Why Not Deportation?!

The Yakima Herald Republic ran an article on Joseph Anderson Evans Sr., aka Roman Ceniceros-Mora, stating this Mexican national had been lying and cheating our system for 20 years and finally been caught and convicted.  But what is the punishment?  Eight years in prison, three years probation, and $155,000 restitution payment.

But nowhere is there any mention of this illegal alien being deported.  Why?!

For me, the key here is 'probation'.  A deported person couldn't be on probation.  We are going to allow an illegal alien... not just an illegal alien, but a illegal alien with additional convictions of fraud, stay after his sentence to be on probation?

And what were the exact crimes? 

• Social Security fraud
• 20 counts of Food Stamp fraud
• Illegally receiving $128,000 in disability assistance
• Illegally receiving $27,000 in state medical aid and food assistance.
• False claims of U.S. Citizenship
• Making a false statement on a Passport application.

But it gets better.  Roman had been previously convicted for sneaking into the U.S. and committing other immigration violations throughout the 70s and 80s.  This guy applied for a Social Security card just one week after federal authorities had deported him in 1990.

And the icing on the cake:  He claimed to be a disabled Marine who saw combat in Vietnam and was awarded a Purple Heart.

So maybe a future deportation was just overlooked and/or omitted from the article.  Let's hope so!

But another item that should really concern people is the amount of abuse this illegal alien piled on our social services system.  THIS is a PROBLEM!  This is why we need to stop illegal immigration AND require proof of citizenship before allowing ANYONE to receive a social service.

U.S. Postal Service - Example of How to Run a Business Into the Ground

The Postal Service's current plan is to slow down the delivery time of mail in order to save money.  I guess the idea is that with fewer processing centers and post offices, it will take longer to get mail from point A to point B. 

Wow, what a BAD idea!

In this day and age of improving processes and quicker communication systems, publicly stating you are going to be doing things (delivering mail) badly, is hardly a way to entice customers.

Yes, the amount of mail (letters and other flat pieces) being sent is down with the advent of e-mail, social media, texting and etc.  But while this type of mail may be waining, more and more people are using the internet for buying, which means a lot of delivering of packages is going on.  More now than ever.

But the U.S. Postal Service isn't necessarily benefiting from this.  It's amazing how many packages I received from UPS and Federal Express.  Now, when I mail packages, I know that typically, the U.S. Postal Service is usually cheapest, or about the same as UPS.  So why do other businesses bypass the Postal Service when they mail?  Obviously the overall process of dealing with UPS or Federal Express is better for them.

So the U.S. Postal Service is headed in the wrong direction.  Eliminating Saturday mail delivery... another plan in the works... along with slowing delivery times down... is only going to further send customers to other sources.  (I expect UPS and Federal Express to gain business from this action.)

My suggestion?  Improve efficiencies, deal with the labor unions, and make modest increases in postal rates.  (They can raise rates some and still be under the competition.  And a rate increase is in the future anyway, but it is only a penny on First Class mail.)

In the end, this is just another example of why governments should not be in business.  With more than a 100 year head start, the U.S. Postal Service is losing ground to the likes of UPS and Federal Express.  Why?  Because the private sector has to succeed or go out of business.  The government can keep a failing business going for years by infusing money or other benefits.  (Note the U.S. Postal Service hasn't received taxpayer money in many years, but also note they are nearly bankrupt and can't meet their pension commitments.)

Christmas Lights - Just Because You Can Doesn't Mean You Should

I like a festive light display.  In fact, I aspire to some of the fantastic displays posted on YouTube and ones I've seen on HGTV specials. 

When we lived in New Hampshire, I put together a pretty nice display.  It grew more each year.  When we moved to Selah, I started out small again, but each year it grew.  We then moved again in Selah, and it is taking me awhile to get back in the groove, but again, I'm building some each year.  (Electrical capacity and receptacle location are important and slowing me down...)

But as I drive around, I see some real disasters when it comes to Christmas light displays.

