Environmental Protection Agency

       

I recently learned something that upset me.   I attended a town hall meeting with our U.S. Congressional Representative.    He brought it to our attention that the EPA has put new restrictions on industrial boilers.  The objective is to further reduce potentially harmful emissions into the environment. 

I agree that we have climate change.  I seriously question if the primary reason for that change is due to any man made emissions, but we will leave that to another blog.  For the sake of argument, let’s assume our current industrial boilers do produce emissions harmful to the environment. 

What will happen with these new EPA regulations?  One thing that will happen is the closing down of the paper industry in Wisconsin.  The paper industry cannot comply with the proposed boiler regulations and remain competitive with foreign producers of paper.

The end result is closed plants, lost jobs, higher unemployment, lost revenues, and a slower economy.  We will also have higher paper costs for every paper product and any product packaged with paper. 

On the good side, we reduce emissions harmful to the economy, or do we?  As I mentioned, paper production will go over seas to countries like China.  Since China does not have or care about emission controls, total global emissions will increase dramatically. 

So let’s summarize what the EPA is proposing.  The new regulations will mean higher paper costs, plants closed, jobs lost, a blow to the economy, a larger trade deficit, and higher total global emissions,

This does not sound like a winner to me.  Maybe Reagan was right when he said, “Government is not the solution to our problems.  Government is the problem.”

Environmental Protection Agency

       

I recently learned something that upset me.   I attended a town hall meeting with our U.S. Congressional Representative.    He brought it to our attention that the EPA has put new restrictions on industrial boilers.  The objective is to further reduce potentially harmful emissions into the environment. 

I agree that we have climate change.  I seriously question if the primary reason for that change is due to any man made emissions, but we will leave that to another blog.  For the sake of argument, let’s assume our current industrial boilers do produce emissions harmful to the environment. 

What will happen with these new EPA regulations?  One thing that will happen is the closing down of the paper industry in Wisconsin.  The paper industry cannot comply with the proposed boiler regulations and remain competitive with foreign producers of paper.

The end result is closed plants, lost jobs, higher unemployment, lost revenues, and a slower economy.  We will also have higher paper costs for every paper product and any product packaged with paper. 

On the good side, we reduce emissions harmful to the economy, or do we?  As I mentioned, paper production will go over seas to countries like China.  Since China does not have or care about emission controls, total global emissions will increase dramatically. 

So let’s summarize what the EPA is proposing.  The new regulations will mean higher paper costs, plants closed, jobs lost, a blow to the economy, a larger trade deficit, and higher total global emissions,

This does not sound like a winner to me.  Maybe Reagan was right when he said, “Government is not the solution to our problems.  Government is the problem.”

Django Unchained

       

I recently went to see the movie Django Unchained.  I don’t go the many movies in the theater anymore, but Marla was going to see Les Miserables, which I did not want to see due to my lack of musical appreciation.  I had seen Les Miserables on the stage and once was enough for me.   Dhjanco Unchained ran at the same time as Les Miserables so it worked out well for us. 

Dhjanco Unchained was set in the south just prior to the start of the Civil War, and since I am a student of our American western history from 1860 to 1890, I decided to see the movie.  The movie had the potential to be a good movie.  It dealt with the abusive treatment some slaves received in the south prior to the Civil War, and bounty hunters.   Both existed in this time period, but I sincerely hope they both were the exception rather than the rule.

The movie could have been good if 90% of the killing and 95% of the blood had been removed.  People were killed with revolvers, rifles, derringers, shotguns, knives, explosives, clubs, hammers, and dogs.  It was so disgusting that I considered walking out and probably would have if I did not have to wait for Marla anyway.  Great liberties were also taken with the accuracy and reliability of the revolvers of the day.

I would certainly not recommend this movie.  Obviously people buy tickets to this kind of movie or they wouldn’t make them.  What is wrong with our movie industry and the people that go to the movies? 

I am not a gamer, but I understand some electronic games are just as full of killing and blood.  This cannot be good for any young person or anyone that is mentally unstable in any way.  Some people try to restrict smoking and drinking on TV, but killing, blood, gore, and drugs are OK, and even glorified.  What is wrong with our society?

Let’s deal with the many real causes of violent killing like showing and possibly promoting violent killing in movies and games.  Let’s not lose focus by thinking more gun regulations will, or even could make a difference.  Most of the proposed gun legislation will only affect the sane, law-abiding people, and grow the size and control of government without stopping or even reducing the problem.  Let’s be realistic, criminals and mentally unstable people don’t care about the law.

I am not advocating legislation against making or showing this type of violent movie or game.  That would be a violation of the First Amendment, but I understand some people think it is OK to violate the Second Amendment. 

It is impossible to legislate morality or common sense.  Maybe it is time we all try to promote personal responsibility, parental responsibility, Christian morality, and business ethics. 

Axe Murders

       

Once when I was a kid, we took a trip to visit my brother in Tulsa.  Highway 71 was the route we took in Iowa.  This highway took us through Villisca, Iowa, where we stopped to see the house where there had been a horrific crime in June of 1912.

