.

                     

'17 BLOG February

earlier entries, in chronological order, the way most people read English...

This effort has been going on longer than we care to admit.
This page last updated March 9, 2017

+≠&

 

 
 

February 1, 2017

 

 

Tillerson is Secretary of State.

Berzerkly goes berserk again…or is that just a “norm” there that is only particularly noticed from time to time?

 

Hogwash continues over EO travel order.  More hogwash continues over nominee to SCOTUS.

 
 

Wake up and smell coffee, folk.  We may not have passed the precipice leading to…pitchforks.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 4, 2017
 
 
 
Distracted, tired, just checking in, leaving previous entry in place.
 
 
 
 
February
3, 2017

 

 

Despite all that’s going on, including what might be a prelude to WWIII, we take the day away from the blog, leaving the previous entry in place.

 

 
 

February 2, 2017

 
 
 

Trump continues at a frenetic pace to incompetently address concerns large and small.  That begs a question: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

It is our understanding that tomorrow Congress, perhaps in concert with The White House, will become far more serious about the pretense of “tax reform” that is largely just one more lighted ring under the Big Top; a circus act, for focus at a given moment...and of little real import to the life of the spectators.

One noise is almost assuredly to be about the number of income tax brackets: another is a break on corporate income tax to encourage “repatriation” of profits now held overseas; still another is “the death tax”.  It seems a safe bet that the “border tax” recently suggested will be knit into the fold somewhere.

Be careful what you wish for: you might get it.

“Reform”.  Yeah.  Another populist hot-button that speaks only to “change”; a different “form”.  Many if not most people will respond to the buzzword without thinking, pretending that whatever is offered under such a label must be a “good”.  One need not look very hard at the last 8 years, let alone further, to find that to be a dangerous assumption.

As is noted on this site in a number of places: “Change is not sufficient: we need improvement”.
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 

 
 

February 5, 2017

 

 

Laughing our backsides off over

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/calexit-should-california-secede-can-it-be-legal     

in large part because of the use of the term “American” [see Watch Your Language].

 

BTW, ICYMI, much could be learned in The White House from the Super Bowl.  First, never quit.  Second, going too hard too fast can result in unnecessary mistakes that lead to inability to meet the objective.
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 

 

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

Ever heard the expression “The inmates are running the asylum”?  Well…

http://ufpnews.com/watch-family-illegally-says-senator/           

Another phrase heard often these days: “You just can’t make this stuff up”.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 7, 2017

 

 
 

OK, now that the VP has cast an historic vote breaking the tie over confirmation by The Senate of a nominee to the Cabinet, the Ds have a new choice: continue to waste time by being obviously intentionally futilely obstructionist over the rest, or get out of the way and get on with business [which would also provide said Dems the opportunity to finger-point anything that goes wrong as being all the fault of the Rs].

 

 

Waiting decision on the “immigration ban”…that does not exist.  The EO, as we understand it, isn’t even a “travel” ban, but actually a “travel restriction”.  The phrasing makes a huge difference.

Beyond that, there is the question of authority, and even Constitutionality.

To authority, there is a long standing statute which specifies authority to take such action.  But is that statute Constitutional?  There’s the rub.

It would be a bit late to take somebody to task over the question, since it has been used repeatedly for decades with little dissent, and the threat posed by not taking such action is hardly less than it has been to date.  It could conceivably be argued that the legislature erred significantly in the construction of the statute, perhaps having given power to the Administration that even it did not have in the first place, or in violation of the Separation of Powers [a doctrine, not a stipulation in the Constitution, as we understand it].  It might not be inaccurate to declare the statute in violation; but such a finding at this juncture would throw an awful lot of questions about why it wasn’t done in any of so many opportunities over the last several administrations…which in turn could spark more agitation over “originalist” or “living document” theories of the Constitution itself [likely coming in the not so distant future anyway, we think].

Will Trump win the day at Court?  Probably…not, at least at this level: it is, after all, the 9th…and permitting of the misleading phrasing at the start [oral argument was not exactly “stellar”, either].  In any event,  it is almost sure to go to a likely nonsensical exercise of SCOTUS; nonsensical because with the current 4 to 4 split likely to lead to that kind of split in the opinion, the lower Court finding would be left in place [thus making the exercise largely moot].  One more facet of the plethora of “Attorney’s Full Employment Acts”…all paid for, on both sides, by the taxpayer.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 9, 2017
 
 
 
Life interrupts with a medical situation.  We leave the previous entry in place.
 