Take a little pride!

First, if you live in the country and people can see your house from all sides, you should be lighting all sides.  Yes, it is more work, but looks so much nicer!  (I have to go all the way around our house for that reason.)

Second, string your lights in such a way that you don't have areas unlit (that should be lit) or a tail of lights a few feet long that are just hanging there (as you reach towards a receptacle).  A little bit of planning can fix these issues and makes the display look so much more professional.  (Versus that LAZY look!)  A couple of tricks I use is to either splice in part of a second line to make the reach, or to remove bulbs if the line is too long.  (Due to built in fuses and the need for a certain amount of resistance in the line, these mods may require some trial and error.)  You can also cover small bulbs with electrical tape, especially the new LED bulbs that don't get hot.

I like LOTS of lights.  But just because you own a 100,000 twinkle lights doesn't mean you should put them all up.  Check out 'Christmas Vacation', a Chevy Chase classic, for how NOT to light your house.  But if you can add lights tastefully, like to outline roof angles, or windows, or fences, or trees, or whatever, then by all means, do it!

Lawn ornaments have become popular in recent years.  Whether it is white lighted reindeer or blow-up Santas, a person needs to be reasonable.  Too much and your yard looks like a junkyard during the day when the lights aren't on.  And keep themes in mind.  Santa shouldn't be sitting next to your Nativity scene.  (And honestly, the blow-up stuff... most is pretty hideous... probably ought to be skipped altogether!)

And for cryin' out loud, don't turn on your lights before Thanksgiving, or leave them on past January 1st.  Let's keep the season reasonable!

P.S.  Weather can dictate when you put your lights up and take them down.  Just because they are up, doesn't mean they should be on.  And don't be one of those guys who leaves them up year around, with lights hanging askew.  (People who know me might call me out on leaving the lights up since I did this past year.  I had extenuating circumstances and it won't happen again!)

Oregon's Governor Needs To Be Shown The Door...

Oregon's Governor John Kitzhaber has taken it upon himself to stop executions under Oregon's Death Penalty Law.  Under his watch, only two prisoners have been executed and he feels really bad about it.

If he doesn't have the stomach for upholding the law, he should step aside and let a new governor take over.  This is not a decision he alone can make.  Or at least shouldn't.  Our governments are set up to be run by the people through elected officials.  Oregon residents put the death penalty in place.  The majority supports it.

If someone, or many, don't support this any more, then go through the proper legislative channels and change it.  But if a law or act is on the books, it is every elected official's responsibility to enforce them.  Rules/laws are to be followed.  There is no gray area here.

Governor Kitzhaber needs to be relieved from his duties since he has quit representing his constituents.

Cheap Computers & Internet... But Not For You Or Me...

A Federal Communications Commission program titled 'Connect to Compete', funded with our tax dollars, has the government teaming up with communication providers and computer sellers to offer cheap internet access to those who can't afford it.

Sounds reasonable, at first...

Our local cable company, Charter, will offer internet broadband service to low income families at a $10 a month rate for two years.  I pay $50 a month.  (Granted, I assume my 'tier' is higher, meaning a faster connection.  But even at a lesser tier, I'd pay at least $30 a month, and likely more.)

But wait, in addition to a connection, one needs a computer.  Not to fear!  Microsoft will sell these families one, loaded with MS Office, for $250.  Refurbished PCs from other companies will sell at $150.  Hmm, those prices are much cheaper than I have paid for recent computers...

So, who gets to benefit from this program?  Families that take part in the National School Lunch Program.  Oh, so if your kid gets a free or reduced cost lunch...  I see...

Sorry, I have a major problem with this whole thing.  Access is already available to the poor.  I haven't been to a library in recent history that didn't offer free computers and internet access.  Taking it a step farther, a person can buy a cheap used laptop on Craigslist and get free WiFi at McDonalds.

There is no reason MY tax dollars should be used to offer cheap computers and access to the less-privileged.  This is basically 'stealing from the rich to give to the poor'.  If I have to pay full price, then why shouldn't everyone?

