Proposed New EPA Rules

Proposed New EPA Rules

The Environmental Protection Agency, in cahoots with the Army Corps of Engineers, wants to control every drop of water in the US.  There are several reasons for this.  One is that it is the nature of a regulatory agency to want to control everything that might possibly fall under its purview.  The old, "if you have a hammer, then the whole world is a nail" attitude.   Another reason is that there are a lot of wild-eyed, radical environmentalists who are actually part of the agency, or who have the ear of the agency, who would like for EPA to use the rule to further a radical environmental agenda.  

Clearly, the perpetuation of the bureaucracy is probably the highest goal.  Keeping one's job is always a concern if one is a bureaucrat.  Clean water is very low on the priority list, if it is there at all.  The authority for keeping water clean is already vested in the EPA.  As a matter of fact, water is now cleaner than it has been in 75 years.  There is no apparent need for any expanded jurisdiction.

The proposed new regulations have the potential for giving EPA the power to require farmers and ranchers to acquire a permit for most any normal activity, such as building a fence, or planting a crop, over a greatly expanded number of acres than is presently the case.     Under the proposed regulation, a field, for instance, that has water flowing through it one day per year would be subject to EPA scrutiny.  Think how many fields in Taylor county would be affected, especially after the two wet years we have had.  EPA bureaucrats, of course, deny this.  The figure they give nationwide for the expanded jurisdiction is a laughable 1300 acres.  Yeah, sure.  "We're from the government and we're here to help."

Finally, this is about ever expanding government control of another facet of American life and culture.  It seems like the Obama administration delights in doing everything it can to stifle the very entities that have made America great, namely business, industry, agriculture, and the military.

Random thoughts: Michelle Nunn, Obamacare, Citizens United,

Just some thoughts . . . . . .

Michelle Nunn . . . . I would vote for her if she would run on a platform of (1)  vote against any feel-good gun legislation, such as AWB, universal registration, universal background checks, magazine capacity limits, waiting periods, etc.     (2)  repeal the (UN)Affordable Healthcare Act.   (3) call for across the board reductions in all budget items.  (3)  repeal The Patriot Act  (4)  repeal NCLB and throw out the Common Core curriculum.       Fat chance of her doing any of those things.  Instead, she has aligned herself with the Obamas.  At a fundraiser in DC last year, Michelle Obama said:

And let's not forget about that commonsense gun legislation that so many of us feel so strongly about.  Sadly, as you know, that bill failed, and you want to know by how many votes?  It failed by just six votes in the Senate -- six.
………………………………..
The fact is that right now, we are just six seats away from losing the Senate -- just six.  That’s how close these midterm elections are.  So it is critical that we elect Michelle Nunn, Alison Grimes, Natalie Tennant.  It is critical that we get them to the Senate.  
http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/18/remarks-first-lady-dscc-women-senators-event

If you are a gun owner in Georgia, or if you are just concerned about gun rights and/or any other freedoms, you need to join NRA.  And vote against Michelle Nunn.

xxxxxxxxxx

Obamacare . . . . . . it is now indefensible.  If a Republican had done what Obama has done with a law passed by Congress, the media would have impeached him, hung him, built a bonfire under his carcass, and sifted the ashes and buried them.  There have been now 27 major changes to the law by Presidential edict.  He can't do this.  Congress passed a law.  He is bound to execute that law.  Many of the changes have been blatantly political.  This latest deferment of certain requirements on businesses is just coincidentally put off until after the mid-terms.   The President lied about the law, and he knew he was lying when he did it.  "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan."   He also said healthcare would be cheaper.  Anyone with good sense should have known that just couldn't be so.  He knew it was a lie.  The website train wrecked before it got out of the station house, at a cost of millions of dollars.  Why did his lapdog media let him get by with his lies and incompetence?  For the same reason they are not howling for his impeachment or resignation right now:  they have too much invested in the First Black President, the Messiah.  After all, they get a "tingle down the leg" when they hear him.   Even one of his liberal media sycophants is stating the obvious:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/why-i-m-getting-sick-of-defending-obamacare-20140211

