Cats and Litter Boxes

This morning what's left of Hurricane Hermine maxed our humidity and the house is sticky resulting in something new. My eyes started to itch like sand had blown into them. It was so bad my right eye swelled shut, I felt disorientated and my stomach was upset.

Turns out I'm more allergic to cats and specifically cat pee than I thought. The humidity activated old dried pee and spray resulting in the kitchen and downstairs bathroom reeking of cat pee.

After some research I came across this list of five mistakes people make when it comes to litter boxes. This advice is spot on and lines up with my life long experience with other peoples cats (remember I'm allergic and wouldn't own a cat) be it a girl friends or both of my daughters cats living with me from time to time.

#1 You're not cleaning the litter box enough.

Many cats won’t use the litterbox if it’s not in pristine condition. We know it’s probably not your favorite chore, but you should scoop it out at least twice daily and add more litter as needed. Clean the actual box with baking soda or unscented soap once a week. To make your life a little easier, make a litterbox kit with all the essentials (litter, bags and scoop), so you have everything handy.

#2 The litter box in a less than ideal location.

Place your cat’s litterbox in an area that’s quiet and away from resting areas, as well as food and water bowls. If there’s too much foot traffic or if it’s too close to where they eat your might opt to go to the bathroom somewhere else. Also consider how much privacy the location offers and how easy it for your cat to access it.

#3 You don't have enough litter boxes.

For many cats, having just one litterbox to use is not going to cut it. Instead follow this general rule: one litterbox per cat plus one. So if you have one cat, you’ll need two litter boxes; two cats need three litter boxes. More boxes might be necessary if your house is large or has multiple floors.

#4 The litter box is not big enough.

When it comes to litter boxes, size matters. A 2014 study conducted by veterinarian and behaviorist Norma Guy found that cats tend to prefer big litter boxes to small ones. Ideally, the litterbox should be at least one and half times the length of the cat’s body (not including the tail). Additionally, cats are not always fans of covered litter boxes, so you should try leaving it uncovered.

#5 You're not addressing your cat's stressors.

If your cat is missing the litterbox, it could be a sign that they have anxiety. Common stressors are when there is a move, new person, new baby or new pet in the household. If you have multiple cats, one of them could be bullying your favorite kitty and preventing them from using the litterbox. The stressor could even be more subtle than that. For instance, they might be stressed that you changed to a new type of litter, moved the litter box to a new location or that the depth of litter has changed. If you’re not sure what’s causing your kitty to miss the litter box, talk to your veterinarian, who may refer you to a veterinary behaviorist.

Government for the People by the People?

A President typically can only make a handful of big changes during their time in office. Why not focus on a few changes and run on that?

- Reform our tax code. The 1st Step would be to stop taxing corporations. The concept, although not a sound bite, is rather basic. Corporations don't pay tax they simply pass the cost of taxation onto consumers. Those that argue if the tax is removed corporations will just pocket the savings don't understand capitalism or haven't paid attention to what happened when the federal airline ticket tax lapsed. This one change would reduce government revenue by $320 billion in 2014 while the personal income tax raised $1,394,563,000. How can we make up the shortfall? I don't know maybe we could stop fighting other countries wars? Maybe we could abolish entire departments of the government?

- Repeal the 17th amendment (direct election of Senators).  Like the 18th amendment (probation) the 17th amendment seemed like a good idea at the time but the unintended consequences overly politicized the Senate and changed the balance of power between the legislative branch and states. What would happen? Well for starters Senators no longer have to raise millions of dollars and become beholden to those giving them money.

- Reform medical care. The idea that the government or your employer should provide health insurance makes about as much sense as them providing auto or home owners insurance. The current system is so convoluted it's basically impossible to find out what a doctor's visit or procedure will cost until you are billed. Government creating rules such as making health insurance mandatory, eliminating preexisting condition, removing lifetime caps, letting kids remain on parents plans, basic covered items, malpractice liability caps, etc... Conforms with the principles of government not running anything but serving to create a level playing field for the rest of us. 

- Instant Runoff Voting.  It's an electoral system whereby voters rank candidates in order of preference. In the event that one candidate fails to achieve 50+ percent of the vote, the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated and these voters second choice is used with the process being repeated until one candidate achieves the required majority. Why? The two parties system was never meant to be so dominant it's actually codified.  IRV would allow voters to vote for who they think the best candidate would be without feeling like they are wasting their vote. A few States already do this outright and many do it with absentee voting.

- In order to accomplish the first goal of eliminating corporate income taxes it would likely be necessary to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government. Do we really need all fifteen cabinet level Departments of the executive branch of government?