I support giving those in need a helping hand.  And in today's world, every U.S. citizen should have internet access as it is almost a mandatory need.  But this doesn't mean it needs to be SO convenient.  Life is hard.  Everyone needs to make their own way.  The government can't just GIVE to people.  People need to earn, to feel a sense of worth.

Now about those free or reduced lunches...  Never mind, I guess that can wait until another day...

Millionaires Lobby Capitol Hill for Tax Increase

A recent newspaper article highlighted a group of millionaires who went to Capitol Hill and lobbied for a tax increase on themselves.

It's well documented the top earners generally pay the most taxes already.  But this group wants them all to pay more.

My question though is, why don't these people just pull out their checkbook and write an additional check to the IRS?  If they don't feel they are paying enough, then just pay more! 

It seems many people don't just want to spend their own dollars, but they want to reach in everyone else's pockets too.  Sorry, that isn't their choice.

But again, there is nothing stopping them from digging deeper into their own pockets!  (But for some reason, they rarely do...)

Retail Employees Whine About Working Thanksgiving... Waaaahh!

So you don't want to have to go to work at midnight after Thanksgiving?  Then work towards a better job!

Do you really aspire to work in retail the rest of your life?  This should be a stepping stone to better things.  Get an education and do something better, more gratifying.

These people complaining don't seem to get it.  If you don't like your job, work a little harder to better yourself and move on to bigger/better.  Find a career that gives you the schedule you want.

And consider this... there are a lot of professionals who also work at times they would rather be with family.  Our military.  Police. Firefighters.  Hospital staff.  Utility employees.  You don't hear them complaining. 

As a retired member of the Armed Forces, I worked many a Thanksgiving and Christmas.  But you know what, my family planned around it and we still had great celebrations.

So quit your whining!  Nobody owes you anything.  It's up to you to improve your lot in life.

Oil Pipeline Decision Delayed - Why Not Ease our Energy Pains?

So President Obama's administration is delaying the decision on a Canadian oil pipeline that would move oil from the Canada's oil sands reserves to refineries in Texas.  Why?  What is the possible downside to this?  I'm not buying the potential 'environmental impacts'. 

This strikes of political posturing to me, with the decision likely pushed to 2013, after the presidential election in late 2012.

So while families struggle with $3.80 (locally) a gallon gas, our federal government sits on a partial solution to relieve some of this pain.  (Consider that gas prices are partially driven by a speculation market on oil prices.  If speculators believed more oil would be on the market, the barrel price would drop quickly, even before the actual movement of oil began.)

Oh, and consider this...  By delaying this decision, the U.S. is offering up an opportunity for other potential buyers of this oil.  Maybe Asia or Europe will offer to fund a pipeline to the East or West coast to move the oil off continent.  I'm sure in the end, Canada is going to look out for their interests first...

Hydroelectric: As 'renewable' as it gets!

Just how stupid are Washatonians?  Given the passage if I-937 in '06, I'd say the majority are idiots.

Who in their right mind would pass a 'reweable energy' act that doesn't include our current hydroelectric generation as a renewable source of electricity?  It's cheap, clean and certainly available.

I support clean energy.  I'm not a tree-hugging believer in global warming by any means, but common sense tells me we should be reasonably kind to our planet, especially if it makes economical sense.

Dam-generated electricity has a pretty low impact as far as I'm concerned.  Yes, it does change the landscape.  So does Mother Earth, naturally, over time.  Yes, many times dams cause fish migration problems.  But this is only an engineering issue and can (and has been) overcome.

Wind power isn't a bad thing, in the right environment.  I used to be a bigger supporter, but even I'm getting tired of seeing new turbines popping up.  The bigger issue though is that wind energy isn't constant and we can't yet store the excess when we have it.  And then there is moving the power around, which requires more ugly transmission lines.