xxxxxxxxxxx

Citizens United . . . . . . on my Facebook page, several times a day, "suggested posts" show up with titles like, "Kay Hagan wants to repeal Citizens United.  Please help her," or some such.  There are several different politicians or groups who have this as a stated goal.   Well, in actuality, what they are referring to is a Supreme Court decision that overturned much of the McCain-Fiengold Campaign Finance Reform Law.  The name of the case is Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission.  The Court found that provisions of the law that prevented corporations, labor unions, or "associations" from running so-called advocacy ads are unconstitutional restrictions of the 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.   There is some discussion of what is "issue advocacy" and what is "express advocacy."   Basically, the Court ruled that protection of free speech was the paramount issue, and struck down the law.   There are a bunch of misconceptions, and outright misleading claims made by folks who don't like the SCOTUS decision.  Contrary to their claims, the groups mentioned, are NOT allowed to dump more gobs of money into a campaign.  They CANNOT, as a result of the law, send more money directly to a candidates campaign chest.  What they can do is to run radio and tv ads on certain issues.  In fact, one of the major purposes of McCain Feingold was to squelch the effectiveness of the National Rifle Association.    I'm going to shorten this with just a few facts.  Under McCain Feingold, the NRA could not have run ads in several states and Congressional Districts pointing out the abysmal 2nd Amendment stances taken by certain candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives.  Neither could AFL-CIO have run ads in strong union states publicizing the anti-labor stances taken by some states.  One argument I hear from those who are opposed to the SCOTUS decision is, "corporations are not people, and the 1st Amendment protects people, not corporations."  Well, corporations are made up of stockholders.  The NRA is made up of millions of individuals who contribute to the political NRA/ILA part of the organization.  My $50 contribution, combined with the $50 contributions of a few million others, gives us a voice we couldn't have without the right to pool our money and let NRA speak for us.  Here is a link to an article published by the American Civil Liberties Union before passage of the original bill.  ACLU is a right wing, conservative bunch of neanderthals if there ever was one. (NOT)  They give as good an argument against such ill-conceived legislation as anyone.
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-statement-campaign-finance-reform

Eric Holder a disgrace, but so is his boss

Get this now.  The sale, production, possession, or use of marijuana is against Federal law.  Two states have legalized the use of marijuana.  By definition, these laws are Unconstitutional.  (see the Supremacy Clause)   However, the Obama administration is making no move to enforce Federal law in these states.

Some banks, not knowing what the legal ramifications of handling what is evidently big money made in this newly legal (not really) industry, have refused to handle the money.  After all, they could come under some severe penalties for knowingly handling money earned in violation of Federal law.

Along comes Eric Holder.  He has said, basically, that the Feds won't mess with the banks if they take the money.  Citing a "public safety component," and a "law enforcement perspective," he said it ain't good to have these large bunches of cash "just lying around."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/01/holder-feds-to-let-banks-handle-pot-money-181777.html?hp=l2

In other words, the Administration, specifically the Holder Justice Department, wants to facilitate the banks in breaking Federal Law.   They are winking at laws passed by states in direct contravention of Federal Law.  This kind of thing really encourages respect for the laws of the land, doesn't it?

Personally, I have no problem with legalization of marijuana.  It would really probably be a good thing.  It would free up law enforcement, Federal, state, and local, to concentrate on more serious drug offences.

That isn't the question here, though.  If the Obama Administration is in favor of legalizing marijuana, they should get a Senator from one of the states (Washington and Colorado) to introduce legislation repealing the Federal Laws against marijuana.  If not, then they should enforce the law.  Send Federal Agents into the states, make buys, and bust the dealers.

Of course, Holder is just taking his cue from his boss.  Congress passed The Affordable Health Care Act.  Obama signed it.  Bad as it is, it is the law of the land.  However, Obama, by decree, is picking and choosing how, when, and in some cases, what parts of the law are going to be enforced.  That is Unconstitutional.  It is the law.  He is bound to enforce it.   Selective enforcement of laws by the very people who are Constitutionally bound to enforce laws as they are written and passed is a dangerous thing.  I don't understand why even the democrats in Congress are letting him get away with it.