Department of the Treasury - Established: 1789

Department of State - Established: 1789

Department of War - Established: 1789  (Became Department of Defense in 1947)

Department of the Interior - Established: 1849

Department of Agriculture - Established: 1862

Department of Justice - Established: 1870

Department of Commerce - Established: 1903

Department of Labor - Established: 1913

Department of Defense - Established: 1947

Department of Health, Education and Welfare - Established: 1953 

Department of Housing and Urban Development - Established: 1965

Department of Transportation - Established: 1966

Department of Energy - Established: 1977

Department of Education - Established: 1979

Department of Veterans Affairs - Established: 1989 (Replaced by the VA in 1930)

Department of Homeland Security - Established: 2002

Why eliminate a huge government agency?  For starts some are clearly ineffective, obsolete, have created more problems than they have solved.  Others are duplicate what the States already do.

I think the following Departments could be massively scaled back it not eliminated: Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, Department of Education and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Lastly I would change the Department of Defense back to the Department of War and the Department of Homeland Security would become the Department of Defense.

Clearly this seems radical but if you break it down, department by department it makes sense.  For example do we really need a department of Agriculture anymore? How many kids does the Federal government educate? Isn't the Department of Transportation just duplicating what the States already do?

The Federal government is the definition of bloat.  Mitt Romney likely lost his bid to become president when he commented that 47% of the population takes from the government.  Since when does stating a fact become insensitive? If you add up everyone who works for the government, collects social security, collects a military pension, etc... You get about 47%.

Democrats who say the top 1% of income earners, who currently pay about 43% of income taxes aren't paying their fair share are absolutely nuts.  Government has gotten too big and with 45% of American's paying no income tax something has to give.  I don't want to crush the poor but right now they have no stake in the game and it’s clear the expansion of government is directly linked with American's wanting their government to do more without them having to pay for it.  This is a recipe for a failed system and there are 20,000,000,000 cracks in our foundation and there is no fix in sight.

A good start toward changing this would be honest and educated the American public that corporations don't pay income tax... They just charge more and give the government your money.

Bernie Sanders Wrong - Emails Matter

The Justice Department has made it official that Hillary Clinton had thousands of work-related emails on her private server that were not turned over.

That although they declined to prosecute the Justice Department stated that Hillary Clinton sent emails regarding top secret discussions. Discussions of very serious matters involving national security.

The issue is seemingly basic in that Clinton's personal email server contained government, Clinton foundation and personal emails which at the very least violates widely known government regulations that require the capture and preservation of work-related documents. Her statements that the capture and preservation occurred when she emailed other government officials is plausible but not inline with the spirit of the regulation.

It has been reported that top Democrats are asking reporters if they know of anything or heard anything that still hasn't been released. They are collectively holding their breath to see if anything more will surface before November.

During Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State, State department representative Huma Abedin, Hillary's long time adviser & confident, the wife of the now infamous former Congressman Anthony Weiner, was sent to New York to work with the Clinton Foundation.  For approximately six months she worked for BOTH the state department (Hillary Clinton) and the Clinton Foundation (Bill Clinton).

In February 2016, The Washington Post Reported: "The United States Department of State issued a subpoena to the Clinton Foundation in fall of 2015. According to the report, the subpoena focused on "documents about the charity's projects that may have required approval from federal government during Hillary Clinton's term as secretary of state" and "also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton's personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons".

Bob Woodard made it pretty clear last Sunday that this was a massive conflict of interest. Having a close aid to the Secretary of State working with donors to the Clinton foundation and then having some staffers arrange meeting to said donors is not copacetic.

Voter ID laws Should be Overturned

Dear Rob Bell,

I'm a long time, hard core, Virginia Republican and I don't support voter ID requirements.

Why?  Well for starters I've worked the polls for years and know that voter fraud is NOT a problem.

Experts agree we are talking about less than a handful of cases per year in the entire state and I would much rather see your efforts going after real fraud.

A while back one of our state universities did a study with the help of the State Department.

They obtained the current list of legal aliens who were in the process of applying for citizenship.  They bounced this list off of the voter registration list and guess what?

Yep, something like 3,000+ folks were voting who were not citizens likely thanks, I'm guessing, to the motor voter laws that pretty much registers everyone up who gets a drivers license.

So in a nut shell not all Republican's agree with voter ID laws and some of us consider them blatantly unconstitutional.

ID to cash a check - YES!

ID to buy beer - YES!

ID to buy Claritin D - YES!

ID to vote - NO!

Thanks,

Dave

PS  I write because in my world there exists two groups of elected Republicans. Those that pander and those that want to lead. The bill you support is pandering and frankly it pisses me off.

