Heads in the Sand?

I read an article earlier about North Carolina legislators that have voted on and passed a bill in the state senate the prohibits state officials from considering rapid sea level rise when creating rules for housing developments and infrastructure within the 20 counties that have coastline. Uh, huh.... really? And what does this prove? Wouldn't they rather be safe than sorry? And these idiots are completely ignoring all the scientists that have stated that the sea leve WILL rise and it will be more than 8 inches by 2100. They have 13 expert scientists looking at the SAME data, coming to the SAME conclusions and the politicians are going to ignore them? Does anyone know how hard it is to get 13 experts to unanimously agree on something like that? Do these politicians think if they ignore it and pass laws against preparation that sea level rise won't happen? Seriously, I'm shaking my head at the ignorance and unwillingness to listen to experts with an open mind. The only thing the scientists didn't agree on was the level of the rise. They felt it would be somewhere between 15 and 55 inches, so they picked 39 inches as the benchmark. Somewhere in the middle is better than the top or the bottom. unbelievable, it's just head shaking unbelievable. I guess when you decide to become a politician you sign over your rights to your damn brain! good grief

Slow Living

Last weekend I headed a state over to see my mom who flew in from California. On my way I had to stop and get some gluten free flour, while on my way I was able to drive through super tiny towns. And I'm talking TINY. Like a 4 way stop with a sign that said the name of the town, tiny. Can't remember if I've mentioned it before, but I grew up on a farm. Looking back I claim I loved it, but I can't really remember if I loved it while I was there or not. I think I did, I remember having all kinds of fun and being outside for hours on end. Or maybe, as one of my sister claims, I look back with rose colored glassed on. Eh. maybe I do. However, back to my point of this rant (devoid of any anger, for once), on my way through these tiny little towns, I seriously longed to live out the middle of nowhere again. I mean I reallllyyyy want to live there. I can't wait until my husband is done with school so we can leave the suburbs! So on my wonderful Monday morning of work I was reading a great article that actually made me chuckle, mainly because I've been saying the same thing and it's what I want to do. The article was touting the benefits of "slow living." Another term would be village living. The world has gotten so big with so many people living in an urban environment that we are no longer living sustainably. We are using way more than we can replenish. This article says that we need to get back to our roots. We need to buy local and grow our own food. Did you know that the average American meal has at least 5 imported ingredients. Not only does the amount of imports contribute to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, it hurts the American farmer. There are many reasons that my husband and I want to live out in the middle of nowhere on a farm. One is that we will be able to know exactly where our meat comes from, and we will be able to know what was put in it. There will be no growth hormones or antibiotics to affect our health. We will be able to grow our own fruits & veggies that won't have harmful pesticides on them that will cause cancer or other diseases. While tasting lots better, our food will also be lots cheaper than what you find in the store, since it won't have to be shipped from halfway around the world. You have to wonder about our ancestors and their health. Yes, they were more likely to die of things like the flu, small pox or measles, but they also didn't have cancers, asthma, or allergies that affect us like they do today. When you look at their lifestyle and compare it to ours the biggest difference is that they lived close to their food source. They didn't eat fruit and veggies that were out of season, they ate what they grew, when it grew, and canned the surplus. And if they lived in the village, it was food that was grown locally, not from thousands of miles away. Because they lived close to the food source there were less pollution in the air. Because the farmers were small local farmers there wasn't a need to large amounts of pesticides and genetically engineered foods to combat pests & increase yield, like there is today. I guess my point is people should buy locally as much as possible. I don't know if I could ever give up my bananas, so that is one thing I'd willingly go tot eh store for. People living in apartments and cities can buy or grow locally as well. There are container gardens where fruit and veggies can be grown, even on a postage stamp size porch. In some cities they have small plots of land within a city block that can be used to plant fruits & veggies. If growing your own food isn't an option for whatever reason, visit the local farmers market! "Live Slowly!"

Using the sense God gave ya!