Thoughts on several current events

I have, for the most part, sworn off posting political stuff on Facebook.  I will try to resume my blog for that purpose,  but not limiting it to politics.   I hope to post on various topics at least once, and hopefully twice, each week.  I promise to post a good Obama-Hillary-Eric Holder bash real soon. ;-)

There have been a couple of things that have happened in the last few days regarding carrying of personal firearms.  One is the incident in Maryland where a man who had a valid carry permit from Florida was harassed by Maryland officers even though he did not have his weapon with him.  I did link to this article on FB.  The article can be found at

http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/

I believe this is an example of the worst sort of behavior by police officers, short of actual physical brutality.  More than likely, the officers were "trolling" for drug mules.  The car was from Florida, and it and the occupants probably fit some kind of profile indicating a possible drug car.  It is disturbing to think that an innocent family can be inconvenienced, humiliated, and generally treated like criminals by law enforcement in the US.  Maryland is a notorious anti-gun state, but things like this happen all too often in even usually gun-friendly states.

Next, the incident in Florida where the retired Police Officer killed the guy who was texting during the movie previews.   Wow!  

I don't know exactly what happened, and whether the retired officer was indeed shooting in self defense after the incident escalated, but it sure sounds bad for him.  I won't offer an opinion on who is at fault here, but I do have some thoughts on carrying a personal weapon.

First, if one chooses to carry a firearm, he/she needs to be sure that he has the proper mental attitude.   If one isn't prepared to use his weapon if the need arises, then it could very well be used against him.  I am afraid many people buy a gun thinking that it can be used to scare away a potential attacker.  It might, but it might not.

I believe there are several things about which a legal carrier of a firearm must be very clear in his or her mind.

First, just because you carry a weapon, that does not make you a police officer.  Many people have fantasies of breaking up an armed robbery in a convenience store, or stopping a brutal domestic attack in a public place.  Remember, as a citizen (as opposed to a Police Officer), every bullet you fire has your name on it, with a strong possibility of a lawsuit at the end of it.  Police Officers have the liability protection of the state or municipality.  If Barney Fife fires a shot at a criminal but hits the Baptist Minister instead, the City of Mayberry is liable.  If you do it, you are liable.

Next, if you choose to carry, you need to become the meekest, mildest person in the room.  If you are carrying a weapon, I believe you lose the right, morally if not legally, to become aggressive.   You no longer can afford to blow your horn and flip off the idiot who cut you off in traffic.  You can't afford to initiate a confrontation over something so trivial as, say, texting in a movie theater.  You don't know how the person you are hassling is going to react.  If you have initiated such a confrontation, and wind up having to use your gun, then a jury is probably going to find you in the wrong.

I believe there are two legitimate reasons for a private citizen to carry a gun:  first to protect that individual and or his/her loved ones.  Next, and to a lessor extent, and in some circumstances, to protect property.  There might be times when intervention is justified, but I believe they are few and far between.

Taking a 95 Year Old Friend Dove Hunting

---

I don't know whether I will go opening day or wait until later in the week. I have a little sweet spot fixed up. Nothing illegal, just a patch of millet and sorghum. I'm going to take a friend I have been neglecting for a while, and try to get reacquainted.

The friend is a Parker Bros. Trojan Model 20 gauge shotgun. My Great Uncle Perk Harris bought it new in 1916. He and my Daddy hunted together in the 40s and 50s. Perk had no sons, and when he died, his wife gave the gun to Daddy. I learned to hunt with the old Parker, not realizing that it was a fairly valuable piece. By the time I was 12 or 13, it was "my" shotgun. When I was running the paper route in high school, the old Parker rode with me. I needed it for snakes and varmints and such, don't you know?

From the early-1960s through the late 1970s, I was lucky enough to get in on the tail end of the real good quail hunting in Georgia. The Parker was/is the quintessential quail gun, seeming to just jump up to my shoulder and naturally level on the bird. I hunted with it as my only shotgun for many years, but the lure of the semi-automatic soon got the best of me.

In the early 70s I traded an early stainless S&W for an absolutely beautiful Browning Sweet Sixteen with 26-inch barrel and Improved Cylinder choke. It was an absolute quail killing machine. I more or less retired the old Parker after that, preferring the three shots of the semi-automatic. By the late 70s, we (my brother Sandy and I) were out of dogs, and the quail were quickly disappearing. We weren't really duck hunters, and we didn't have the means or time to travel to exotic places for the wing shooting, so the shotguns were pretty much relegated to the occasional dove shoot.

There are two memories of the old Parker that stand out in my mind. I killed the first quail I ever shot at when I was about 11 or 12 years old. I was walking through a weedy patch with the Parker, behind my Grandparents' house about half way up the north side of Whitewater Hill. Just me, no dog or companion. A single quail got up from right under my feet, the old Parker came up, and the bird folded. My hunt was an immediate success. No sport on an African Safari or an exotic bird hunt in some foreign land was ever more proud than I was of that bird. I retrieved the bird and immediately took it back to my Granny, who helped me clean it and cooked it for my dinner. This would have been during Thanksgiving Holidays, probably in 1959 or 1960.