Sometime during the night of June 9/10, 1912, Josiah (43), his wife Sarah (39), their children Herman (11), Katherine (10), Boyd (7), and Paul (5) were all killed with an axe.  Katherine had invited two friends, Ida (8) and Lena (12) Stillinger to stay overnight.  They were also killed. 

All eight people were bludgeoned to death in their beds with an axe.  Josiah and Sarah were probably killed first, then their children.  Ida and Lena were probably killed last in a downstairs guest bedroom.  Lena was the only person that seemed to have put up a fight, and may have been sexually assaulted. 

There were several suspects for the crime, but no one was ever convicted of the crime.  A Reverend George Kelly was a traveling minister that had been in town and left with his wife early the morning the bodies were found.  He was tried twice.  The first trial ended with a hung jury, and the second trial ended with a verdict of not guilty.  The crime was never solved.

In 1892, Lizzie Borden was a 32-year-old woman accused of killing her father and stepmother with an axe in Fall River, Massachusetts.  She was eventually acquitted of the crime.  No one else was ever charged with the crime.  There was a poem written about her.  Kids sometimes skipped rope to the rhyme.  It went like this. 

        Lizzie Borden took an axe

        And gave her mother forty whacks.

        When she saw what she had done

        She gave her father forty-one.

With horrific crimes like this committed with an axe, it was fortunate that our federal government made it illegal for private citizens to own axes.  Oh, what a minute.  That never happened.  It would be stupid to blame the ax for the crime. 

The FBI statistics, from 2005 to 2011, show that far more people were killed with blunt instruments like hammers and clubs than by rifles.  I assume this number would include the so-called assault rifles, but not handguns or shotguns. 

Why do Progressives want the federal government to violate Second Amendment rights for guns?  Personally, I think it is more political and about control than it is about protecting the public.

The Fiscal Cliff

       

There is a lot of talk about avoiding the fiscal cliff with last minute legislation by our federal government at the end of 2012.  That legislation is a joke.  It does nothing to address the real fiscal cliff that is approaching.  It did not reduce spending, the deficit, or our debt.  Debt is the real approaching fiscal cliff.

We are approaching our debt limit again.  This means we must increase it again or default on some of our debts.  Either way, our credit rating will probably be lowered again.  It has already been lowered twice, first in April 2012 and again in September 2012.  With our lower credit rating, interest on our debt may go up, accelerating the problem.  President Obama even suggested Congress should allow him to increase the debt ceiling as he saw fit.  What idiot would allow that?  But, in hindsight, we have done dumber things.

All our legislators did was kick the can down to road and make the potential problem worse.  They did manage to put in earmarks for their favorite pork spending projects.  This is just thumbing their nose at the American people, and we are paying them for this kind of incompetence.  It would be tough to keep your job with this kind of incompetence in the private sector. 

Politicians continue to grow the size of our federal government, government spending, and government debt.  This action is irresponsible, or maybe they are intentionally increasing the power of the political elite at the expense of the country and future generations.

One thing that happened with the legislation was raising the taxes on the very rich.  Who is dumb enough to think that is going to happen?  The very rich have tax attorneys working for them, and with a 14,000-page tax code full of loopholes, they will not be paying any additional taxes.  People in the middle class are the ones that will be paying more taxes.  Check your next paycheck and enjoy. Some of you voted for it.

How do we stop the political elite and the growth of our federal government?  They continue to take away the powers of the states and the people.  We must stop it at the ballot box, but a majority seems to continue to vote for getting something for free and taking us down the road to destruction.  There is no free lunch.

When I look at the history of our founding fathers, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, it is obvious their number one concern was limiting the size and power of the federal government.  How did our founding fathers get so smart over 200 years ago, and we get so dumb?

Religion and Politics    

       

As this holiday season comes to a close, I am reminded of the saying that to be correct socially or in business we should never talk religion or politics.  I think most of us have heard this saying.  There is a problem with this social correctness. 

Christians seem to be the ones that seem to avoid talking about religion outside of Church.  As Christians, we have let minorities like atheists take away our religious rights that were guaranteed under the first amendment.

Independents and conservatives are the ones that don’t talk politics.  The Progressives and the extremists on both the right and left are loudly advocating their position and agenda at every opportunity to anyone that will listen.  Eventually people tend to believe what they constantly hear even if the actual problems like unsustainable debt are totally ignored.  Truth and facts seem to be irrelevant.  I have to compliment the Progressives.  They have been much more vocal and done a better job than the people that are fiscally responsible.  With the help of the media, they have moved political policies that were once considered extreme left to now being considered moderate. 

        Another good example is people that oppose the rights of gun owners guaranteed under the Second Amendment.  They use recent mass shootings to try to take away these rights.  I absolutely agree every effort should be made to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people with homicidal tendencies, but the anti-gun advocates want to just take guns away period without addressing the many real issues the could actually make a difference. 

If we want to stop the growth in government, stop the increasing power of the political elite, and protect our rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, we better stop being so politically correct and start talking to anyone and everyone that will listen.  God bless America.