Has anyone heard about California and their increased effort to push this bullet train idea through? Oh my goodness! What a bunch of idiots!! Yes, that is my favorite word. It's about as strong as I can get without swearing, which when I read about the stupidity I was to scream and cuss up a blue streak. SO, what's the big deal with the bullet train you ask. Well, lets see. It's going to cost $$68.4 billion to construct. That is in current U.S. dollars, no correction for inflation. but wait, you say how can California do this they are broke? hmm, good question. I think some of you might remember when California couldn't actually pay ANY of their state employees. That was before Arnold was governor, but the fact is, the state is still operating in the red. And for the entire time he was in office he didn't get paid. not one penny! And the state still ends up with a current deficit of $$14 billion. The only other states that even come close to that are Texas & Illinois.  I was wondering how in the heck the general public in that state would stand for the construction of that thing since they are fighting to have teachers for their kids. Well the public voters okay $9.95 billion to spend on the train, and the federal government agreed to spend $3 billion on this thing, and they've also come up with $2.6 billion in bond revenue. So, if you can do basic arithmetic, that leaves the project $$$$$53 BILLION DOLLARS SHORT. And as I said before, that's in today's dollars, with no accounting for inflation. Can you imagine how expensive this thing will be in just 5 years? Seriously people, what's so important about this stupid train?! At that price the damn thing should look and be like something out of a Star Trek movie! Do they even have the infrastructure to run high speed trains, or are they going to need to rebuild everything, creating lots of waste & use of more resources? I tried to look at their website to see if I could get any good information. uh, no. It's all propaganda, cause of course, they want their train. Supposedly these trains are built to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The trains will run on electric power and will be modeled after high speed trains worldwide. Since electricity is provided by more alternative sources, I guess I could get behind that small fact for improving the environment. But,  I hate to tell these people, there are more important things to worry about than building that stupid train. Like funding teachers for schools, welfare systems, decreasing college tuition to name a few. Someone needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Where is the heck is every one's common sense? If you don't have the money to build it, and your budget is billions of dollars in the red already, WHY would you want to do something that would put you even further in the red? I have to live on a budget, why doesn't the government?!

Stupid politicians & the Lacey Act

As you may know, I hate politicians. Most, if not all politicians. Nothing but sneaky, underhanded, lying, jerks. Although I guess since I did find Jill Stein to vote for for president they aren't all bad. Maybe it's like the squeaky wheel thing, the ones that make the most noise get all the attention. So the ones making the most noise that have made me mad today are the idiots trying to limit the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act was first enacted in 1900 and prohibits the trade of illegally harvested plants & animals. Illegally harvest ANYWHERE!! That means if something is illegally harvested in Russia, it's illegal to sell it here. You get the idea? So now we have these idiots, yes, I'm being nice, from Kentucky & Georgia that say the Lacey Act is too harsh and that people are being over-criminalized for minor infractions. IDIOTS, I tell you. This would be Paul & Broun, respectively, and imagine this, they're republicans. So what is behind their idiocy. I'm guessing someone is paying them, because that company or individual wants to fish or harvest animals somewhere where it's illegal and those individuals want to get the law "downgraded" so they can do whatever they want. Damnit, those laws are in place for a reason. A lot of the the laws have to do with harvesting size. The reason behind the harvest size is to ensure the population doesn't crash. If you take something before it's had a chance to reproduce you have a really good chance of having a population go extinct. So harvest size limits are used to ensure animals are allowed to reproduce before they are harvested for food.  Anyway. These idiots (policiticians) are claiming that 2 people back in 2001 were thrown in jail just because they didn't have lobsters they harvested packaged correctly. At least that is the crap they are touting to the public, trying to get support for their moronic quest to loosen regulations. Back in 1999 2 guys were caught for harvesting lobsters that were too small, in violation of a Honduran law. Not only were these lobsters not large enough they were also packaged incorrectly, in black plastic bags. hmmm, maybe so they weren't easily visible, since the fishermen KNEW that they were taking lobsters that were too small. The idiots are claiming that these were just men trying to make a living and they didn't know that they were harvesting lobsters that were too small. I call BULLS**&T!! (if you've ever played the drinking game or card game, you know what I'm talking about) These men knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and the federal agents in charge of the case were able to prove that these men had smuggled in over $$15 MILLION DOLLARS worth of illegal fished lobsters. Seriously? trying to make a living? Not only were the feds able to prove that they smuggled in 15 million worth of lobsters, they also proved that these guys used an obscure port were the inspectors didn't know much about foreign laws on catch size. And then when the men knew that the feds were looking at them, they changed ports, not once, but twice! Even trying to come in through Canada. Does that really sound like men "just trying to make a living"? no, I think not.  The crazy thing about the Lacey Act is it's hard to prove, people are more likely to get prosecuted under the ESA than the Lacy Act. The feds don't go after minor infractions, they go after people that smuggle $15 mill of illegally harvested lobsters into the country. So now the idiot politicians want to limit the Lacey Act. Seriously, go fight for something else, like health care for everyone, or how about food for everyone. There are starving people in the U.S. as we speak. I hate politicians!