*****

Updated to year 2021 - A few years ago my feelings on this changed. It's rare, but I got this one wrong and I'm okay with saying so. My opinion was based on dealing with small local precincts in Virginia, not large cities where everyone dealing with the elections seemingly are political hacks. Furthermore, I learned something about racism I never even heard of or understood... The racism of low expectations. Thinking that old people have issues with technology and poor people have issues getting IDs was wrong. The numbers of people not capable of getting IDs must be compared to the number not able to bank, buy booze, fly or treat their allergies.

Is High School a Privilege?

The other day I was pondering why private school costs about half as much as public but on whole consistently produce better results?  Sure I've noticed there are more secretaries, principals, support staff and assistant teachers in public schools but the bureaucracy costs associated with a bloated educational system is only part of the problem. It's more likely the cost associated with unfunded Federal mandates that private schools are exempt from, are at the root of the problem.

If a school doesn't accept federal funding it doesn't have to comply with IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).  This alone creates massive savings.  However, I think it's safe to say that private schools do better because they don't have to accept every student.

Here is my thought.  Should moving up to high school be automatic?  Should pretty much all 8th graders go on to high school?  Should the government be required to provide a high school education to age 21?

For example does it make sense for kids with fetal alcohol syndrome to be sitting next to a college bound senior?

I don't have a solution, I just know that an oppositional defiant disorder student "504 - Accommodation" that comes late to school virtually everyday, talks on his cell phone during class, has been arrested several times and is pretty much the worst possible kid to have in class is required by law to be educated is a political correctness nightmare.

The conundrum... It's cheaper to educate then incarcerate and clearly education is much better for society.  Education for most is key but public education suffers when good intentions result in unintended consequences.  What can be done?  All I know is change is needed.  What are other countries doing?

Do not leave packages at my front door...

This Christmas was my first stolen package. When I saw footprints in the newly fallen snow of a young person climbing up my stairs just far enough to check if another package was ready for pilfering I thought about what I could do.

Security cameras?

Put a decoy box out with a locator chip to catch the perpetrator?

Motion sensing spot lights?

Turns out a simple sign asking for packages to be delivered to the side door was all that I needed. It would seem that most perpetrators can read so now they know packages are at the side door. Walking up the drive adds just enough risk and effort to balance the equation in my favor.

Hold Hearings and Vote!

Dear Republican Majority,

Advise and consent on the President's Supreme court nomination. It's your constitutional duty and your job.

The President has nominated D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland give him a hearing.

Sincerely,

David Beemer

400 ppm reached!

As on November (updated January 5th) world wide CO2 has broken the 400 ppm barrier for the first time... in recorded history.

There is no argument that since 1900 the Earth's surface temperature, on average, has gone up by roughly 1.32 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels have risen about 8 inches.

There is no argument CO2 has gone from 300 to 400 ppm... A 33% increase... Which based on isotopic study is man made and not volcanoes or massive forest fires.

However, it's inconvenient to mention that this increase is only 1 part in 10,000 in the atmosphere on whole.  That water vapor, NOT CO2, is the mother of all green house gases.

Water vapor averages a whopping 30,000 ppm and serves a huge role in keeping infrared radiation in the atmosphere and our planet livable but is barely mentioned in the recent IPCC publication.

Jim Hansen's, the father of global warming, initial ground breaking research on how green house gases trap heat was modeled on Venus not Earth.

Venus - 96.5% CO2
Earth - .0400% CO2

Lastly... Once again I ask what THREE gasses make up 99.96% (ish) of Earth's atmosphere?

Here's a hint... CO2 is not one of them!

My passion is leaving the planet better off after I'm gone.  I very much want to improve the lives of millions with clean water, air and land.  To leave the world a better, cleaner more livable place for me being alive.

Unfortunately CO2 is getting the lion's share of public attention... and money while countries such as China, India, Pakistan and most of Africa continue to pollute on a scale that's essentially ignored by the developed world.  Let's help them clean up their act with actions that have measurable and dramatic impact on people lives and the health of our shared environment. 

McAuliffe Would Not Be Virginia's Governor if...

The argument that Terry McAuliffe would not be Virginia's Governor if the GOP had a primary verses a convention last election cycle is BS.  Regardless of your leanings it's clear this race was MUCH closer than anyone thought it was going to be and had the GOP rallied around "our" candidate or if the Beach's RINO Mayor hadn't endorsed McAuliffe, things would likely have been different.