The other would have been some time in the early/middle 70s. Sandy and I were hunting with Tommy Neely. Sandy had a brand-spanking new Belgian Browning Auto-5. Tommy had a Browning Superposed, what grade I don't know. I had the old Parker. We turned the dog out and within 50yards he locked up on point. The birds held tight, and when they flushed, we all emptied our guns. Sandy and Tommy didn't cut a feather with their five shots. I had clean kills on a double. As Jake (the dog) brought the birds to me, I heard Tommy mutter to Sandy, "Damn a man that outshoots you with a 60 year old shotgun."

About 25 years ago I decided to have the gun "re-done." This could have turned out to be a disaster, but luckily for me, it turned out real well because of a couple of local craftsmen. I took the gun to Clark Freeland. He rust-blued the barrels and ordered new wood. It turned out that the wood was a poor fit, and Clark wouldn't let me pay him anything. He did a superb job of rust-bluing the barrels, no small feat. The gun went back in the closet. A few years later, after seeing the work Thomas Parks did on the wood of another old shotgun, I took him the original wood. He called me a couple of weeks later to come get the gun. He had glued the stock where it had split, and put in a couple of pins to help hold it together. The result was a very attractive job that makes limited use of the old gun very possible. I ordered a case of low pressure 2.5 inch shells to use instead of the standard pressure 2.75 inch shells available over the counter.

So I'm going to take the old girl hunting again. A half dozen birds would be a good thing, and a limit of doves would be wonderful, but just having this old gun in the field again is a reward in itself.

Bad Hands

That's what we used to say about someone who couldn't catch a ball, or fumbled with everything he tried to pick up.  

"He's got the bad hands,"  or "He's got stone hands,"  or sarcastically, when a member of the opposing team dropped a pop-up or fumbled the basketball out of bounds,  "Good hands there, Sport!"

I always thought I had pretty good hands.  I could shoot a basketball fairly well, and could catch a pop foul with the old catcher's mitts we used to have.   No more, though.  I've "got the bad hands" myself now.  I don't mean I can't catch a pop-up.  Last one I caught was at old Atlanta Stadium about 15 years ago.  Rafael Belliard popped it up, and we were in the third or fourth row behind the tarp down the first base line.  I had a glove, it came straight for me, and I stood up and made a two hand catch.  I wasn't about to let it pop out of the glove.   I had that drilled into me early by my Daddy, my Uncle Bill, Sandy, and Coach Carter.

What I mean by bad hands is that they hurt.  Sometimes they ache like a toothache.   I suspect some of those ball games I played, both baseball and bounce ball, have something to do with it.   No telling how many times I jammed my thumbs and fingers.   They call the catcher's equipment "the tools of ignorance,"  and now I know why.  

I had carpal tunnel surgery in each hand a few years back.  I waited too late, and have regained only part of the feeling in my fingers.  The surgery did get rid of the pain I had at night, waking with my hands cramping, asleep, and aching at the same time, if you can imagine it.   Now, some of my fingers are aching in the joints and locking up in a condition my orthopedic surgeon calls "trigger finger."  He has given me cortisone shots twice, and they are only temporary relief.  Besides, the shots themselves hurt like rip.    He says he can go in and snip the sheath that the tendons travel through and relieve the restriction, thus doing away with the inflammation and pain.   I watched the operation on youtube.  It looked like about a five minute procedure per finger.  I need it on two fingers, my actual trigger finger and third finger on my right hand.  It looks like a simple operation.  Katie said she believes she could do it.  I'm scheduled for the surgery next Friday.  It is done in the office.

About 10 days ago my left wrist and thumb started aching and popping when I moved my thumb.   Turns out this is something called De Quervains Tendinitis, or Tendinosis.  Again, it has something to do with a restricted and inflamed tendon.  The Doc and the PA told me last week that a cortisone shot should clear it up.  I had the shot, but it is worse now, if anything.  It is painful to grasp anything with the thumb.  Holding a steering wheel makes it hurt.  Something as simple as pulling up your pants, or grasping something between your thumb and index finger is painful.  

