Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Point Of No Return

The instant a person is born he is on a road of no return. The clock begins and it only goes forward. When a person reaches the more advanced years of life he realizes that the end of his life is getting closer every day.  The original man at some point figured out that he couldn't answer all of the questions about his surroundings, or from where he descended. These were great mysteries. At some point it was  decided there were no answers and perhaps never would be, but the instinctively inquisitive human continued his search.  In these early times it was decided that:
  • the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and the earth was the center of the universe. Philosophy and religion grew from these suppositions. 
We have learned that there is an inherent curiosity in every person and it leads him to question mysteries.  Over still more years  man's inherited curiosity grew and became more demanding every day.   Intelligence and knowledge, grew with the passing times. When a mystery could not be explained human beings developed theories about mysteries they could not otherwise explain.  As time passed many were proven correct. For example,  they determined that:
  • the sun does not revolve around the earth,  the earth revolves around the sun.  
  • The earth is not flat. It is not exactly round either, but we generally think about it as round. 
  • The sun is not the center of the universe. It is, in fact, a small star in a limitless universe. A universe that contains millions, billions, or even trillions of  other galaxies, stars and planets.  
The point is that human beings may probably never figure out the complexity of all of our surroundings, experiences, history and so forth. It just isn't going to happen and it is simply accepted. Yet the quest for knowledge about the mysteries surrounding us, remains.

Sunday, February 7, 2016

Dent In The Ego

Failed the old person's driving test. I really didn't,  but that's what the examiner said. Actually, I passed easily - but was marked down because of a difference of opinion involving the interpretation of the test by the driving examiner.

Because I am old (79) and have minor short term memory loss,  a slight cognitive impairment, and a hint that I may have the beginnings of Parkinson's Disease,  my doctor recommended that I take this special test to affirm to the DMV that I am capable of driving a car.  All of this is true and I welcomed the opportunity to take any driving test required to confirm that none of these age or health factors interfere with my driving skills.

The fact is that I drive carefully, know the laws (passed the last regular written test with only one error),  and drive exceptionally well. In  my  reasonable judgement I drive better than my wife, daughters, grand daughters, and almost all of my "over 65" friend's.

Also in my favor (but not considered) I've not received one driving violation ticket in approximately 40 years, and the one accident I was involved with about 10 years ago was caused by another car running into my car which was stopped at a stoplight. The other car was completely at fault.

At this point let me make clear that the Costa Mesa DMV and the driving instructor handled my application and test courteously and efficiently. I have no complaint regarding either.

My complaint involves only the written drivers test and how it is interpreted.

  • The examiner and I  turned right as we exited the DMV driveway. The examiner told me to "turn left at the next intersection". I said "nineteenth street" and the examiner said "no, the next intersection".  I did so without a problem and we went forward with the test. For what it's worth, the next "intersection" was  "nineteenth street".but he marked me down by one point because he had to "cue" me.  Now, that's just not true.
  • I was directed to "pull up to a curb and stop, then back up a couple of car lengths and stay about the same distance from the curb".   As I have always done, I looked over my right fender at the curb as I retreated. Unfortunately I drove a little closer to the curb. I stopped going backwards and said to the examiner that "I was getting too close and would go forward a few feet and then resume my backward motion."   The examiner told me to "use my right side view mirror to watch the curb as I backed up".  My car (SUV) is relatively high and I told the examiner that "from my position the right side mirror I can't see the curb at all" He directed me to "adjust the mirror so that it pointed down and I could see the curb".  I did so and completed backing up maneuver. Because I stopped to move forward a few feet and adjust my travel backward, and because I found it difficult to back up a specific distance from the curb using my side mirror (which I have never done), the examiner marked me down five points. That was not  a fair test. He never said that once started backwards I could not stop and adjust my path. He also would not let me use the method of looking over the hood and watching the curb recede or looking out the rear window and watching the curb as I backed up.  I thought the requirement to use only the right side mirror was not what the test intended. In fact, is a right side mirror required in California at all? The examiner marked me down 5 points.
There were other questionable 'mark downs' but as I review them, they were all simply a matter of interpreting the words on the test - and not worth discussing further.

DW

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Global Warming Dollars


There are many brilliant minds in this country who believe the current 'Global Warming' scare - and that it is caused by mankind. This is disputed by many meteorologists and scientists who believe the earth is going through one of it's "normal cycles of heat and cold". They claim there has been no serious and suitable study to indicate that mankind has created pollutants that might alter the temperature. But it has not been proven.  Is Global Warming" just so much "poppycock?