Having attended a few conventions and voting in countless primaries (both Democrat and Republican) I tend to think each year is different and that is why there's a back room party vote to determine if we should have a convention or a primary. In Virginia everyone can vote in primaries meaning Republican's don't always pick their candidate.

Next you have the money issue... For example how much money was spent by Scott Rigell to win his first primary? How much was spent in total? Nearly $2,000,000 that how much! Do we really want to exclude the "citizen" from running for Congress? Or more importantly, in a close race do we want to spend a million doing the Democrats work of tearing down our eventual nominee?

Primaries by their very nature are drawn out ordeals. The human resources expended on primaries is massive and when it's all said and done people from each camp hate each other... a little. Whereas the convention is comparatively swift and nearly painless with little rancor other than that from those who wanted a primary.  Heck even a canvas is better than a full blown primary.

Forget about the media they pretty much ignore local races and I'm sorry but unless it's weather or sports there's not much for them to bite into.

Some groups seem to be disenfranchised in this process such as the poor, ederly and active duty military who can't attend.  Regarding the military they really don't vote in primaries. The elderly and those who can't afford a weekend in Richmond because the price of politics is too high or they are just not mobile... clearly you haven't seen the stuff that I've witnessed at conventions. Old people, poor people, people fresh out of the asylum... Good God it's just crazy and I love it as smart organization over come these obstacles by the bus load.

That said, being able to "slate" votes locally is a great option but not according to some party redcoats in Virginia Beach.  I'm not sure about state wide but I sure like to see Randy Forbes run in the new 4th District with a convention determining who is going to represent Republican's in the 2nd Congressional. A primary for an "open" Congressional seat is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy or Gary Byler for that matter.  Okay maybe Gary.

So even if we don't have a big convention in Richmond why couldn't the 2nd District have a little convention? Conventions in my mind bring the party together, keep 99% of the democrats out, save the candidates huge money, concentrate the primary into a few weeks verses months, keeps our infighting and squabbles within the family and allows the party to emerge with a unified voice.

Down side... It could be argued that the outcome is not always the best for the party statewide since enthusiasm, excitement and conservatism seem to attract the most delegates.

Lastly the argument that a primary is "free" doesn't fit the conservative mindset any more than the Presidents proposal to expand free public education to grade 14.  Free is a big part in the math getting us to $18,939,000,000,000+ in debt... not including future federal obligations we are already on the hook for!

Randy Forbes Don't Give up the Fourth!

Randy Forbes should not "run away" from running in the newly defined 4th Congressional District.

Although there is no requirement for a member of Congress to live in the District for which they seek office it's an unwritten rule and Randy Forbes should run not jump ship to run in the 2nd district. I suspect that Gary Byler is up to his old tricks and back room deals which has in the past and will again ultimately hurt the party.

Regardless of what Randy decides, there should be a GOP convention and those interested enough to participate will determine who is going to represent the 2nd District in November. Unlike a primary, a convention will not besmirch the ultimate victor. A convention will be quick. A convention will unite the 2nd District. A convention will preserve campaign dollars for the race in November.

Congressman Forbes is the only republican popular enough to carry the new 4th Congressional District and I encourage him run for the sake of the Republican Party.

CO2 CO2 CO2 - Argggggg

Breaking news - The world's governments agree to spend trillions to control the climate. Trillions... Not on potable water, not on hunger, not on disease...

What really gets me going is the recent prediction that the current Paris agreement would only halt warming at 2 degrees Celsius but that other groups are protesting this arguing warming must be halted at 1.5 degrees.

I'm just scratching my head remembering the blog I did a while back documenting my efforts to determine the world consensus on the amount of warming since 1900. 

Spoiler alert there is no consensus.

If governments and the scientific community can't agree on what the average surface temperature increase has been since 1900 how can they accurately measure change? 

Scientist are acting as if there is a model that exist that can predict how many tons of CO2 must be eliminated to halt warming at 2 degrees.  This though invokes a level of SWAG beyond comprehension.  (SWAG = Scientific Wild Ass Guess)  Many articles published before, during and after the Paris United Nations Conference on Climate Change passionately support the 1.5 degree over the 2.0 degree limit which baffles me.  Why not 1.0 degree?

Instead of agreeing on an arbitrary increases my hope is that the worlds governments will HELP developing economies such as China, India, Pakistan and all those in Africa who actively "pollute" the air, water and land to a level that is unfathomable. 

Instead of spending trillions on CO2 mitigation why not spend trillions on helping the developing world stop polluting the air, water and land?  Why can't the developed world help the developing world create a healthy environment?  Compared to CO2 mitigation, cleaner air, water and land is the low hanging environmental fruit and I argue cleaning this up first is common sense.