Hopefully, I can get these things fixed in the near future.  I have to remind myself that there are a lot of people with much worse maladies, and that I really should be ashamed for complaining.  I am old, after all, and should expect a few aches and pains.

I just hope I don't need to hit somebody with a balled up fist, or catch any foul balls any time soon.  I'm not sure I could "hand"le it.

Turkeys, Peaches, and Sharp Knives

In the late 50s and early 60s, along with my boiled peanut business, Daddy had me and Sandy running peach stands on US 19.  The two main locations I worked at were where Bethel Church Road turns off 19 South of Butler just before you get to the Red Level, and the top of Whitewater Hill, also South of Butler.

US 19 was still a main route to Florida for the Yankees because I-75 was still pretty much in the planning and construction stages.  I used to marvel about the way these folks talked and dressed.  At that time and place, it was still pretty unusual to see a grown man wearing Bermuda shorts and flip-flops.  I can only imagine what the Yankees thought about a chubby little boy, barefoot as a yard dog, with a single-shot shotgun in the corner,  telling them in what must have seemed like an affected drawl, "These cups are fifty-cents, these a dollar, two dollars a peck, three-fifty for half-a-bushel, and five dollars a bushel."

There was actually a building at the Bethel Church Road location.  It had sides and a front that folded out when in use, and merchandise could be left in it and locked up overnight.   The Whitewater Hill location was a more modest affair, usually with a board supported by a couple of tall hampers turned upside down, with the merchandise displayed on the board.   There were shade trees right at the edge of the road, so it was pleasant, even in hot weather.   Mama would take me to the Whitewater Hill stand right after breakfast, and would either provide a packed lunch, or sometimes bring me something at dinner time.   Two events at this place stand out in my mind after all these years.

The peach stand was directly across the road from my Great Aunt Maude and Uncle Tom Greene's home, and important to this story, poultry houses.  (Teri, Renee, and Susan know exactly who and where I'm talking about.)  Uncle Tom had, I discovered, turkeys in two of the houses.   Along about this time, it was great sport for young boys to signal truck drivers to blow the air horns on the trucks.  One signaled by putting his right hand at about ear level and making an up and down motion, like pulling a cord.  It was a great reward when a driver responded with a loud blast or two on his horn.  Of course I passed the time between paying customers by having the drivers honk at me.  I was successful at least a half dozen times a day.

After about the third day, I saw Uncle Tom coming across the road.  He was very nice, but it seems that the horns terrified his turkeys.  "Every time one of them trucks blows his horn, all the turkeys fly to one end of the house,"  he told me.  "They are some dumb animals."

It seems that he had lost several birds to injuries incurred when they made a panic flight.  Of course I agreed to stop doing it.  I was very chagrined that I had caused a problem.  I was very fond of Uncle Tom, and especially Aunt Maude, and I wouldn't have purposely done anything to trouble them.  There was a problem, though.

At least two or three of the drivers were on short runs, probably between Albany and Atlanta, or maybe Tallahassee and Atlanta, and made the runs two or three times a week.  They anticipated me signaling them to honk, and honked whether or not I signaled.  I would either try to hide when I heard a truck coming, or signal furiously for them to stop by waving my arms and shaking my head.  I think I finally got them stopped, because I don't remember anymore visits from Uncle Tom.

The other incident happened late one afternoon when Mama came to pick me up.  She had brought me some butterbeans in a pint jar, a wedge of cornbread, a piece of fried chicken, and a tomato for my lunch.  She had brought a very sharp knife for me to peel the tomato.  When she picked me up that afternoon, I placed the jar and the bag she had brought it in on the car seat, and put the knife down on the seat.  Dan was standing in the seat next to Mama.  This was long before seat-belts or child seats.  Dan was probably five or so, and usually stood up in the seat.  Apparently, he picked up the knife and held it up right behind me somehow, because when I leaned back, the knife stuck in my back.  I felt it, but it really didn't hurt that much.  I hollered and leaned forward.  I saw a look of horror on Mama's face.  The knife was at least two inches deep in my back, and was sticking out, just like in the movies.  She reached over and pulled it out.   For a few minutes there was a good bit of noise.  I don't exactly remember who got yelled at the most, Dan for stabbing me, or me for getting stabbed.  We didn't go to the Doctor.  I don't remember it ever hurting that much.  I still don't like for Dan to get too near me with sharp objects.