I love the idea of solar.  Not large scale solar farms, but small home-based systems.  But this too is costly, sometimes not pretty, and you still don't have power all the time without a back-up source or battery storage.

But getting back to I-937, our state passed an initiative that says our local power companies need to source 15% of our electricity from 'renewable' sources (excluding hydro) by 2020.  So that means you and me get to pay more as local utilities invest in more 'renewables', (since renewable energy costs more to produce), while our local hydro plants produce a surplus... that gets sold to other parts of the country that don't have this silly mandate.

It's possible the legislature will improve this situation.  SB 5964 and HB 2124 are offering to "Eliminate the requirement for utilities to purchase unneeded electricity, renewable energy credits, or electric generating facilities that are not needed to serve their customers' loads."

Only time will tell if this situation is fixed with a little common sense...

Selah Mayor Bob Jones - Bye Bye!

I've watched the work of Selah's Mayor, Bob Jones since we moved to the Selah area in 2001.  My take has always been that he is a pompous @ss.  And from what I've heard, there is a true 'good ol' boys' network regarding the Selah City Council.

As a Mayor, he could have been worse.  Overall the City is in pretty good shape.  But there have been some questionable decisions made.  There have been many rumors of employees being forced out when they didn't see eye to eye with Jones.

While I don't know if that is true or not, what I do know is the City Council, led by Jones, approved the questionable purchase of a large chunk of property with the intent of building some city buildings on it.  The City waaaaaaay overpaid for the property.  And then they weren't able to use it as planned.  It took years before the property was developed.  (Some of it... there are still several parts undeveloped.)

A local fruit packing company, a fixture in Selah forever, wanted to purchase and develop a piece of property in the area I'm talking about above, and the City wouldn't give them the change in land-use designation to do it.  Never mind the community, not to mention neighboring businesses all supported it.  (They wanted to expand their packing house and move their office buildings; we aren't talking anything that should have caused a concern.)  So not only did the City risk losing a local business, (they said they may leave and find a friendlier environment), but they lost out on added tax dollars in the coffers at a time when this money is truly needed.

One that people seemed to have forgotten is the Regional Library issue.  Jones was fighting the Library and they nearly closed their Selah branch.  Jones said, "let 'em go; we'll open our own library".  This ended up on the ballot and the residents voted to keep the Regional Library.  This was a real "duh!" moment.

One time I agreed with Jones... but not really... was over the 'Welcome to Selah' sign.  A group wanted to erect a sign that said "Welcome to Selah, home of the Vikings."  My personal opinion is that Selah is much more than the local high school, and any welcome sign should encompass more city attributes.  Jones position was "I'm not a Viking!", (because he is originally from West Valley.)  The man has no tact.

So yesterday, after 16 years,  he was voted out of office.  People have finally... and I mean FINALLY, since it took them this many years... had enough.  Of course Jones isn't gracious in defeat.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  His quote in the paper reads:  "The voting public is not too smart."  "Am I supposed to be polite?  I'm not polite."

Don't let the door hit you in the @ss on your way out Mayor Jones!

Local FairPoint Rep Redeems!

A FairPoint Communications van showed up in my driveway at about 9:15am this morning.  Matt Cleem was the rep.  SUPER guy.  Quickly trouble-shot the problem, and even made a quick temporary fix.  Never mind it is MY problem with the house phone wiring.

Even though we sometimes deal with faceless... not to mention poor and frustrating... 1-800 customer service, it is good to know that the people actually out in the field are hardworking and caring.

Thanks Matt!

Forest Service Could Use Some Common Sense

A recent article in the newspaper highlighted a problem hunters were having over in the Cle Elum area.  Forest Service roads that were damaged last spring during the severe flooding were closed to vehicle traffic.  I've seen the pictures, and it is questionable as to whether some of them could have been quickly and easily repaired, but let's assume this wasn't an option.