If clean air, water and land are just too mundane you can always go after trace pharmaceuticals, mercury, soil loss, over fishing, deforestation, etc... The list I'm sad to say goes on and on.

PS  Looking at NASA's imaging it's clear that developing countries are burning everything they can to heat and cook.  The United States is clearly doing something right so lets us help the areas in RED become BLUE and clean up our ever so fragile atmosphere in a way that will directly impact our blue marble in space.

Why Amtrak Sucks

The concept is pretty simple.  Provide mass transportation that is as fast as or faster than driving.  If priced around what gas and tolls cost people will ride.

If you can provide a comfortable setting, clean bathrooms, good food and drink... It will become popular and I would venture actually make money.

Right now Amtrak only manages to meet one of those criteria in that the cars are comfortable.  So why does Amtrak consistently lose money?  For starters they can't even make money selling concessions to a captive audience.

The railroad's inspector general audited by the GAO concluded Amtrak loses about $80 million a year selling food. From 2002 to 2012 Amtrak's food service lost $834 million.  For example Amtrak charges about $2 for a soft drink while costing taxpayers about $3.40 and don't even think about a hamburger that costs taxpayers $16 and tastes like...

My suggestion is to have the federal government take full responsible for the tracks, crossings, bridges, etc... while fostering competition among more than one rail company.  Who knows, one day Norfolk Southern, CSX, Union Pacific or BSNF might offer something akin to the Uber ride service.  However, right now that’s just a pipe dream even as Amtrak’s losses decreased to only $227,000,000 in 2014. 

Amount of Warming Not Settled

Various government and institutional studies indicate the Earth has warmed since 1900 by:

1.40 1.53 0.95 1.30 1.35 1.50 1.26 1.30 

degrees Fahrenheit (my best calculation is 1.32 degrees) and sea levels have risen about 8.5 inches.

Isotopic study indicates man has increased global CO2 by 33% during this time period.  
But is the CO2 increase causing this warming?  Do umbrellas cause rain?

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: "Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial." "When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period."

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer:  "Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?"

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore:  "We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science."

* Update - Turns out I keep forgetting to mention my main point. Humans continue to actually pollute on levels that are frightening for the planet an this must be addressed. Everyday pollution goes hand in hand with developing countries so why not focus on helping free a billion plus people from unbelievable poverty?

* "Isotopic study indicates man has increased global CO2 by 33% during this time period." Turns out this is wrong. Most scientists are now indicating a warming planet/oceans actually contribute more to the CO2 increases than mankind. A good guess is that fossil fuel burning is directly responsible for less than 1/3 of the CO2 increase. Who knew?

With Every Single Day

With Every Single Day (Romulus Vulpescu)

With every single day we disregard
The birds, the love and the forgiving sea
Not realizing that we do, in fact,
Replace them with a desert of dismay.

Just fooled into the comfort of a dream
Which we dismiss with just one hesitation
We linger in our circle without seam
Denying our eyes the contemplation

We roll up in our sheets without joy,
A loneliness in two, cowardice fixes,
Whispering to each other words of lie
Which turn to dross our worn and common kisses.

Eventually we find ourselves too hollow
With an impermissibly low and sad ideal,
Too skeptical, too lonely, too desert
To see that love is here and still real.

With every single day we disregard
The birds, the love and the forgiving sea
Not realizing that we do, in fact,
Replace them with a desert of dismay.

"MORE REVIEW FOR POWER LINE"

The EPA has forced the shutdown of two older coal fire power plants in Yorktown.  To meet peak demand Dominion has asked to build transmission lines across the James to connect the nuclear plant at Surry with Newport News.

It would seem the Pilot wants more study because the power lines are seven plus mile from historical Jamestown and may spoil the view.  I think it's safe to argue a vast majority of our countries historical infrastructure projects wouldn't be allowed under today’s regulations.  Think filling in Boston harbor and dredging for Miami.
                     
First of all, a coal power plant isn't "dirty" just because it's old or clean because it's new.  U.S. coal burning power plants are the cleanest in the world regardless of age thanks to companies like 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing) and work done by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  Steam technology is one of the oldest and a retrofitted steam power plant with scrubbing technology is an amazing way to produce clean power.

Over 90% of our nations electricity comes from coal, natural gas, nuclear or hydro all of which are "bad" because CO2, fracking, radiation and negative environmental impact.  Shutting down coal plants primarily because they produce CO2 doesn't make environmental/economic sense until a cleaner alternative is deployed.

