Sorry haven’t been writing lately. Kids are home from school, so attention turns to them where it belongs for now. That’s not to say I won’t be writing at all, just not as frequently.
Hope all who pass through here are having a great summer (or winter if you are in the Southern Hemisphere 
)
What a great moment (or am I going soft):
Senator Leahy, just curious… how long do you plan on behaving like a political hack bent on revenge while real things in support of real constituents need doing?
From Reuters: Two former White House officials were subpoenaed on Wednesday as part of the congressional probe of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ firing last year of federal prosecutors.
The subpoenas set up a possible court fight between Congress and the president, who has vowed to oppose any attempt to force current or former aides to provide sworn testimony.
“The White House cannot have it both ways — it cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred,” Leahy said.
Really? Perhaps you could actually produce some evidence to justify this “investigation” instead of wasting everyone’s time with a fishing expedition that, even if it were to show that there was any political component of these firings of political appointees, would essentially prove nothing since the president can fire without cause.
The recipe that Leahy appears to be following is quite simple: develop a hypothesis, continue digging until anything that even resembles evidence is uncovered, ignore all evidence to the contrary, and declare guilt if you don’t get your way… kind of like… well kind of like calling someone a communist (or a witch) and then declaring that the fact that they deny they are a communist is proof that they are indeed a communist, especially since they refuse to produce any evidence to prove the negative.
In the meantime, this is OUR money and OUR time he is wasting.
Want to probe something that could potentially help this country? Subpoena Sandy Berger and demand that he tell us what documents he stole and destroyed during the 911 Commission investigation and demand that he submit to a lie detector test as was a condition of his plea agreement.
Heard part of this interview on talk radio last night and found it on YouTube (fast forward to 4:43):
Interesting perspective from Mr. Edwards. All this time I thought the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution established the right to bear arms:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Yep.. seems pretty clear. So why does Mr. Edwards believe this is a privilege? Privileges can be taken away or infringed; rights can not. So, does Mr. Edwards believe the “privilege” to bear arms can be taken away from us?
Rights, on the other hand, are guaranteed under the Constitution. Free speech, freedom of (not from) religion, voting… these we all have a universal right to in the United States of America.
What rights does John Edwards believe we have?
For this to be a right, every citizen would be guaranteed a college education. The quality of this education would presumably still be variable, but does right in this case indicate that everyone would be entitled to a college education even if they could not afford one, or would they only have the right to a college education if they could afford one?
Although the 2nd Amendment establishes the right to bear arms, if I can not afford a gun, does that mean I am entitled to own a gun and the United States must provide me with one?
So what I think John Edwards is really saying here is that everyone should have equal access to a college education regardless of means, essentially defining college as an entitlement. Who pays for entitlements? That would be you and me via taxes.
The same pretty much goes for these “rights”. Although there is no explicit constitutional amendment to cover access to the internet, livable wages or health care, there is nothing blocking our access to these “rights” except our own abilities or means to afford them. On the other hand, if we are entitled to these, who pays?
If internet access is a right, what if I don’t pay my bill to my ISP, can they not shut down my access? If I refuse to pay my doctor, must he still continue to schedule me for yearly check-ups? If I’m elected to the senate but fail to show up for most votes and then 2 years in run for VP, keeping me away from the senate floor for weeks, should I still get paid… ah wait.. bad example.
I might give Mr. Edwards a pass on all of these if it were not for his characterization of owning a gun as a privilege. In so doing, he establishes health care, internet access, a livable wage and a college education as having a higher guarantee of access than gun ownership.
Again, if right=entitlement, who pays? You and me.
So now US Citizenship is a right if you live and work here for 5 years? Wow. Why don’t the Dems just come right out and admit that this is nothing more than their way of building a base of voters by expanding the ranks of those who receive while proportionally reducing the ranks of those who give (read:have taken from) in the redistribution of wealth that is the foundation of the Democrat strategy for bought and paid for elections. After all, if we could just reach a point where 51% of the country is reliant upon Democrat wealth redistribution programs, the Democrats plan to “take back America” will have been funded by those of us who actually earn enough money to pay taxes.