So on one section of road, there is an open culvert.  Hunters camp on the bottom side of the culvert area and have for years.  They hunt farther up the road on the other side of the culvert.  Some of the hunters drove their vehicles for 60-80 minutes around to get to the other side of the culvert, they thought legally, and parked them.  In the morning they walked across the culvert, and went hunting.  In the afternoon they came back, parked, and walked back to their camp.  All seems reasonable, right?

Except that the road on the other side of the culvert is 'closed' for about 1.5 miles up to the point of the next road intersection.  (Apparently there had been a sign, but the Forest Service acknowledges it went missing.)  Nothing is wrong with the road, but the Forest Service closed it because they didn't want people driving down and then trying to cross the culvert.

BUZZZZZZZZ - WRONG ANSWER!  Apparently the Forest Service has dumped a bunch of rock to stop vehicles from accessing from the lower side.  So it seems to me they need to do the same from the upper side, at the culvert, not 1.5 miles farther up.  And given the limited damage at the culvert, why didn't they just make the repair, permanent or temporary, and not cause an issue to begin with?

And what was the threatened fine to the hunters that parked on the upper side of the culvert?  $5,000!  Yowza!

One wonders if the Forest Service actually wants people in the Forest....  (Don't get me started on this topic!)

Valley Mall Boulevard Traffic Circles - A Worthwhile Project

After living in New England for numerous years, I became accustomed to traffic circles our 'roundabouts'.  I didn't really see them as being better than traffic signals though.

But after living hear for many years and dealing with the intersection near Shopko of Valley mall Boulevard, Rudkin Road and the interstate on/off-ramps, the proposal of traffic circles seemed to have merit.

And wow, what a change!  Traffic flows nicely!  No more waiting FOREVER at the lights!  Of all the road/highway projects I've witnessed recently, this one was worthy of our tax dollars.

(Now let me rant a little about another traffic circle!  The one just outside of Selah on Selah Loop Road.  We did not NEED a traffic circle there.  Traffic used to flow real nice along Selah Loop Road, and from Selah Loop onto Gore road.  The only problem was transitioning from Gore to Selah Road.  What was the solution?  Moving the section of Gore Road that connected to Selah Loop into the middle of the corner radius and putting up a new stop sign.  The traffic circle slows down most of the traffic to only benefit Gore Road.  Note too the original design of the traffic circle actually was bigger and more logically laid out.  Had that one been built, it would be a lot better.)

Idiot Customer Service I

So I just had to call FairPoint Communications to report a problem with our phone line.  We can dial out, but incoming calls are not getting through.

So I look up the Fairpoint number online and it is a 1-800 number leading into an automated system.  Of course.  Press 1 if you are calling about... (and then it reads off my phone number).  Done.  Press 1 if you have a residential phone and want to change service, check your bill, or other service.  Done.   BUZZZZZZZZZ - WRONG!  I had listened long enough to find out that 2 was for commercial service... but I didn't listen long enough to find out that 4 was actually for repair, (after 3 for internet service questions).  Really 4?!  Would reporting an outage be 1?!  And to make matters worse, after I had pressed 1, the voice told me in a condescending tone what the business hours were and I was outside of them... right before it hung up on me.  Didn't even give me chance to try a different number!

So I called back, figured out to press 4 and did so.  The automated voice asked me if I was calling about my phone number and then read it off to me.  She knows who I am!

But then the actual person comes on and asks why I called.  "Phone line problem."  (I'm curt since I'm annoyed.)  Then she asks what my phone number is.  "Are you serious?  You don't have my number?"  She says no.  How can that be since your automated system just read it off to me?"  Silence.  "Hello?"  She says just a minute... and then reads my number off to me.  Imagine that!

Now, will they fix the line?  Time will tell!

Kittitas County Fire District No. 8 Should Be Ashamed

Are you aware of the ongoing issue up on Snoqualmie Pass regarding the fire station at Crystal Springs/Stampede Pass?

If you believe the local Fire District, they are being prevented from offering life-saving emergency response because the Forest Service won't allow them to plow the road leading to their firehouse.

