiscal cliff".  Congress, with their usual show of bravery, and willingness to address pressing issues, opted to put off making a decision until after the election season.  This is so any pain that was inflicted by a tax increase, or program cut, would happen after the selfish, greedy leeches had assured themselves another term.
       To be clear, I'm calling out both parties on this.  Both Democrats and Republicans voted to put off making the decision.  In a speech on the last day of 2012, even the President called out all members of Congress, of every party, for failing to reach a consensus of any sort.  He praised the Republicans for giving ground, but stopped short of calling out his own party for failing to.  The message was there though, neither side is doing their job.  Mark your calendar, I agree with a sitting President whole-heartedly on something.
       So here we are on the First day of 2013.  The automatic cuts, and automatic tax increases have technically taken affect.   Now Congress is scrambling to pass some sort of compromise so that we aren't impacted much.  A job that is many months old, many years overdue, and frankly should never have been allowed to happen to this country.
       So as a service to you, I have included a link above to the Wikipedia page with the names of every member of both houses.  They all need to go.  None of them have done their jobs.  So the next opportunity you have, vote the lazy bums out.  Try voting for a dentist, or a plumber, or maybe even an engineer.  We have given the rich and the lawyers, and even the rich lawyers their chance, and where are we.
       Coins make better decisions when flipped, from a statistical standpoint, because they land on their edge so rarely.  Congress fails to decide something every time it is presented with a choice.


       I know many of you were waiting for a post about the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban".  I might still write one.  For now though lets go back to 1994.  Prior to certain politicians defining what an "Assault Weapon" was, there was no such thing.  The same rifle, with one stock option was not an "assault weapon", and with another stock option, was.  No mechanical parts changed.  The rifle functioned the same either way.
        Those same people, wholly ignorant of firearms, save for how scared an armed, law abiding populace makes them, (food for thought) have waited in the wings for an opportunity to make another attempt at removing this right.  Guys, when you lose half your base (Southern Democrats), I don't want to hear how the Republicans biased the public against you.
       You are doing it to yourselves.

       Just like we are, by allowing any member of Congress who was sitting in 2012 to be elected another term.

S 3414 Cyber Gun Control.

http://votesmart.org/bill/15638/41248#41248

       A quick synopsis: S3414 is yet another attempt by government to place scary "big brother" style laws in place to monitor / protect us from ourselves.  This of course is in the guise of "cyber security".  While this is deplorable enough in its own right, it is what was done to the proposed bill that really agitates me.
       An addendum was made to the end of the bill, after it was proposed, to "reinstate" the assault weapons ban.  I place that in quotes because the "ban" really only served to aggravate law abiding citizens, and make money for collectors who sold "Pre-ban" guns at ludicrous mark ups.  The only saving grace is that any cyber security bill has no chance of passing.
       Rather than bemoan a liberal power grab, which this is an attempt at; I want to address the "root-cause" of this problem.  At the heart of this is the congress' ability to add irrelevant language to a proposed bill.  Bad enough when it is a pork barrel rider, but downright asinine here.
       The time has come for a law to be passed stating that each separate issue needs to be a separate bill.  End this behavior now.  How many perks were hidden in the Affordable Care Act, to entice state representatives and senators to vote for it.  Those should all be separate issues, and would never have passed alone.  This means that the congress would have had to pass it on its own merit.  (I will not speculate as to whether it would have happened, we all lived through it)
       Imagine, congress legally obligated to a degree of honesty.  Now if only we had one honest person in congress to propose such a bill.  (Which would, naturally have language added by opponents to kill it.)
       If only there were some other way to get this done.  Wait, I have a foggy memory of something from my constitution studies... (as should you all)
http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

Although that method depends on state governments... Not likely to happen then is it...

       But then, in my world, people would shut off the TV long enough to be appropriately enraged at this behavior, by the people claiming to represent their interests, and leave the house to go vote.  A man can dream, can't he.
     