What to do wtih all the trash?

I've been thinking a lot lately about what can we do about all the trash that we produce. I'm not just talking about the Americans, cause holy cow we produce a lot of trash, but I'm talking world-wide. Australia is looking at reconfiguring their carbon pricing scheme for a cap & trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The one big problem they are having is with the landfills and the large amounts of methane that they produce. In the US there are a couple of places that are using the methane for electricity. The S.C.Johnson Company actually uses methane from a local landfill near one of their plants to power some portions of their factory. pretty cool. And there are a few other areas in the US where they are attempting to use the methane from landfills for energy, whether it be electricity or fuel for cars. While that is a great idea for the landfills that already exist, what are we going to do about the trash that we are still throwing out. Recycling is a great way to reduce our waste stream, but there are people that don't recycle anything. Take my neighbors for instance. They recycle NOTHING, not one little piece of paper. Just cause they don't feel like it. I'm not sure if maybe some confusion is the reason behind the lack of effort or just because they are lazy in that area. There are people in our neighborhood that put out at least 3 huge bags of grass a week. ugh,  horrible space waster in a landfill. Me, I recycle EVERYTHING. Everything that can be put in that can, goes. We even "recycle" our food waste, grass and leaves. Otherwise known as composting. It makes our garden grow :)  This is yet another area where I feel completely inadequate. I have ideas on how to improve recycling, but it won't work unless people are willing to change. one idea I had for existing landfills is to go and find the stuff that is recyclable within the landfills. I'm sure there are billions of tons of newspapers in the landfills, dating back to the turn of century. oh, that would be 1900, not 2000 :) Forgot what century I was in there for a minute. Anyway. And the plastic and glass that could be found from before we figured out how to recycle. Holy jackpot batman!! Someone needs to figure out a way to tap that resource. The number of permitted landfills is decreasing in the US. We are running out of places to put our trash, so what are we going to do with it? If we are able to use the resources within the landfills then there will be space to put more crap.  Plastic is a petroleum product. Can you imagine how much we could save if we were able to tap into the waste stream and tap the landfills for that resource? So now all I have to do is figure out a way to get the "stuff" out of the landfill efficiently. I guess once the price is right this will be something one of the big companies think of all on their own. Right now it's just cheaper to throw everything away and make new. sigh, people just don't get it, do they?

Jill Stein for President

As much as I'd love to run for president, I don't have the politcal savy to do it right. And I'd get so angry at idiots I'd probably get fired within a month :) So, I was reading an article at work today about Jill Stein. She's running for president for the Green party, and I am TOTALLY VOTING FOR HER!!!! One of her comments was the the political system is broken. oh, yeah, totally is! And it needs to change. She probably won't make it into the oval office, but maybe if enough people know about her she will have a shot!! Wish I had more than one vote. Here's a link to her website. http://www.jillstein.org/ Vote for Jill Stein!!!

Feeling frustrated

I read an article yesterday about people not believing in climate change or global warming, and a million thoughts ran through my head. First of all, how can these people not believe what is right in front of them. HELLOOOOO, climate change means bigger, meaner toranadoes, bigger, meaner hurricanes, longer droughts, horrible flooding, and any other weather event you can think of, just multiply it times 10. So, anyone hear about the tornadoes this past weekend. but I digress. I guess these people think that since climate change isn't happening, they don't need to do anything to conserve what they have. Or maybe they think if they don't believe it's true, then they don't have to change the way they do things and can continue doing things in the wasteful way they are. Speaking of, I have a neighbor that refuses to recycle....she can't be bothered. HUH?! really, doesn't her family realize that by them not recycling they are wasting tons of resources and causing tons of pollution? Seriously, if everyone recycled, just their plastic bottles, can you imagine the amount of trash that wouldn't make it to the landfills. Don't even get me started on landfills and how they are filling up at an alarming rate and there aren't very many new places to put them. yeah, wonder what happens then. So, back to the people with their heads in the sand. Even if you don't believe in climate change, lets talk about water. Yeah, I know, I've been on a water kick lately. It's been bothering me. There are already civil wars being fought for water in the developing countries. The Sahara desert is growing due to desertification because people are trying to scratch out a living on marginal land and there isn't enough water in the area to sustain their farms. Even here in the US there are fights in the west over water. Just read my last post about Las Vegas. They're just the recent problem. Southern California is another area that keeps begging for water and is looking all over the place to find it. There are lots of articles about India and the villages there that will be in dire straits once the glaciers that feed the streams that feed their villages are gone. Yeah, but climate change isn't happening. Science has proven that the glaciers are indeed shrinking, and they are shrinking fast. So, then there will be all those people without water. What are we going to do then? So, not only is the amount of fresh water available dwindling we are doing a damn fine job of polluting what we have. Think of all the stuff we put on the ground, guess where it ends up. Yep, you guessed it, in the water. And then there is the fracking to get natural gas out of the ground. They use fresh water to do that. like 30 million gallons of water to do that. And once they use the water, it's unusable for anything other than more fracking. But it isn't always reused. The chemicals that they put in the water has to be an exact mix, so they don't like to use "dirty" water, cause they have to think more and make up a new additive to put in the water so the combination comes out correct. Now, not  only are there more people needing freshwater for themselves, there are natural gas companies needing freshwater for their wells. This doesn't even take into account the agriculture and industry that will need more water to create more food and more products for the increasing number of people. Know what the sucky part is, there is a finite amount of water on the earth. Yeah, that's right, what you see is what you get, so when we mess it all up with our chemicals and overuse, we are soooo screwed.