Well, it is true the Forest Service won't let them plow the road to their firehouse.

But here is the rest of the story.

Before the Fire District built the firehouse in 2005, the Forest Service told them they would not be allowed to plow the road during the winter.  The reason is safety of the local winter recreational users, mostly snowmobilers and cross-country skiers.  (Crystal Springs Sno-Park is the busiest sno-park in the state due to it being close to Seattle and the burbs.)

But wait, there is more.  The land the Fire Station was built on was donated by a local landowner, and the scuttlebutt has always been that the local landowners are using this issue as a way to get the road plowed to their cabins/homes.

While I certainly support public safety, this fire station should never have been built in this location.  Just because it is there now does not give the Fire District the right to change the rules and plow the road.

Yakima Downtown Improvement District - Hmm...

It isn't often that I agree with Joe Morrier.  I think he has taken financial advantage of the City of Yakima on more than one occasion and is the cause of much of his own problems regarding the closing of the downtown mall.

But in reading about the fees assessed on him and other business owners in the Downtown Improvement District, I can certainly see why he is opposed to supporting it.  A whole lot of money has been collected and spent, and I don't think those who have paid have seen value for that much money.  (Morrier's portion has been $28,440 a year since '08.)

Who's to blame?  The 'Committee for Downtown Yakima'.  With a budget of $360,000 a year, their claim to fame is being responsible for a 77 block area, sweeping sidewalks, caring for flowers and removing graffiti.  Oh, and paying an 'administrative staff' to handle promotional duties.  Ah, I think I see where there is some fat that could be cut from the budget!

Funny how when Morrier balked, they offered to reduce his payment by 32% to $19,352.  (But he is standing firm, wanting it lowered to $10,000.)

Yakima's downtown is on shaky ground.  The core is looking pretty good and businesses are moving in.  But move just a few blocks in most directions and you can find the problem areas.  (No amount of money is going to improve these areas... well, unless you hire a lot more police to crack down on the gang crimes.)  I do think there is a need for the Downtown Improvement District.  But how about getting rid of the paid 'administrative staff' and instead install a board of volunteers from local affected businesses.  Put the money on the ground where it belongs. 

Pechtel Not Fit For Yakima City Council

Regardless of what a person thinks of Rick Ensey, there is no way an intelligent person could vote for George Pechtel.

Only one issue, and it has been raised several times:  Taxes!

Let's take him at his word that he couldn't afford to pay his taxes and felt his other obligations were more important.

But if you are running for an elected position, (especially for the City Council in which you owe taxes in that city), you need to have your house in order.  That means not being delinquent in taxes.

This shows a serious lack of good judgement... and isn't it good judgement you expect from your elected representatives?

And honestly, doesn't it seem a little fishy the taxes were paid just as soon as it became a news item.  What are people supposed to think....

Clueless Drivers II

My wife will tell you I'm not the best when it comes to turn signal use.  I used to be, but that was before spending a year in Korea and then eight years living in the Boston area.  Those two places taught me that using turn signals will just give others warning so they can prevent you from doing what you are trying to do.  (I'll digress for a second here:  A tip for driving in the Boston area is to never make eye contact, and just start merging or turning if traffic is too heavy to do it politely.  Be aware of your surroundings and the vehicle you are inconveniencing, but don't give unless they are stronger willed than you!)

Anyway, my point about turn signals is, if you are going to use them, USE THEM RIGHT!

It's amazing that many people who use turn signals think they are doing a good job, but are instead a real hazard out on the road.

If your brake lights come on before your clicker... FAIL!  The whole idea of turn signals is to announce your intentions.  If you are already slowing, or worse, turning, then what's the point?  You didn't tell me anything and I can figure it out when you are slowing or already starting to turn.  Put that turn signal on in advance of the turn, before you hit the brakes.

Of course it isn't always that simple.  You don't want to turn the signal on two blocks before the turn.  Not only is that not helping me behind you, but may cause people to pull out in front of you if they think you are turning before you reach them.  It can be tricky at times, but overall this isn't that hard.