Agenda for America

       I will admit it freely.  I have an agenda.  Not a unabomber-manifesto type agenda.  Or a tea-party agenda.  Certainly not a socialist agenda.  I am a centrist.  By that I mean I hold x- number of reactionary /libertarian views, and an equal number of socialist views.  So they kinda balance out.  (example, pro gun, don't care if gays marry)  In other countries, such as the Nordic Socialist- democracies, they have names for that.  Here we do not.  My agenda is simple, and detailed below:
       Keep them from f-ing it up.  By "them" I mean politicians.  You see, I am quite happy with our current political climate.  An unpopular president, a congress controlled by the other major party, and a split supreme court, means nothing gets done.
       You may be asking, "Why is that good?"  I'll tell you my friends, right this way.  The eternal dance we call a representative democracy.  You see, better minds than ours devised a way that no one could mess up too badly in government.  They contrived a method by which our "king" rotates when he would ordinarily be consolidating power, and our other representatives can be ousted without war every few years.  Only Justices are lifers, and generally speaking, the only smart ones in the group.
       This post will ramble a bit, one out of every dozen will.  No I have not been drinking.  Ask my friends, I am much more focused when I have been.
       Equal opportunity bashing:  The president has asked for an extension of payroll tax cuts for another year.  3 for 3 as I recall.  For an idea he said was idiotic when another President did it.  (I know, bad grammar)  Secretary Clinton said we needed to keep our troops deployed overseas, and "Stay the course" if you will.  Again, its only a bad idea when someone else does it.
       Now for the righties.  Congressman Walsh, all around buffoon, held a press conference to explain why he wouldn't be attending the President's speech.  Apparently, he feels that the President is wrong, even before he speaks.  Now I will at least give the leader of the free world the chance to tell me an idea before I tell him he's wrong.  Especially if that were part of my job description.  But then I'm no congressman.  The audience apparently voiced some disagreement at this point and was told by the August Mr. Walsh that they were wrong.  Joe, (see you get no respect) when the people you invited, your base as it were, tell you that you are not representing their interests; and your damned job title is Representative, perhaps they are not the ones who are wrong, jack-ass.  Just sayin'.
       To the (ahem) neutral media:  Ron Paul is one of the Republican front runners.  Bachman is last in almost every poll.  Put Ron Paul on the television.  He may be boring because he never speaks before thinking, but he is a LEGITIMATE candidate.  Perhaps the only one.
       Never wanted to be this guy but here I am:  I was watching a vlog about how poor people who vote Republican are only voting that way because of the Republican promise to oppress minorities for the gain of whites.  For the record, it was narrated by a white male.  Presumably affluent.  That is like saying; "Any rich person who votes Democrat is clearly corrupt and expects a loophole in the tax code, since all Democrats want is communism."  (Note, that was for illustrative purposes only, I do not believe that) I will say this: "Try talking to one first".  I have been that guy.  Low income, Republican voter.  I was never promised anything, nor was it under the premise of oppressing anyone.  Although if a candidate promised world domination...
       It all starts with assumptions.  We assumed, up through the forties, that our way was better, and we were right.  We now assume we are no better than any other country, and our way is no better, and we are right.
       "If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right."  -Henry Ford-

Gasoline as a Utility?

       I am just going to jump right into this.  Pros first.  1.  Gasoline companies are clearly in collusion and fix prices, creating massive windfall profits, year upon year.  (This is obviously just my opinion.  I have no proof, but the profits and price adjustments are factual regardless.)  2.  We all require gasoline to get to work, school, and stores.  This is also true for those of you on public transportation.  Why do you think that costs so much?  3.  We already have natural gas as a regulated utility.  Natural gas and petroleum come from the same wells, and go to the same people, eventually.  4.  Other countries are buying gasoline before it is even pumped out of the ground, in massive quantities, to insure a low price for their people.  This is yet another example of the failure of the U.S. government to look out for the interests of its people.  5.  This should have been addressed long before health care.  Well or sick, we all have to get to work.  Sad is someone who can't afford healthcare.  Tragic is that same person unable to afford transportation to get to work, to enable them to feed their family, and pay for healthcare.

       Now for the cons.  1.  Our utilities are also a sick joke.  We are the ones it is being played on, and the punchline is prices being raised anyway.  2.  Who will regulate this new utility?  the same money-grubbing, ass-chasing, alcoholics who currently could only agree to shove of the debt ceiling problem until after the next election?  (They at least had the common courtesy to pretend they were holding out for principles.  One of them must have gotten their hands on a dictionary first though; to see what the word meant.)  3.  The payment structure would need to be worked out.  4.  Gas stations could no longer sell cigarettes and other sundries.  (Like Com-ed, and Nicor don't sell you things like appliance insurance and...  oh wait.)  Although that would be more of a pro, since then we would need more convenience stores, and fast food places.  It would create jobs, opportunity, and growth.  Hell that alone should be enough to carry this argument. 

If there are any members of congress who see this I apologize.  To call all of you "money-grubbing, ass-chasing, alcoholics", is a broad generalization, and it is quite unfair.  After all, some of you are women.