Water, Water everywhere....NOT

The states in the west has a serious problem. They have a serious lack of water. Especially those states in the southwest, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, you get my drift. I've read a few articles in the last month or so about how Nevada, specifically Las Vegas, is fighting for more water. At the end of March the Nevada State engineer issues a decision to allow the Southern Nevada Water Authority to pump 84,000 acre feet of water from 4 rural valleys. The water in some areas will be pumped as far as 300 miles to get to Vegas. Currently Vegas gets about 90% of its water from Lake Mead. As you probably know, Lake Mead has issues of its own. You've probably seen pictures of the lake were there is a HUGE white stripe around the edge. That's because the water level of the lake has fallen over 120ft, which is about 35% of its capacity. There are docks sitting in mud and sand because the water level has retreated miles from the previous shoreline. Last year the lake did rise about 30ft from the wet weather and large snowfall, but this summer is predicted to be just as dry and hot as previously and the lake will be back down to previous levels. The drought that created this problem started in 2000, and hasn't relented. So, you ask, what is the big deal. Vegas is dry, always has been always will be, what's so different about that? The stupidity of the predicament is what annoys me. As I noted earlier Vegas has been granted access to water elsewhere, other than Lake Mead. About a month ago I came across an article from the Las Vegas Journal that talked about how stalled housing developments, of which Vegas has many, are expected to WASTE 3 days worth of water. After the housing bubble burst, and it happened on a large scale in Vegas, the Las Vegas Valley Water District had branches of treated water pipelines going to dozens of unfinished subdivisions. Without circulation the water would sit in the pipes and the residual chemicals would degrade, making the water undrinkable. In 2009 the water authority gave the owners a choice: pump enough water to flush out the pipes every three days or be disconnected from the system. If the owners are disconnected from the system, they have to pay to be reconnected at a high cost. So, this policy has created a problem where water is wasted constantly in a desert town, that has just asked for, and received, 84,000 acre-ft of water that will be shipped over 300 miles. now, lets do a little math. Sorry, I'm an engineer, everything is math to me :) On average, an American consumes 176 gallons of water a day (yes that is A LOT!!!). So say these houses have 4 people in each, that equals 704 g/day per family home. Now, these pipes have to be flushed every three days, that's 2112 g/3day per family home. Now, lets just say that there are 10 houses in each development (I'm all about easy math) that is 21120 gallons per development. Articles I've read on the Vegas housing market states that DOZENS of housing developments have been stalled. So, I multiplied by 12 to get one dozen developments that include at least 10 houses and that was 253,440 gallons, Since the articles said dozens, I did a ballpark of 10 (more easy math), there are probably lots more than that, but I don't live there so I can't drive around and check. Which leads to a grand total of 2534400 gallons of water that is wasted in 3 days in Vegas, and that is just for ONE pipe clearing event. And it's probably a a low estimate. This converts to 7.8 acre-ft. EVERY THREE DAYS! Each year has 365 days in it (last time I checked). If water is wasted every three days, then it's wasted 121.7 days out of the year. This equals ~950 acre-ft of water wasted a year. Let's just round that up to 1000, cause you know that there are more than 10 dozen stalled housing developments and there are more than 10 houses in each development, probably more like 20, in each category. I'm not sure what the duration of the 84,000 acre-ft request was, so I don't know if it was a year or total and how long it was going to take to remove. Comparably speaking 1000 isn't even close to 84,000, but to my way of thinking you need to start/stop somewhere. If the city of Vegas is wasting water in this idiotic way, how else are they wasting water?