Spoiler alert, California is thirsty because of the massive build up of cold ocean water offshore and their unwillingness to build new dams and reservoirs (or keep what they have) to offset the reality Southern California is a semi-arid desert, supporting one tenth of the U.S. population.  Don't let Virginia suffer a similar fate, that being rolling blackouts, for our failure to do what is needed.

When Dominion Virginia Power informs us that two coal plants - running 30% of the time - if shut down will require a power line from Surry to cross the James river, we should not scoff at them.  We should not complain that transmission lines would mar our historical skyline.  We should not demand the cables be buried under the James.  We should not editorialize Dominion's predictions of doom are just hype.  We should stop whining and accept that 40% of our nations power comes from coal and develop an alternative BEFORE we demand these plants be taken off line.

Only in America

Of course we look like idiots - we are!

#10 Only in America... could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 per plate campaign fund-raising event.

#9 Only in America... could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population.

#8 Only in America... could two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee) BOTH turn out to be tax cheats.

#7 Only in America... can a terrorists, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan shout out "Allahu Akbar", fire 214 rounds, kill 13 people and injure more than 30 all in the name of Allah, be labeled as "workplace violence".

#6 Only in America... would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally become American citizens. (probably should be number one)

#5 Only in America... could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the Constitution be called EXTREMISTS.

#4 Only in America... you need to present a driver's license to cash a check, buy alcohol or Claritin but not to vote. (I think it's perfectly fine to vote with your voter registration card or confirmation letter already in use but hey that's me.)

#3 Only in America... could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a typical U.S. Oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

#2 Only in America... could you collect more tax dollars from the people than at any time in history, then spend a trillion dollars more than collected and complain that the government doesn't have enough.

#1 Only in America... could the "rich" - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.

Poll Workers Impact School Board Race!

Kim Melnyk showed the Republican Party of Virginia Beach, ALL of who supported Bill Brunke, how to run an effective grass roots campaign and take on the establishment. I'm so proud of her! 

Two things really bother me. #1 the fact that Bill Brunke offered her something to drop out and #2 the level of stupidity to put that in an email. I don't want someone like that representing my city or me. Creepy and stupid is a deathblow and I'm so glad the voters figured this out.

Kim now owns the middle ground as a true conservative who earned the endorsement of the Virginia Beach Education Association Political Action Committee of Educators. I honestly believe there is nothing being endorsed by VBEA. They have endorsed conservatives before and thinking Kim will do their bidding is nonsense.  

Brian Kirwin knows what down ticket poll workers can accomplish during an off year elections. When he ran for office and won one precinct there was a dedicated poll worker who toiled the whole day as an experiment basically proving poll workers can and do influence school board and city council races.  Poor Bill Brunke basically got mugged at the polls and I’m betting he is still wondering how it happened.

If Kim votes to replace Dan Edwards as chairman, she has my 100% support.  Dan is a retired LCDR who has repeatedly shown a lack of leadership and intellect.  To his credit, he did exactly what he set out to do, fix the school budget and prevent surprises but that was so long ago you can’t even Google it.  It’s high time for him to allow someone else to take the reins.

*** Update - Dan Edwards is no longer Chairman... 

WHAT VOTER FRAUD?

I'm sorry individual voter fraud is not a thing. 

The risk versus reward are just too great.

I've worked the polls for years and I've never witnessed voter fraud and I've been critical of the Republican Party's efforts to require ID at the polls.

That said it turns out that voter fraud maybe more widespread than I thought and requiring ID isn't going to stop it so why require an ID?

I will offer two cases that opened up my eyes:

In 1996 California Republican Congressman Bob Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez in an upset, by the narrow margin of 984. This margin was made up easily by illegal aliens voting and the government could prove this by bouncing the voter registration lists off the State departments list of none citizens apply for citizenship and green card holders.

Besides illegal aliens and green card holders voting we have folks, I'm guessing mostly older, voting in multiple states.

Kim Strach, the new director of North Carolina’s Board of Elections searched a database that comprises about half the registered voters in the U.S. and found 35,750 voters in her state whose first and last names and full date of birth match with someone in another state who also voted in the 2012 election.

Individual voter fraud... People walking into vote and saying they are someone they are not is NOT the problem and is a red herring that the Republican's are using to decrease Democratic turn out.

However, voter lists with felons, illegal aliens, green card holdess and folks who are voting twice should be addressed. The reality that the U.S. State Department will NOT share it's data base of green card holders and citizenship applicants with States to clean up the voter roles speaks volumes!

Once again the voting public's attention is on the shinny object when in fact there are other factors at work that need addressing.