A couple of other interesting points on this video:
His most honest answer? At (1:25) he admits that if we follow his plan for pulling out of Iraq he has no idea what the impact will be in Iraq. I suppose this was not one of those “sometimes” when he did a lot of research and spent too much time making a decision…
That’s right folks, the topic of the day is horseshoe crabs.
Growing up on the Jersey shore, I became fascinated with these misunderstood creatures. Sometimes I would walk the beach along Sandy Hook’s bayside as the horseshoe crabs crawled onto the beach to mate. Being surrounded by hundreds of these prehistoric creatures was an amazing experience.
On one occasion, when I was about 19, I found several horseshoe crabs flipped onto their backs to bake and die in the midday sun. As I righted them and helped them back into the water, I was approached by a group of “fishermen” working with nets (illegal in this conservation area) who tried to stop me because in their country it is well known that the horseshoe crab, with its long tail that resembles a deadly spike, are evil and must be destroyed. The depth of their ignorance stunned me at the time, but it is possible to see how ignorance could turn to fear based upon their somewhat intimidating appearance:
I tried to convince them these were harmless creatures and that they were a critical link in the ecosystem, but they continued to go about their business flipping crabs onto their shells to bake… so I drove to the nearby ranger station and reported them.
Why this issue now and why should we care?
From AP: A judge has struck down Delaware’s two-year ban on harvesting horseshoe crabs in Delaware Bay, saying the crustaceans’ population is healthy enough to allow a limited harvest.
The state failed to prove its case in favor of the ban, Superior Court Judge Richard Stokes ruled Friday in a lawsuit filed by two businesses involved in the harvest and sale of the crabs. He said that while the crab population was seriously depleted by overharvesting through 1998, it has since stabilized.
The judge said allowing a limited crab harvest of 100,000 males would have a “very minimal effect” on the crab population.
100,000 males? Aside from wondering how the judge plans to enforce a limit of 100,000 males, what measures have been put in place to ensure that this judge is correct in his assessment that the harvesting will have a “very minimal effect”? What if he is wrong? From 1990-1995 the horseshoe crab population in Delaware dropped from 1.2 million to 200,000.
Aside from the arguments that were presented to the judge regarding the impact on a food source for endangered migratory birds, who rely on horseshoe crab eggs, if horseshoe crabs were to be driven to extinction, the loss would be significant. This would not be just another lost species.
The horseshoe crab has existed, virtually unchanged, for about 350 million years! They are extremely valuable to the medical community because of their copper based blood (as opposed to iron based.. like us, which is why they have blue blood while we bleed red), and are a key component in the shore ecosystem.
Hope this judge is right…
Update: In case you were wondering, this harvesting the judge is referring to is not for medical purposes. From Horseshoe Crab.Org:
In shallow water, horseshoe crabs are collected by hand from a small boat using a clam rake, and the animals are not injured during this process. In deeper water, a dredge is used, and in this case, some horseshoe crabs do get injured. Injured crabs are released immediately and most will survive. It is quite common to find crabs with “scars” of old injuries that have healed.
Once the crabs are caught, they are transported to the laboratory from the fishing pier by truck. Sometimes a refrigerated truck is used, but as long as the animals are kept cool and dark during transport, they exhibit no adverse affects. During the bleeding process, up to 30% of the animal’s blood is removed. Research has shown that once returned to the water, the horseshoe crab’s blood volume rebounds in about a week.
It takes longer for the crab’s blood cell count to return to normal, about two to three months. Theoretically, crabs can be bled several times a year, but LAL manufacturers bleed them only once per year.
Studies done by the Associates of Cape Cod show that not only do the crabs survive one bleeding, but that they can be captured year after year to donate their life-saving blood-much like human blood donors. In addition, their studies indicate that crabs, which are bled and returned to their spawning area, will continue their breeding activity without any ill effect.
The companies that produce LAL go to great lengths to ensure that the animals used in the making this valuable, life-saving test are handled with care and respect. They recognize that a stable horseshoe crab population is vitally important not only to the biomedical community, but also to the survival of millions of shorebirds, sea turtles, and other marine creatures that have a symbiotic relationship with this remarkable creature. These companies will continue to support sound, scientifically-based conservation measures that will ensure a sustainable population for the future.