Wetlands

If you've ever read any of my previous posts, you know i have a thing for wetlands. Don't know why, I just do. Love the Everglades, have done several research projects on them. Have also done several research projects on wetlands in general. Fascinating stuff. If I go back to school for a PhD it will be in wetland restoration, mitigation or the like. So, on with today's worry. Wednesday the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that property owners facing potential enforcement from the EPA can take their case before a judge for a ruling. This all came about because a couple in Idaho put a gravel pad on their property to put in a house. The EPA came in guns blazing, screaming that these people would have to pay a huge fine and then put the land back the way they found it. Meanwhile, if you are an industry, you can fill all the wetlands you want as long as you say you are going to "mitigate." grrr. anyway. back to the story. This couple ended up taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court where it was decided that, yes, John Q. Public has a right to question the EPA and their enforcement of regulations. I have a couple of issues with this ruling and the way the EPA goes about its business.

Problem #1: Ever hear the phrase " It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission" ? yeah, this is what is going to happen. Because the EPA went in there heavy handed, the new policy for builders and developers will be to build what you want, then worry about the consequences later, because the people can take the EPA to court. It may also lead to the EPA looking the other way when wetlands are filled because they don't have the time, money or personnel to deal with the mess that someone has created. I think this may lead to an increase in the destruction of wetlands.

Problem #2: What the hell was the EPA thinking going in there the way they did? Seriously? Everyone hates them right now and then they pull this crap? Where were the brains in that office?!! IDIOTS! Ever hear the phrase, "Catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"? Seriously what frickin' idiot thought that filing charges against a couple building a home in a neighborhood that ALREADY had houses in it was a good idea?! And did they actually go out to the property and check it out? What even clued them in that this place might be a problem? I think the EPA could have gotten a little further and spent a lot less on court costs if the conversation went a little more like this....." Hey so & so, we think you might have started building on a wetland, can we look at your property and make an assessment? You know there is part of this that is on a wetland, we need to work out a way to either return to area to its natural state or you will have to pay a fine. How can we work together to get this accomplished?" I think the ordeal would have been a lot less public and the outcome a lot more beneficial to both parties involved if someone with a cooler head had prevailed. Although I think the EPA works on the policy of hammer now ask questions later.

I think the EPA has such a bad rep now that they definitely need to change the way they do things. They do lots of good for the environment and public health in the US, but their tactics have much to be desired. And I'm one of the people that like to defend the EPA, but I think they've given themselves a big black eye on this one, and I dread what is to come because of it.

Update on the drama: It seems the individuals in this case are not as honest or unaccountable as originally suspected. It seems they did know that they were about to build on a wetland and it also seems that the EPA did try to work with them on the whole project. Those documents were not allowed into evidence for some reason when this went before the Supreme Court. It's that whole ask for forgiveness thing. it sucks that people... they just suck!

Broken Levees

Earlier I posted about not building your house in a flood plain. You know, those areas that are most likely to flood. ESPECIALLY when climate change increases the amount of rain in various areas, thereby increasing the risk of flooding. So, I was reading another article about the levees in the U.S. These are earthen works that are built to keep water out of people fields, homes, and keep chemicals from seeping out. There is no standard for building these and some in the U.S. have been around for a hundred years. There are over 30,000 miles of levees and 80% of them are "not accredited," meaning the people and property behind them are in a high risk area for flooding. The areas behind the levees might as well not even have one there, at least that is the stance of FEMA. (I totally agree with this opinion) Because of the rating of those areas the houses behind the levees need to be built to withstand floods and also have to have flood insurance, which of course, drives the price up. So, typical of our crappy congress, a bunch of the idiots got together and whined to FEMA saying, "you're hurting the economy of certain areas." "You're making it difficult for people to build houses, and your devaluing potential property." How much you want to bet these idiots have some developer funding their stupid campaign? Serioulsy, you idiots?! Are you going to be the ones voting for the bailout of the home owners when their houses flood because FEMA told them it was a risky area in the first place? So now, FEMA has to look into different scenarios in relation to flooding. Wasting tax payer dollars to look into something better left alone. HELLLLOOO!!! Floods are going to continue to get worse, and bigger, why in the HELL would you make it EASIER to build a house in a flood prone area? And on top of that, how much does it cost the federal govenrment(aka US) to send out federal troops to increase the size of levees, fill sand bags, and help with recovery once a flood has done its damage? Wouldn't it just be cheaper to keep the regulations in place and disuade people to live in flood prone areas? Oh, wait, my bad, I forgot who I was talking about. Congress likes to waste my money and are more worried about the developers that are giving them kickbacks, lining their pockets.