No , it's probably not. But it actually has not been verified that mankind is responsible for the coming deadly heat. Yes, it is apparently coming.  What is really going on? Research leads to a convoluted trail to Capitalism.  There are indeed a large number of people in the world who believe Capitalism is evil,  or at least a major problem to civilization. They seem to detest the very idea of "competition".  Mention of a few nations that officially don't care much for Capitalism would include: China (Communist), Norway (Socialist Kingdom) , Sweden (Socialist Kingdom), Germany (Democratic Socialism), Spain (Socialist), Libya (Socialist Dictatorship), Egypt (Socialist), most South American dictatorships, and so forth. There are more.
  • And we must not forget Pope Francis. He is a considerable force within the Catholic Church, and his influence far reaching. 
  • Think carefully about his statements made at or before the Paris Climate Change Conference: 
  • The world is headed for suicide if a climate agreement isn't reached. 
  • In Africa, climate change is the cause of the exploitation of resources, the major source of pollution, and has caused African nations to be mired in poverty and social injustice. 
  • Pope Francis asserts that Capitalism has increased inequality around the world. 
  • He asserts that  Capitalism has caused the destruction of the environment for "profit at any price". 
  • Pope Francis has also said that "Capitalism is the dung of the devil".
  • Influential educators like President Obama's "special adviser" Van Jones continue to add fuel to the fire: 
  • Jones is a self admitted Communist. A founding father of STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement), a radical Marxist organization.
  • He actively promotes social justice to be accomplished by the use of government power. 
  • He also promotes the use of government power to forcefully redistribute wealth and to give special privileges to minority groups. 
  • He proclaims that "white people get all the benefits of green energy". 
  • Jones believes America needs to revamp the whole economy to create justice for all".
The conference in 2015 was not about reducing carbon emissions and saving the planet. 
  • It's participants agreed to hold the global average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius above prei-ndustrial levels and to adopt efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees above prei-ndustrial levels.
  • The Rich nations also agreed to provide at least 100 Billion Dollars a year to tackle the problem. 

But is there really a problem?









Thursday, January 14, 2016

Hillary & Bill Disaster


The Donald v. Hillary

She's upset that Trump used vulgar language to describe her last Presidential election debacle and he referred to her possible bladder issues when she disappeared during the last Democratic debate.  God help us all if this woman is elected. She'll be the second President in a row without any balls.

dw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypl1MYuKDY

George Elsey's "An Unplanned Life"


I've been reading George Elsey's book "A Unplanned Life" and recommend it to anyone interested in an excellent book of military and political issues that occurred during World War II.  It is very well written and a pleasure to read.

George, following an exceptional eduction (Princeton. Harvard/ M.I.T. and etc.), entered the U.S.Navy, and then the Federal Government. His span of work dated from the time of F.D.R. to the Presidency of Harry Truman.  

It was my good fortune to be a friend of Mr. Elsey.  He was a member of my small Orange County Book Club, and attended every month. To my knowledge he never missed a meeting until he retired at 97 years of age. Sadly, he passed away not long after.

He was the senior member of the club and his input valued by all 8  of us.        

George led a wonderful and important life and happened to be "in the right place at the right time" to be a participate in a tumultuous period of American history.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Liberal Betty The Blogger

Betty Rain   

My friend Betty (Rain), a terrific blogger and almost a reasonable Liberal Democrat. She doesn't like to listen to my usual apposing views, but Betty is very intelligent, a great photographer, and an excellent writer. She writes romance novels in her spare moments. Politically, she has been moving further to the left since Obama became the King. She and the farm boss (husband) have approved  most of his devastating far left ideas. I'm not going to discuss that fellow right now. She knows where I stand, and I know where she stands. From what I can see there are more than enough press people and raging bloggers talking about his poor decisions. I am  concerned only with the apparent closure of a very bright mind.

America is becoming a radical Liberal-Progressive nation. The size of our government is growing  faster than our population and we are experiencing the most Liberal-Progressive  trend since F.D.R.  The extreme Obama administration is convinced that we should print more money and increase welfare payments until there is no more poverty. These people are essentially borrowing from the Communist and Socialist concepts that  are not new and have universally failed.  They raise our already excessive  national debt - which will put us out of business if not reduced. Liberal Progressive governments, by definition, will not reduce our national debt. Perhaps a traditional and more conservative government would take the necessary steps: 
  1. to eliminate waste, redundancy, excessive spending, and grand new projects that have potentially poor returns. 
  2. to cautiously reduce welfare or match any increase necessary by first raising the money to pay the bill. 
  3. and if the national roads and other infra-structure needs building or maintenance,  military hospitals upgraded,  and so forth - all should be paid for without increasing the national debt.
In this time of relative peace it would be a disaster if the national debt continues to increase. 