Interested in learning more? Some great sources of info:
Before you write to tell me that this is my own damn fault, let me say up front that, yes, I could have just put an additional 2 cents of postage on the letters and saved myself the aggravation.
However, I did not set the date for the rate change to take effect, the United States Post Office did. As per the USPS website, the cost of mailing a first-class letter increased from 39 cents to 41 cents effective May 14, 2007. So it stands to reason that a customer, such as I, would reasonably believe that mailing a letter on May 13th at the actual Post Office (not some remote mailbox…. inside the Post Office itself) would require 39 cents postage. Apparently not.
On the morning of May 13, 2007, I mailed several letters with 39 cent stamps; not to save 2 cents, but because I happened to have 39 cent stamps and, not coincidently, that was the advertised cost of sending a letter on May 13, 2007. Three of those letters contained reimbursement checks that by June 6th, more than 3 weeks later, seemed to be taking a rather long time to make their way into my checking account.
Had those letters been returned to me in a few days, or even a week, for additional postage, I would not be writing today. Trust me, this isn’t about the 2 cents. What it is about is customer service. Yesterday, more than 3 weeks after mailing these letters, one of them was returned for 2 cents postage due. I expect all of the rest will trickle in during the next few days, weeks or months.
I am more than happy to dig deep into my pocket to fork over 2 cents to send this letter on its way, but why did it take more than 3 weeks to let me know that they were being held hostage for 2 cents ransom? It has already cost me more than $10 in fees because the checks were not received at their intended destination by June 1st, two full weeks after they were mailed, with the correct postage, on May 13th.
So, let’s assume that somehow these letters did not make it through whatever magical process is in place for determining whether 39 cents or 41 cents was required in time for the 39 cent rate. The May 14th date stamped on the letter by the USPS indicates this is likely the case. Is there no allowance for the potential that a letter processed on May 14th may have actually been mailed and received a day earlier? And how far must this letter have had to travel before making its way back to my mailbox if it took more than 3 weeks? I took a 3-week vacation once and visited more than 20 states, spent two days at the Grand Canyon, and still made it home 2 days before having to return to work… and I am much bigger and heavier than a 1st class letter and traveled by ground the whole way.
If this had been any other package carrier, such as UPS or FedEx, I could actually expect an apology and an offer to send the “package” overnight at their expense to minimize the inconvenience and rectify the situation.
However, this is the United States Post Office, so all I can do is gripe here, put another stamp on the envelope, mail it and wait for the next batch of rejected letters to show up.
That’s right, get ready for the People’s Republic of Vermont, or PRV for short.
So some of the good citizens of Vermont, the very same citizens who elected a socialist to the US Senate, are pushing to secede from the United States.
From AP: “The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable — it’s too big, it’s too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens,” said Rob Williams, editor of Vermont Commons, a quarterly newspaper dedicated to secession.
“We have electoral fraud, rampant corporate corruption, a culture of militarism and war,” Williams said. “If you care about democracy and self-governance and any kind of representative system, the only constitutional way to preserve what’s left of the Republic is to peaceably take apart the empire.”
Thomas Naylor, 70, a retired Duke University economics professor and author, wrote the manifesto and founded a secession group called Second Vermont Republic.
His 112-page manifesto contains little explanation of how Vermont would make do without federal aid for security, education and social programs. Some in the movement foresee a Vermont with its own currency and passports, for example, and some form of representative government formed once the secession has taken place.
Fascinating. Here is a liberal state that essentially got it’s way in the last election when Dems took over both the House & Senate and that’s not enough for them? How left are these guys?
What if we let them secede and then they decide to hook up with some other country and become a satellite of Russia, China or Venezuela? That would be wonderful.
Maybe we should let them secede, then declare war, take over their “country” and put a temporary government in place until fair elections can be held, annex them as a territory and put them on a path for potential statehood. Nah… too much work, and not really necessary. Even Vermont doesn’t have enough loons to make this happen.