Vote for me!

A friend and I were talking last night about how powerless we feel when it comes to election time. It seems that no matter what the people that we have to chose from for president aren't worth voting for. None of them. at all. We have to pick the best from the worst. Make sense? She said she had read that after the caucus' in Iowa, or New Hampshire 47% of the people leaving wished there had been someone better to pick from. Yeah, me too. Everyone is touting Mitt Romney and his values, and Jon Huntsman and his values, but I hate to say it, both of them are nothing more than wishy washy politicians! ALL the people we have to pick from are nothing more than wishy washy politicians. You can't trust a thing that any of them say. at all. nothing. sad, ain't it, that this is what our nation has come to. I just want a person that will be honest! and have some values. I'm not even going to say Christian values, I just want someone values period! They can be atheist, Jewish, whatever, I just want someone that doesn't have an agenda and has the best intentions for this nation. So I got to thinking, what if I were to run for President? hmmmm, what would my platform be? I honestly think we need a woman in the oval office, they take a lot less crap from everyone and are more likely to stick to their guns. But that is besides my point. So, my platform:
I'll go through the non-environmental stuff first, cause I know I'll be going on forever about that.

Education: get rid of "No Child Left Behind." What a waste of money. Outlaw standardized testing. Create a committee for education improvement that is made up of nothing but teachers. Real teachers, ones that are teaching right now, maybe 1 or 2 administrators to get their input, but we really need to know what the teachers are dealing with, and how to fix the real issues. Find a way to pay them more. Teachers are our kids future and they get the shaft! They need more money to deal with what they do.

Military: Keep them home, if at all possible. Pay them more, create a better support group.

Foreign Policy: Can't we all just get along? I think it's about mutual respect. For this I would need a strong VP who dealt with foreign policy. I really have no experience with that, but I know there has got to be a better way to do things than the way we are doing them right now.

Taxes: First order of business would be a massive audit! How the heck is the money being spent that we already have? Find out where we are hemorrhaging money and clamp it shut. Stop paying contractors that are gouging the government. I'm not going to say no new taxes, since we have a huge deficit and programs that need funded. If it can be done, then great, no new taxes, but if not, the money has to come from somewhere. Hopefully it could be done by cutting funding for worthless endeavors.

Welfare: No more money for any more kids. Make the system work so that people can get off welfare. Sliding scale type of thing. They find a better job, they get less welfare, don't completely pull the rug out from under them. I think part of the problem is that we have an inaccurate accounting of what it takes to live in the US. We need a reassessment of the cost of living and help people with those guidelines in mind. As for kids, they have more kids, they don't get anymore money! Limit the income to 2 kids, that's it, no more. If they have more kids, they need to find a way to pay for them, the government will refuse to.

Abortion: Personal feelings aside ( I think it's morally wrong), this is not a decision I can make for someone else. It's not for me to decide or to judge. I think everyone is entitled to the best medical care possible, and if that means an abortion, then, well, they should have that care. Do we really want women to return to back alleys for this type of care? As I said, I don't agree with it, there are thousands of families in the US that are waiting for a child through adoption for one reason or another and if there were less abortions I think those people would have those kids. But, as I said, that's not my decision to make. That decision is between that woman, her doctor, and her god.