 
 
February
8, 2017

 
 

 

The “waiting with bated breath” for a decision from a most liberal panel of the most liberal Appeals Court in the nation seems an opportunity to post early and go hard at a [long overdue] rebuild on this site.

“That is all”.
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 
 

 

February 10, 2017

 

 

Note to Trump:

Slow down;

Shut up;

Pick your targets very carefully;

Place your shots even more carefully.
 
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 12, 2017
 
 
 
Worked up what we thought was a good piece while on a long ride today.  Unfortunately, we didn't make notes, and it got lost in a fog.  The ride was to a difficulty, and we haven't the strength to rediscover it at the moment or even replace it.  We leave the previous entry in place.
 
 
 
February 1
1, 2017

 
 

 

We heard part of another public “performance” of The National Anthem today.  The performers were being highlighted as wonderful and talented.  They may be…or not.

What we know of the way in which that particular piece of music was performed is that the “performers”, as so many before them, made a point of inserting their own “styling” over the way the notes had been assembled in the original: they made the performance about them, rather than about the anthem, let alone the country.

We don’t sing, even in the shower.  We have only a nodding acquaintance with music.  But we have an idea of what The National Anthem is supposed to sound like; and an idea of what a National Anthem is theoretically “all about”…and what it is about is not how much or what kind of “styling” this individual or that group can “add”…that then subtracts from honoring the country and its peoples and the wonders of both, and more.

So, to all those folk who publicly “perform” The Star Spangled Banner: are you not good enough in your field  -- singing --  to do your part flawlessly within the constructs of the individual  -- the composer --  who did such an amazing job in delivering their expertise in that field?  Is public performance of The National Anthem more about the singer(s), or more about the nation?
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 
 
 
 

February 15, 2017
 
 
 
We are recovering from several days distracted from our "obligation" [it isn't really obligation here, but privilege and dedication] to these pages; we again just check in, leaving the previous entry in place.
 
 
 
February 1
4, 2017
 
 
 
For a multitude of reasons, most of them personal, we pass today, just checking in long enough to note that and that we leave the previous entry in place.

 
 

February 13, 2017

 

 
 

Such a wealth of opportunity!  So little time, so little energy, so many targets!
 
 

We think that Oroville Dam coming apart may tie together a number of the oh-so-many dots that are begging to be connected.

Much of the water “shortage” in CA was a creation by humans…well, the subspecies that is bureaucrats.  Some years ago it was discovered that the folk who were doling out the water allotments were doling out authorizations to use something like ten times the amount of water available.  Then nature threw a curve and there was a real water shortage…aggravated by the fact that there’d been almost no additional storage set up for over 30 years, years in which the state population increased by something more than half [if memory serves].

Turns out that the problems at Oroville had been noted/reported roughly a dozen years ago.  And then there is the question of priorities that put the high-speed rail between nowhere and nowhere else not only higher on the list than Oroville but at least on it: yeah; Oroville didn’t even make the list.

So, while rumors flow and sentiment grows about a CA succession from the USA over “sanctuary” and USA trying to bully CA by way of “federal” funds, Moonbeam [the Gov] seeks aid from the federal government.  CA spends billions for the sake of some of those who want, even “demand” sanctuary, but couldn’t figure out cause or action to ensure stuff like Oroville were taken care of…despite knowing, or at least having cause to know, the damage likely to occur with a breach?

Have any of these folk ever been exposed to the concept of cost/benefit analysis?  Even just the financial sort?
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 
 

 

February 16, 2017

 
 

 

Of so many things available for notice, this one just “rose to the top”.

 

"To be honest, I inherited a mess." Trump.

Knock it off, stupid; or are you actually intentionally trying to be worse than Obama?

 

OK, that may be a little harsh.  But words matter.  “To be honest”?  What is he saying about his usual presentation: honest, or dishonest?  What should the public [and press] be expecting?  Was this something of a special case?

 

“I inherited a mess."  Stop, already.  This is akin to the individual facing charges of murdering their parents, looking for mercy from the Court because they’ve been orphaned.  You sought the Office knowing full well what was going on and that is exactly what got you elected.