And who am I to comment given my admission I don't always signal?  Well, maybe I shouldn't, but I have my own system that I base on my belief of common sense.  If you are far enough ahead or behind me, and my actions aren't going to affect you in the least, I probably won't signal.  (This is more for changing lanes left/right than actually turning.)  If I'm the only one on the road, I promise you I won't signal.  I use turn signals for what they are for:  to signal drivers around me who need to know my impending actions.

And consider too, sometimes actions are obvious just by where you position your vehicle.  If you are in a left/right turn only lane, it's safe to assume where you are going.  (Please signal if you want to do something different!)

So much of driving comes down to having a little common sense... sadly that is lacking in so many drivers today.

Initiative 1183 - A No Brainer

Again, maybe I'm just simple-minded, but I only see one possible vote on 1183:  YES.

Regardless of any possible consequences from the passage of 1183, and the 'no' group keeps telling us there are many negative ones... all you have to think about is the 'roll of government'.

Never should government run a business.  Not only are they not good at it... look at the waste and inefficiency of any government program... it is not what government is for.  The government is there to protect and serve the citizens.  This usually means providing such things as police, fire, and ensuring safe environments and etc.  At no time should a government run a business.

Washington is one of a small minority of states still running liquor stores.  That alone should tell you something.

If there are problems with non-state entities selling liquor, then it is the state's responsibility to regulate and enforce.  Having the state be the only vendor is hardly the only way, or even best way, to accomplish that.

So again, there can only be one logical vote on 1183.  YES.  Get the government out of running a business.

Clueless Drivers I (I just know there are going to be more rants about drivers...)

So I started walking again, trying to improve my health.  (I need to lose a few pounds and I'm not really interested in dieting!)  I walk a 2+ mile route on rural roads.  About half of it is nearly free of traffic, but part of it is on a narrow road where I have to walk just a hair off the fog line with cars passing every minue or two.

Me, I'm walking facing traffic like I was taught.  Hey, if somebody is going to hit me, they are going to have to work at it!  I'm not going to make it easy for them as I'm watching their every move!

I'm amazed at how many people pass me and give me little room.  It's one thing when they can't see far enough down the road, but a good chunk of my route, visibility is fine. 

Some of these people seem to think they can't leave their lane.  They stay planted right in the center of it.  And I don't mean to sound sexist, but it is usually women.  And usually old women.

When I'm driving and pass a pedestrian, I'm half way or more into the other lane to give them lots of room. I'd feel real bad if I hit somebody because they fell out in front of me or something. Moving over is just the right thing to do and will save both of us a lot of potential grief!

My hats off to those that do give me a ton of room.  And the drivers that slow way down when passing me because they can't see far enough, or a vehicle is approaching them, that too is much appreciated.  Thanks!

Now, if all the rest would get a clue...

No Farm Labor - But Unemployment is Over 9%?

As I walked down our road this morning I noticed a bunch of apple bins in the orchard and apples still hanging on the trees.  Awfully late in the season for them not to be picked.  They may not be as I've heard their is a farm labor shortage.

I read a front page article in last weeks paper about how in Alabama, farmers are complaining they are losing money because there are no migrant workers to pick their crops due to tougher immigration laws in the state.  I get that.

So why don't the unemployed legal people, white, black, brown, whatever, get out there and work?  This would take care of two problems.  Seems simple enough.

But of course it isn't.  When non-migrants have been hired, farmers complain the work ethic isn't there, and many quit after a day or two because it is hard and doesn't pay well.  Besides, they can make nearly the same... or more... on unemployment.

We need a complete shift in the way things are done to fix this.  It doesn't seem that hard to me...