Bob McDonnell

I've known Bob for many years and the picture (from the Virginian Pilot) shows all the pain and worry he has been through.  The jury meets again today and who knows when the verdict will be announced.  The longer the wait I think it's more likely Bob will be found not-guilty.

Like everyone interested in Virginian politics, I have my reasons for wanting Bob to be found not guilty but in a nut shell 13 of the counts require that Bob knowingly agreed to help Mr. Williams because of bribes.  As governor Bob tried to help everyone and I doubt he made such an agreement.  If he did Bob sure didn't deliver which would go against his nature which makes me very inclined to believe Bob was being Bob and no "special" treatment was given Mr. Williams.

The count the Feds wanted him to plea guilty to and forgo trial was the lying on his loan application in that he didn't including his personal loans with Mr. Williams.  I thought this was an easy conviction until it became known the mistake was corrected by Bob before the loan was underwritten and the final documents signed at closing were correct.  I'm not even sure if the initial application is part of the official record and I'm a loan officer.

So my feeling is Bob will be found not guilty.

Maureen?  Who knows...

***

Update - McDonnell guilty on 11 counts!  Got this totally wrong.  One thing that threw me off was the charge the Feds wanted him to plead guilty to (loan fraud), was the only charge he wasn't found guilty of.  How is that possible?

***

Update - McDonnell is still not in prison while he works on his appeal.  There is a good chance this whole thing could be overturned as the judge apparently didn't instruct the jury correctly.  Time will tell and I'm making NO predictions.

***

December 8th, 2015 Update - McDonnell is still not in prison.  Solicitor General recommends that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOUS) not hear his case.

***

January 15th, 2015 Update - McDonnell is still not in prison and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOUS) announces they will in fact hear his case. Bob accepted gifts, trips, vacations and no or low interest loans for a business friend of his wife.  This was NOT illegal.  No one has said accepting gifts (as long as they are reported) is illegal.  In my mind I think accepting anything should be illegal but the law in Virginia is very clear on this and it's NOT.  However, the jury found that Bob McDonnell gave this business man special access, etc.. and helped him with his Virginia based company.

I would argue that a Governor should do what he can to help businesses in his state... Right?

Now the Supreme Court is going to determine if politics as "commonly practiced" in the United States is illegal.

Think of it this way if a company wines and dines elected officials so they cast votes that reduce taxes, build roads, whatever... to help a company build a new plant in their state that is against the law.  My thought is the court is going to take this matter seriously and reverse the lower courts decision or more likely send it back to the state to retry the case with different instructions and the state will decided not to try it again.  So the Beemer's prediction is "remand".

***

June 27th, 2016 Update - The Supreme Court just unanimously reversed "remanded" the lower courts ruling... Bob is a free man!

Nix corporate tax

The Virginian-Pilot
© August 23, 2014

RE 'IN A STEW over inversions' (George Will op-ed column, Aug. 17): Will's conclusion that 'the sensible corporate tax rate would be zero because corporations do not pay taxes they collect them' is right on.

I've been saying this since 1992 and now conclude that if people want Virginia to grow, something has to change.

The states with the fastest growth rates in the nation do not have an income tax. If our elected officials want to see economic growth close to that of those states, why not consider repealing Virginia's corporate tax?

Our lawmakers have failed to realize that North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky have successfully passed laws to snag employers, employees and retirees from Virginia. It's time for Virginia to get smart, step up and pass laws that make our state more competitive.

David Beemer

Virginia Beach

97% of Scientist agree with Anthropogenic Warming

When anyone says something is unquestionable, expecially politicians, you should remain skeptical. Remember Jimmy Carter and the national energy shortage? Peak Oil debunked again.

Using the best data available government agencies can't seem to agree on how much the Earth has actually warmed since 1900:

1.40 1.53 0.95 1.30 1.35 1.50 1.26 1.30 degrees Fahrenheit. It's interesting to note there is little agreement regarding temperature but many sources nail sea levels risen at about 8.5 inches per 100 years for the last 450 years.

So what is the source of the "97%" quote?

It's from the Abstract of Expert credibility in climate change - Sent for review December 22, 2009.

The Authors:

William R. L. Anderegg - Department of Biology, Stanford

James W. Prall - Electrical and Computer Engineering, Toronto

Jacob Harold - William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

Dr. Stephen H. Schneider - Department of Biology, Stanford

Note the degrees in red or lack of any degree.

However herein lies the problem. If you asked all the scientist who worked on the 1,372 papers the above authors reviewed what three gasses make up 99.964% of our atmosphere I know from experience very few of those asked would know the answer.

FYI, the answer is Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon make up 99.964% of the Earth's atmosphere.