I believe Americans tend to be good people, industrious and a positive influence on the world overall. We have political problems of all kinds and the reasons have many fathers, and it's true that our political system has glaring faults, yet the foundation and basic structure is quite sound. It requires due diligence and constant repairs and modifications - but it does not need incompetent leaders that continue to spend money they don't have. 

A few determined citizens believe that America agrees should adopt communism, socialism, royalty, dictatorships, and etc. Few, Mr. Obama and his supporters are doing their best to push the government in this direction. They are convinced that America is evil and does nothing but harm all over the world, and blind to the compassionate aid, comfort, and assistance America has freely dispensed since it's founding. The  newly converted Liberal Progressive Democratic Party claims that America has  never been successful. They honestly have come to believe that America started on the wrong foot in 1776 - and has never improved. They see  America as the worlds' most arrogant bully. 

Okay, so we differ on ideology. Yet not long ago Betty and I enjoyed discussing political ideas. She from the left and I from the right. Betty eventually lost interest and our conversations ended. At that point she had started to dismiss ideas other than her own. That made me sad, but I never tried to re-open our correspondence. 

Perhaps a carefully  thought out compromise between Liberal Progressives and Conservatives  could  be arranged by a fundamental restructuring of  the Federal  Government,  but I  doubt that would be possible. The better bet would be to fix the sysdtem we've got.  

END

President Obama.

Within the blink of an eye our current leader became an arrogant, ego driven zealot determined to advance his private agenda no matter what. How this characteristic was overlooked before his first election will someday be the subject of countless history books. Even after his personality problems were discovered, he was elected again. He was actually selected in favor of several more suitable and experienced candidates. Doesn't that indicate there is something wrong with our election system. 

Mr. Obama was, at the end of his first term, clearly  a proven failure - but was elected anyway.  What happened? I have several good friends that voted in both elections for Mr. Obama. All of them now say it was the dumbest thing they ever did. They finally accept that he is a highly intelligent person, a talented and charismatic person  that has been educated by family, friends -  and radically Liberal-Progressive  teachers during his entire life. He came into office with a carefully crafted ideology - and promised extravagant changes. It was "snake oil". But it was believed by many Americans tired of the mythical big business types. 

And the nation will suffer the results for the decades ahead.

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Nixon Perhaps Not A Bad President

Idle thoughts.  

      After reading and reading about the Watergate mess, I've revised my memory. I actually think now that Mr. Nixon was a victim more than a culprit. He became the victim of his advisers and the nation's judicial system.   The scenario is beginning to change from that our media presented at the time. Nixon, a strong, driven, and opinionated man, was also an intelligent, experienced, and capable politician who saw the danger of the rapid spreading of communism, influenced largely after World War II by Stalin, represented a terrible danger to the future of the United States. Nixon had diplomatic skills and the ability to envision long range future world developments. There is no question that Mr. Nixon viewed Communism as a current and future flaw in the dynamic of nations. The American political left hated him for his opposition. 
      If I understand correctly, Nixon was not accused of ordering the break in at the Democratic National Headquarters located in the Watergate complex. In fact, he got into the most serious trouble by attempting to cover it up. As a result, the liberal biased American media gleefully crucified him. Subsequently, he was driven out of office because part of his presidential plan involved preventing Communism from capturing the liberal political left and taking over the Democratic Party. Documents recently uncovered in the National Archives describe secret meetings of the liberal left, secret memos and secret collusion that show flagrant violations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Supposedly, this was in pursuit of "justice" for our lawless president. The plain and not so simple fact is that the eastern liberal elites got control of the special prosecutor's office and the power to prosecute. They subsequently criminalized the prosecution of Mr. Nixon. 
      Most of the people involved have been shown to hate the Constitution because it is the law of the land and they are the lawless ones. They can not stand to be constrained by the Constitution and laws they don't like. The Watergate scandal was nothing compared to what these people did behind the scenes. They violated the Constitution time after time, and generally felt because of their towering intelligence, they know more than the Founding Fathers. This attitude is destroying the democratic government of our land. 
      John Sirica is a disgrace to the federal judiciary. He was the presiding judge over the Watergate trial, and it is now known that he colluded with prosecutors behind closed doors, and they (the powerful liberal elite) all worked out how to bring President Nixon down. Judges and lawyers are supposed to remain separate, but it is clear that Judge Sirica worked very closely with the prosecutors. 
      The Watergate prosecutors took pertinent government files with them. They were unavailable to the defence. But they should have stayed at the National Archives. Why did those particular files temporarily disappear? Because they didn't want the public to know that they were unjustly destroying a President and attempting to tear down a government. Nixon was done in by the officers of the court. He had stopped them - and they hated him for it. They were determined to take him down.