Now onto the Environment!! Grrr! Climate change is occurring, we need to do more to stop it. Gasoline engines need to be more efficient. I'm not sure how Ford can sell cars in Europe that get WAAYYYY better gas mileage than the same cars they sell here, but they need to bring that technology home. So does VW, Jaguar, Toyota, and any of the others. All these companies have cars they sell in the EU, that get better gas mileage. Wonder why that is? Taxes on gas, or get rid of some of the subsidies. Maybe then people would stop using their gas hog SUV's and go for something that isn't as polluting. Work with the EPA. I really don't care what people think, the EPA doesn't have enough power! What they do have, is sometimes misused, and needs to be checked, but that happens in any organization, especially governmental. I'm not saying they should have more, but when they make regulations for air emissions, Congress shouldn't be able to squash them with a rider on an appropriations bill. There needs to be  more work on restoration of wetlands, and other natural areas. We need to stop the sedimentation that is destroying all our coastal wetlands. We need to work with farmers to improve their conservation plans and activities. I'd stop granting new oil drilling permits in the gulf, and in Alaska off the coast. (That alone would guarantee I would never be pres.) I'd push research for new alternative fuels. NOT ETHANOL! We won't even get into how bad ethanol is for the environment on an ecology stand point. It's wonderful on an emissions front, but the growing and production of it is soooo bad for conservation. Push for water conservation, there are way better ways to do things in relation to water than what we are dong now. Someone needs to listen to the scientists!! They have been telling us a lot for a long time and we continue on like we are deaf. Business as usual isn't going to cut it.

One more thing: I would refuse to sign into law any bill that would be submitted that had a rider on it. If that meant government shut down, so be it. The Congress has got to stop looking out for their own interests and start looking to the interests of the people. Quit with their own pay raises, and anything else that is to their advantage. They are there to do a job, and at the moment they are sucking at it. oh, yeah, and I'd get rid of lobbyists.

So, would you vote for me? lol, I thought so.

Presidential Elections

I've read several accounts that say all the Republican candidates question the science behind global warming and they are critical of any of the measures to slow carbin emissions.  What planet are these idiots from?! HELLLLOOOOOO (think Mushu, from Mulan :) Can these guys not see what is happening around them? Do they not read the news? The weather reports? For one, lets clear something up, it's NOT Global warming.... it's CLIMATE CHANGE  (stupid Al Gore). Yes, the temperature of the earth will increase, however, that's not the real problem. Yes, the earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles in the past, but that's not the problem! It's the change in events in different areas. Hurricanes will become stronger, if not more frequent, droughts will become worse, areas with rain will get more rain, areas without, will get less. Does that make sense? And the real problem behind the drastic change in weather events is that there are now lots & lots of people in those areas where the weather is going to change. You thought Las Vegas was dry before, ha, just wait. You thought the coast was a great place to live, you could deal with a random hurricane, ha, just wait. That doesn't even include the amount of sea level rise that will be happening within the next 50 years.  Even insurance companies have started looking at climate change and the amount of money it will cost them to insure houses in certain areas. hmmm, insurance companies that only care about money and like to bet on a sure thing, are looking into climate change. And guess what, this is all caused by an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Methane is also a problem in the atmosphere as a green house gas, and could become a bigger problem, but at the moment, it's closer to the bottom of the list as an issue. So, I guess my question is why are all the cadidates burying their heads in the sand? Why do they seem to think that by ignoring or questioning the science that this issue will go away. Or maybe they think if the ignore it, it doesn't exist?! Scientific data is mounting that the problem is not going away and the problem is caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. I hate it when people don't listen. One of the many reasons I stopped teaching, but that's a tangent I don't need to take. How can people deny the mounting scientific evidence of what is going on around us? And why would they? I really don't even want to think about who I would have to choose from as a president. All the candidates at the moment suck, and I'm including Obama in that statement. Someone needs to step up, get a set of cajones, and quit being so damn wishy-washy. hmm, I guess that means we need  a woman in office.

If you don't have the money, you shouldn't buy it!

Okay, so I'm going to complain about California.  It's a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Way tooooo many people! Everywhere. Doesn't matter where you go, you have traffic jams, or just lots of people. ugh. anyway. Not to mention the fact that the weather and location make is a serious draw on water resources in the western US. But that is a rant for another day. Today I want to complain about the Cali government that seems to think wasting money on a high speed rail system is a good thing. Hellllllloooooooo!! They can't even pay their teachers, or their public employees, and they are talking about constructing a multi-billion dollar high speed rail system! Get your damn priorities in order! I understand that the rail system is an attempt to decrease the green house gas emissions, but there has got to be a cheaper way to do that. In order to pay the teachers and other public employees the government has proposed new sales and income taxes to be voted on in the next election. Wow, really? Why don't you try converting buses, and public vehicles to electricity, or liquid propane, or compressed natural gas. Or put solar panels on your parking lots & office buildings? Or put gardens on the roofs of your office buildings? There area millions of other, CHEAPER, ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions other than taxing the people some more. I don't even live there and it makes me mad! Someone needs to knock some sense into people! Good grief.