 

We doubt that we are alone in wanting to never again hear, at least from Trump: “Believe me”; “unfair”; “that’s OK”.  There are a number of other phrases that have become, uhh, tiresome(?) at best.  Perhaps because he so often offers the same phrase twice, even thrice?  It seems he is his own echo chamber.

 

He may also, it seems, be his own worst enemy.  Sure wish he would read and heed our note in this blog dated February 10 [in "Recent" at this writing].
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 19, 2017
 
 
 
The day got away and so, conveniently to our attitude about the last entry of significance, we leave the previous entry in place; it is pretty rare that we leave one in place this long.
 
 
 
February 1
8, 2017
 
 
 
Leaving previous entry in place because we simply want it up front a bit longer.  Yeah, it's that important.
 
 
 
February 1
7, 2017

 
 

 

Having long been aware of the 25th Amendment, and its failings, in concert with “A 25th Amendment Revolution” by our own OEuclidean [free sample available: see our “Action Items” page], we are somewhat pleased to find that more and more people are also becoming at least somewhat aware [we think most are being trapped by their own preconceptions rather than being open to every possibility].

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-25th-amendment-chatter-dems-pundits-mull-ways-to-remove-trump/article/2615212?custom_click=rss             

We think it would be immensely ironic to have the 25th clarified in an exercise against Trump.  Particularly in light of what we had hoped could be a cooperation between Trump and Obama, to mutual benefit and that of the nation, before the inauguration: Trump rescues Obama?

Please do all the reading: the linked article, the free sample of the ebook, and the essay here on site.  It is a lot of reading for most folk and will take a few minutes; we guarantee that it took a lot longer to write than it does to read.  Then, within the dictates of conscience…spread the word about this material.
 
                       
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 20, 2017

 
 

 

While we strongly opposed Obama and advocated repair and exercise of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to remove him, now it is Dems who want to alter the 25th and push for removal of the guy now in The White House.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/20/democrats-question-president-trumps-mental-health/               

We think those pushing now are more “out of their minds” than Trump.  But we also think this may be an opportunity to remedy the problems/failings/weaknesses of the 25th.

Please do the reading [see the entry for the 17th, in “Recent” at this writing] and let’s get this resolved while only about half the population thinks it is needed, as opposed to when there is little doubt anywhere that it is in fact needed.
 
 
                                                                           +≠&
 
 

 

 

 

February 21, 2017

 

 

 

The immigration/invasion nonsense is, like the 25th Amendment concern, getting more and more intense.

Regular readers here, like the writers, may begin to wonder if most of the noise is nothing more than a convenient place to shine the light under the big top, another ring in the Bread and Circuses that can be useful as a distraction.  Which of course begs the question of distraction from what?

See, our largely ignored petition pushes for what Trump has just announced; enforcement of current law.  The petition goes a bit further, in providing a general plan by which many of the goals are reached while costs are contained…and which might, arguably, make a “wall” largely unnecessary.  Finally, it goes on to suggest “less kindly measures”, hinting at a “wall” that might be more psychological than physical [which we believe is as it should be].

Well, we’ve just set up a new window for gathering signatures; link on our “Action Items” page.  Please consider our other petitions while there.  Only takes a few minutes the first time, and less in subsequent windows if they continue to be needed [we’ve been pushing these things a long time; please help us “move on” by getting us to a “mission accomplished”].
 
 
                                                                            +≠&

 
 

 

February 22, 2017

 

 

Now, this has some really funny stuff:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-immigration-plan-mexico-foreign-minister-react-235266?cmpid=sf               

So often remarks are made that are so blatantly philosophically inconsistent that they simple make Reason all but impossible.

Look at this one:

"I want to say clearly and emphatically that the government of Mexico and the Mexican people do not have to accept provisions that one government unilaterally wants to impose on the other," the Mexican foreign minister said. "We will not accept it, because there's no reason why we should, and because it is not in the interests of Mexico."

Now, let’s put the shoe on the other foot: the same stuff slightly, but very slightly, modified;

"I want to say clearly and emphatically that the government of The USA and the Usann people do not have to accept provisions that one government unilaterally wants to impose on the other," the Usann foreign minister said. "We will not accept it, because there's no reason why we should, and because it is not in the interests of The USA."