CO2 doesn't even make the list because it is measured in parts per million. At 400+ ppm it's a trace gas and will remain a trace gas regardless of what humans do. Even if we really tried we can't undo the 74 million year Carboniferous Period. That might sound radical but seriously think about how long it took to sequester all that CO2. Thinking mankind can reverse this in a few hundred years is beyond hubris.

To put this into perspective CO2 readings in office buildings typically range between 600 and 800 ppm. I've been told CO2 levels in nuclear submarines hover around 5,000 ppm. Commercial green houses use CO2 generators to boost CO2 levels to 1500 ppm during the day for optimum plant growth. Yes green houses generate CO2 to increase production.

Consider all the science that has taken place in the last 100 years (starting with the discovery of the basic structure of the atom) it would seem foolish to think that energy production will be like it is today in say 80 years. Only science fiction writers have any inkling what the world will look like in the year 2200 when everyone I know will be long dead.

Don't get me wrong, our atmosphere is incredibly fragile but few of us understand how small a 1 in 10,000 (man's contribution is maybe half of this increase) increase in CO2 in the atmosphere actually is let alone what this tiny increase is capable of causing?  

If someone looks you in the eye and says they know what temperature increase is associated with a 100 ppm increase in CO2 they are lying.

History is full of scientific theories that were later proved to be just flat out wrong and theories that at first, if not for decades, were laughed at only to be later proven to be true.

A Hundred Authors Against Einstein (not really but that's the name of the book) concluded Einstein was wrong by consensus. You might want to ask the Japanese how that worked out.

Climate Deniers and Warmers are Both Wrong

It just dawned on me that the Climate Change argument has been framed incorrectly. I've seen the data and even though the last two decades don't show it, the long term trend is warming.

Deniers say warming isn't happening and go to great lengths to prove this but the data is conclusive.

Warmers are basing the warming on a 1 in 10,000 increase in atmospheric CO2

It's true glaciers have been shrinking since 1850.  The earth has warmed about 1.32 degrees and sea levels have risen 8 inches since 1900.  During this time CO2 has increased 33% going from roughly 300 ppm to 400 ppm and this increase in CO2 is in man made based on studying the various CO2 isotopes.

These are the facts that I'm guessing 97% of all scientists agree on.

The "deniers" don't acknowledge the facts.

The "warmers" say it's CO2, man is responsible and we must slash emissions or else.

However, there is a third group which you haven't heard much from because they are the silent majority.

The silent majority acknowledges the data but observes glaciers started melting well before CO2 began increasing.  Furthermore, this group is more pragmatic and acknowledges the odds a 1 in 10,000 increase in anything natural and essential for life is unlikely causing measurable harm.

Does the data show that the earth is warming?  Yes - Not so much lately but the trend is an upward trend.  Is it settled that a 1 in 10,000 increase in man made CO2 (total atmosphere model) in responsible?  You make up your own mind.

PS  Man doesn't create CO2 we are just releasing CO2 that was inadvertently sequestered millions of years ago when plants anaerobically decayed (decaying without the presence of oxygen as in under water in a swamp).

Best Quote of the Day...

"I honestly believe that half the Republican's are Democrats and half the Democrats are Communists."

Unknown

Fed Chair Outlines the Reality of Debt

Most American's don't understand that our Federal Budget and Debt is going to ruin this country and likely take the world with it long before global warming, climate change or whatever "squirrel" we are currently focused on.

Fed Chair: Deficits Will Rise to Unsustainable Levels

Tax the gas more

The Virginian-Pilot
© May 3, 2014

Tax the Gas More

If you want a measure of how ineffective and spineless our elected officials are, you don't have to look any further than the gas tax.  It's a pure user tax that levies proportionally according to use and encourages conservation and new technologies.  Our roads and bridges are in disrepair in part because elected officials haven't raised the federal gas tax since 1993.  A first-class postage stamp cost 29 cents in 1993 and 49 cents today.  If you apply this rate of inflation to the federal gas tax, it should be 31.1 cents, or 12.7 cents more.

Only four states have lower gas taxes than Virginia.  Adding 12.7 cents to a gallon of gas averaging $3.47 in Hampton Roads would represent just a 3.7 percent increase in the price.  This increase would hurt for about a week, versus President Barack Obama's recent suggestion of allowing states to toll the interstate highway system.  A gas tax increase doesn't require any bureaucracy, but politicians love bureaucracy and think the New Jersey Turnpike model is by far the better solution.

Why can't our politicians make a single logical decision?  Fixing the deficient bridges across the United States would cost just $76 billion.  Why not create jobs fixing roads and bridges?

David Beemer
Virginia Beach