Changing management styles

My sister says I need an editor :) I guess she thinks that my rants and raves are disjointed and hard to follow. This coming from a lawyer. So I'll try to be more concise, although I'm sure it really doesn't matter too much, as I don't think many people read this.
So, onto today's rant.
I'm sure many have heard about the flooding this past year along the Mississippi & Missouri River valleys. Most are willing to blame the Army Corps of Engineers, I mean, they ARE the ones that originally put in the dams and they are the ones that decided when and how much water would be released when the flooding got to certain levels. So, I guess they are good enough to blame. Once the vast amount of water was released upstream, dikes and levees downstream were overrun, and some even broken by the excess water that came spilling down the river. And now the damage will cost over $2 Billion to fix. ouch.
With the building of dams & levees as flood control, developers have come in and built millions of homes on floodplains. With that development has come the destruction of MILLIONS of acres of wetlands. Over 50% of the wetlands that were originally found in the US have been destroyed. In some areas in the Midwest, almost all wetlands have been destroyed. And in case you didn't know, wetlands have many functions: sponge, filter, nursery, climate control, among others. So, people have bought the houses that have been built on the flood plains. Ummm, hmmm, that really doesn't seem very smart to me. Some may think my next sentiment harsh, but it's how I fell. If you build your house on a floodplain, don't come crying for money when it gets flooded. Are you stupid?! Of course it's going to flood, you built it right in the middle of a FLOODPLAIN!!! What the hell do you think that means? So, I feel sorry for those that have had their houses flooded or swept away by the floods, but, COME ON, what the hell did you expect?! If you can see the river from your deck and you aren't 35 feet above it, guess what, chances are, one of these days your house will be under water.
Has anyone ever been to the Grand Canyon? yeah, just SEEEEEE the power of the water out there! That is what water can do. You can't control water, at least not permanently, it will let you think you can control it, but you're seriously mistaken if you think you can. So all those levees and dikes and dams that have been used to try and control the water that is flowing down stream, they are really just a band-aid. In the long term, they won't do much good.
So, back to the ACOE and the $2 billion damage after the summer flooding. And tying it into the function of wetlands. Areas that still have large amounts of wetlands have better flood control. Ground that hasn't been drained for agriculture or homes is more likely to absorb more water. If there are fields or pavement, the water runs off. If more water runs off, it means more water in the rivers, which means more flooding is likely. Another benefit of wetlands is that it is a carbon sink. This means the plants that are found there absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. And when wetlands are destroyed greenhouse gases, which includes methane, are released into the air. So, not only is the function of the wetlands reduced, what they did hold is released. So the destruction multiplies the problem.
In 2007 the Council for Environmental Quality was tasked with rewriting the guidelines for flood control carried out by the ACOE. The original guidelines were drawn up in 1983 and flood control at that time was all about the money. Money from agriculture from drained wetlands and money from water, trapped behind a dam,  that was sold to cities for people living on the floodplains. With the current climate change problem and the increase in flooding and droughts the guidelines need a serious overhaul.  The original draft of the updated guidelines in 2007 was rejected by the National Academy of Science and it was sent back to the drawing board in 2009. The new updated guidelines are to include climate change and environmental impacts along with financial gain when determining the validity of a project. The new guidelines would include creating or restoring wetlands, and other nonstructural methods of flood control.  So, there are still no updated guidelines, and Congress is at it again. grrrrr. Those idiots have attached a paragraph to the omnibus legislation limiting the use of funds for "new start" programs. And since the new guidelines would be considered a "new start" no funding will be used to create wetlands along the river, it will just be used to fund the fixing of the dikes, dams and levees. that were destroyed this year. in the flood. Okay, so let me get this straight. The dams, dikes & levees didn't work in controlling the flood and were in fact destroyed by said flood....... and we know that the number of floods will increase due to climate change....... annnnnndddddd we want to rebuild the same structures that didn't work the first time? I remember hearing somewhere that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result!
One of the senators actually stated that the use of funds for habitat restoration would be a mismanagement of funds. He's from Missouri, so I'm sure he's upset that his summer home got flooded. But COME ON!!! Obviously what we have been doing ISN'T working!! Why would someone put the brakes on something that would work better? Oh, wait, let me guess, his campaign money comes from the developers that put their developments in the flood plain or from the agriculture coop that wants the land for corn.
Can we PLEASE have a Congress that doesn't have a hidden agenda?! I'd love to have a Congress that has the best interest of this country at heart, not the best interest of their damn pockets!