So Mexico continues to see the informal invasion of The USA by Mexican citizenry, as opposed to formally by [formally organized Mexican] government forces, as “a problem for The USA, but a solution for Mexico”…as was stated by one of its Presidents some time ago.

Yeah: Mexico says it should not have to abide by the results of USA domestic policy, while it demands USA abide by the results of Mexican misbehavior in both domestic and foreign policy, both by its government and its people.  Our “good neighbor to the South”.

 

Sidebar: Mexico wants to bring in the UN on this, providing one more argument for support for our “Hierarchy of Law” if not total withdrawal from that body.  [Signed petition in this window yet?  See “Action Items” page.]
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 23, 2017

 

 

“Our” Marine brought us this:

https://www.dailypetition.com/Punish-city-treasurer-who-left-all-police-dogs-to-starve-because-feeding-them-would-cost-too-much-t-937       

Then he said: “I’ll give that town $500 for one that is under 5 years old and still likely to recover if given reasonable/proper care, provided the $500 goes to food for other such dogs.  And I’ve another $500 to get the dog here to my veterinarian.  As for the officials involved, based on the information in that article, I think they each ought to be left in a cage with a days’ ration of the food they’ve been giving these dogs and a gallon of water, the door then welded shut.”
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 26, 2017
 
 
 
Leavin' it again; workin' on something that dovetails.
 
 
 
February 2
5, 2017
 
 
 
Leavin' the previous entry in place and just checkin' in.
 
 
 
February 2
4, 2017

 

 
 

We got a kick out of this one because we’ve been working in that direction for a long time: it should make little difference who sits in The Oval Office…IF we, as a society, have heeded Jeffersons’ admonition to “put not your faith in men, but bind them in chains to the Constitution”.  If the individual in the office is properly/reasonably constrained by the Constitution, not only does it make much less difference who is in the Office, but the machinations of government are likely to run much more smoothly in both the mundane and the extraordinary.

 

https://fee.org/articles/it-shouldnt-matter-who-is-president/                 

 

One step in that direction would be clarification regarding Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.  Check our blog entry for the 17th [at this writing still in “Recent”], do the reading, spread the word.

This is getting only more and more important as the factions become more and more strident.  There is even now a group that is apparently so seriously deluded that, as a coalition of snowflakes and liberals and one-worlders and who-knows, is calling for frequent if not constant “demonstrations” against and “resistence” to Trump/Pence as “fascists”.  Almost guaranteed to have Trump supporters dig in heels and even push many fence-sitters into the Trump camp.

 

How many people will start to figure out that this isn’t primarily about the governing but about the governed?
 
 
                                                                            +≠&

 

 

 

February 27, 2017

 
 

 

Yes, we have all become warped into the instant gratification of our world.  That said, we see little excuse for

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/21/california-infrastructure-stressed-by-storms-as-7-billion-dollars-of-water-bond-authorized-in-2014-goes-largely-unspent.html 

It needs noted that much of the problems associated with the drought now ended came about due to catastrophically poor management by people entrusted with controlling water in the state.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

 

February 28, 2017

 

 

 What we’d like to hear at the opener:

“Welcome, and thank you for coming.  I mean that; you had a choice, and I appreciate the course you have taken.

With the niceties out of the way, let’s get to it, shall we?

“What we have here, is a failure to communicate”.  Literally.  The people have not been getting their messages through to Congress; Republicans and Democrats are seemingly at greater odds than ever; the Courts seem to have wandered quite a bit quite often; and Heaven only knows what’s been going on with those who generate “regulations”.

That last we may now have a handle on; one new one means two old ones have to go.

But all this other stuff!  Wow.

It wouldn’t be so bad but we’re working on a massive jigsaw puzzle while nobody seems to know what it’s supposed to look like when it’s completed!

So.

One of the first things we’ve got to do is recognize that somebody has to be in charge; that within that context there will be a number of lieutenants; that each of those will have a number of people working on their team.

In this situation, I am the one in charge.  That’s how our system works.  But half my team is not yet allowed to take the field.  Come on, Congress.  Now, for a moment, I speak particularly to Democrats who are being obstructionist; continuing to not let my team go to work, having already eaten up 3% of the clock, will lay any failures of this administration largely at the feet of those who are not allowing  us to get on with business; a delaying tactic which may well come back to haunt in the next election and the one after that.  Because this administration can hardly be blamed for action it could not take because some individuals just couldn’t stand to not have everything their own way.