First, if you have been on unemployment for a set time... let's say six months... you need to take these jobs or lose eligibility for benefits.  People should not be allowed to get so comfortable on unemployment.  I know the job market is tough right now, but it may not turn around for a decade.  It reaches a time where people need to take the jobs that are available.  I'm not completely hard-nosed on this; I think the government can help by offering up credits for day care or other legitimate needs while the unemployed are working temporarily as farm laborers.  And I think it is fair that they make as much, maybe more, than they were receiving in unemployment benefits too, meaning they might be offered a partial unemployment payment to make up the difference.  Working as a farm hand isn't supposed to be punishment, but is a way to help the farmers, our economy and the unemployed.

The farmers are going to have to take on a bit more too.  Basically they are going to have to ensure they have a safe, and decent work environment.  (This is something that isn't always done when using illegal migrants because the illegal aliens won't complain.)  They need to pay a fair wage.  (This of course is dictated by the the market; I don't expect they should have to take it in the shorts.)  Probably the biggest effect on farmers will be the work quality in the beginning.  For sure much of society isn't used to having to work this hard and do these types of tasks, so they are going to be slow.  But you know what?  Everyone has to go through this initially; nobody is born good at anything.

Will this ever happen?  It doesn't look good.  Many in government are afraid to take something like this on.  While those on the right might want to take unemployment benefits away after a set length of time, I don't think any of them have the courage to actually ask the unemployed to take a 'farm labor' job.  Those on the left seem happy with extending benefits until... who knows... and don't seem to think the unemployed should ever take a job that is (thought to be) beneath them.

But you know what?  The jobs aren't coming back quickly and the states and Feds are running out of money.  Where is the unemployment benefit money going to come from?  Our great Country will not... be a great Country... and may very well not even survive, if we don't make some logical changes.

But hey, that's just me.

Really? This You Support the Feds On?!

Here's the deal.  We have an illegal immigration problem.  Whether you support the current laws or not, they are on the books and should be enforced.  That's just me... the rule follower...  If the majority want to change the law, please do.  Until then, follow it.

Our local sheriff isn't willing to enforce illegal immigration.  He claims it is the Feds responsibility and that by his department enforcing it, it creates a tougher environment for solving crimes.  (Basically witnesses won't come forward if they fear deportation.)  He may have a point, I don't know.  What I do know is we have a Federal law that his department routinely breaks.  But illegal immigration isn't the point of my comments.

A local person recently tried to hold a 'Medical Marijuana Expo' that was ultimately shut down before it got started by the Sheriff's department due to improper permit paperwork.  In a local newspaper article, the Sheriff stated cancelling the event was probably a good thing for the event's coordinator as his office had notified the local office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of the event and that his office would support any action the DEA cared to take regarding the event.  The sheriff was later quoted "I don't think it's an appropriate function."  "It violates federal law."

Seems to be a bit of hypocrisy here.  The sheriff is willing to help enforce Federal drug laws but not Federal immigration laws.

Again, I'm a rule follower, especially when it comes to those who are elected to uphold the laws.  I don't see how the Sheriff is fit to hold his position if he won't uphold ALL the laws.

But maybe it is just me...

Welcome to My Ramblings

And my wife might interject they are sometimes boring and senseless ramblings...

But here is the deal.  I'm constantly seeing things that drive me crazy and I'm tired of just ranting to my wife.  So if you are unfortunate enough... or fortunate enough... guess it depends on you point of view... to stumble on my ramblings, you too can be subjected.

A little about me...  Middle-aged.  Married with a pre-teen daughter.  Conservative but with mostly middle-of-the-road social views.  Retired Air Force.  Lives in a rural area.  Drives a big truck (and not apologetic).  Enjoys the great outdoors via motorized conveyance.

This blog isn't necessarily political in nature, but it will 'go there' at times.

I'm a 'right/wrong' type of guy.  I see most everything in black and white.  My biggest pet-peeve is the short-attention span of the public and those that take advantage of it.  I believe rules should be followed, laws enforced, and when a person is caught in the wrong, they need to accept the consequences.  (And no, I'm far from perfect, and my wife is happy to point that out whenever needed.) 

Hopefully that is enough about me to get this show started...