Confirm those nominated.  OK, if you’ve real grounds to deny somebody, get it done so somebody else can be put forward.  Of course, I want my first choices; but if you really cannot handle that, then let’s try to find a way to get this government operational.

For now, we’ll be doing the best we can.  And you can expect it to still be pretty good: this government needs to be able to operate even under less than the best of circumstances.

Best of circumstances.  Wouldn’t that be nice?  Well, that’s not what we’ve got, so let’s just all buck up and get to it: we are all volunteers here, in a way.  None of us in elective office are here because we chose to not be.  If it is awkward or unpleasant, so be it; we either do the job, or we need to get out of the way so somebody else can.

That isn’t pointed at anybody in particular, but to the every of the elected officials in the country." 

 

And then into some knit-one/pearl two more or less detail on how to weave the bulk of the most important and pervasive issues  -- immigration/invasion and “border tax”, tax reform, budget and debt, national security and military readiness and foreign relations --  to at least begin to get a look at what the jigsaw puzzle may actually be when it is done.

 

 

We don’t expect anything like that.  But it’s what we’d like.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

                                                                                                

September 17, 2011, Constitution Day: we begin another effort at blogging. Previous efforts have ended unceremoniously for a variety of reasons; for the most part we simply have not found it appropriate to pretend that we had something of significance to say publicly each and every day, too easily then neglecting for too long, distracted by daily life rather than making such an effort a part of daily life.

This process may well be subjected to similar problems but should result in a different end: for this blogging has a new intent added to the old, one of being an exercise in and a marking of self discipline [do not expect perfection; we don't, though we will strive for minimal evidence of our imperfections]. A daily entry is a part of our objective: it may be as brief and seemingly dismissive as " Nothing today", "We, too, sometimes need a break: this is one of ours.", or " Have noted news; gathering thoughts", but we are committed to at least checking in each day, and ask readers consider doing likewise. [Entries may or may not be keyed to or even linked to other parts of the site, but we will endeavor to minimize choppiness.]

Too often, we may go on too long. We may try to cover too many bases, resulting momentarily in a light treatment of heavy material, but we believe longer treatments will be available elsewhere on or at least through this site.

One of our objectives is to not waste a visitors' time. We don't mind even offending folk, if it is all honest and above-board; but we would be disappointed if, having visited, somebody left feeling they'd wasted their time [much as we don't mind somebody leaving our table not being uncomfortably full, but would feel badly if they left hungry despite their efforts to become at least reasonably satisfied].

That will have to do for today: life interrupts.

                                                                                            +≠&

Addendum, October 4, 2011

Any post more than a week old will be subject to being moved from this page and archived. For the immediate future, the archive will be available on another page on the site.

Addendum, October 6, 2011

We will, from time to time, review and edit for typos et al, so that later readers may not be subjected to them.

Addendum, December 9, 2011

We have reorganized [again] so that the single most recent blog entry is readily available without having to mess with a slide bar much. Recent entries will go to another page, eventually to archives, though those pages will be as we read, oldest first. We hope this makes things easier for visitors.

+≠&

.


The
(general) PLAN

Exercise integrity, and encourage others to do so:
Support each other, and encourage others to do so;
Educate ourselves, and encourage others to do so;
Use the term Usann, and encourage others to do so;
Resist tyranny, and encourage others to do so;
Exercise authority over officials, and encourage others to do so;

And take the country back, one day, one moment, at a time.
 

Our goal is to follow the above plan in our lives and our business, thus being a part of returning our country, The United States of America, to the Republic it was envisioned and designed to be and The Great Experiment  -- the Rule of Law --  brought to the world by the Founding Fathers.

We ask readers  -- and others --  consider doing likewise.



Taking no ads, the only revenue to keep this site going is out of our own pockets and should arguably
be going to other things, from the few items sometimes in our store, and whatever
donations might be put in the tip jar on our Comment/Support page.


To the extent that you think reasonable

-- and please think for a moment about how long it would take you to put something like this together,
and what it would cost you, in energy and money, to then make it and keep it available on the web --

we ask you consider contributing to our delinquency.