And they did.

Monday, December 21, 2015

Outrageous Politics

My monthly book club just adjourned. As usual there was not a consensus about the book reviewed. Instead, the conversation wandered from immigration to President Obama to Mr. Trump. The discussion invaded and overwhelmed the latter half of our meeting. Obama was praised for his many good contributions , and particularly the 17 million newly insured. With one or two exceptions, the club members favor the Liberal/Progressive agenda. I am the only Conservative voice. No one else at the table seems wants to discuss the consequences or side-effects of that agenda. Nearly all of the club members do not  consider the  consequences to be a problem. 

Within the blink of an eye our current leader became an arrogant, ego driven zealot determined to advance his private agenda no matter what. How this characteristic was overlooked before his first election will someday be the subject of countless history books. Even after his personality problems were learned, he was elected again. He was actually selected in favor of several more suitable candidates. Doesn't that indicate there is something wrong with our election system. Mr. Obama was, at the end of his first term, clearly  a proven failure - but was elected anyway.  What happened? I have several good friends that voted in both elections for Mr. Obama. All of them now say it was the dumbest thing they ever did. They finally understand that he is a very intelligent person that has been educated by family, friends -  and radically liberal teachers during his entire life. He arrived on the scene with a carefully crafted ideology, a like able personality, and promised extravagant changes. It was "snake oil". But it was believed by many Americans tired of the mythical big business types.   Immigration From The East.
The cure for America's immigration woes is very complicated. The Liberals want to let anybody into our nation who wants to come. The Conservatives prefer some kind of scheme to restrict and meter immigrants. 
Within the blink of an eye our current leader became an arrogant, ego driven zealot determined to advance his private agenda no matter what. How this characteristic was overlooked before his first election will someday be the subject of countless history books. Even after his personality problems were learned, he was elected again. He was actually selected in favor of several more suitable candidates. Doesn't that indicate there is something wrong with our election system. Mr. Obama was, at the end of his first term, clearly  a proven failure - but was elected anyway.  What happened? I have several good friends that voted in both elections for Mr. Obama. All of them now say it was the dumbest thing they ever did. They finally understand that he is a very intelligent person that has been educated by family, friends -  and radically liberal teachers during his entire life. He arrived on the scene with a carefully crafted ideology, a like able personality, and promised extravagant changes. It was "snake oil". But it was believed by many Americans tired of the mythical big business types.  
The old (now defunct) system set a limit of immigrants from each foreign nation, accepted only those who were formally sponsored by an American citizen, and who promised to learn English within an acceptable time, and who filed an application on arrival to become an American citizen. The agreement should include that if American citizenship was not achieved within two years time, the immigrant would be return to the exit country. Others, who wished only a temporary time limited visa for the purpose of visiting or working had only to renew and extend his or her visa, or leave the country. 

I understand that our former and discarded system was overwhelmed by the number of immigrants that arrived. Regardless, the Conservative voices would like to have our government devise something similar.

Our borders and immigration controls now are 100% porous. The flow of  immigrants from the Europe and the middle east is choking our ability to feed, house, and find work for them. The same increasing number of Muslims is overwhelming many of our established communities, and is bringing with them - in most cases unknowingly - our radical Muslim enemies. This uncontrolled immigration from the east must become controlled. 

Immigration from The South. This has created a separate, but similar,  problem. The border between Mexico and the United States has not effectively prevented people from Mexico, Central America, and South America from illegally crossing the border to the United States. It is now estimated that there are between 10 million and 30 million illegal, undocumented people from those areas living in America now. More arrive everyday. Most have little or no schooling or developed skills. The only jobs open for them are menial jobs that American workers avoid, and they are scarce. A significant number of them are subsidized by American Federal and State welfare. So many that the American welfare system is also overwhelmed. The situation will require a different method of control than that required in the east.  

Immigration From The West.
There has also been a large increase in the number of immigrants coming from the west. This would include India, South East Asia, China, Korea, Japan, and etc. Interestingly, many of them arrive with more knowledge and more education. They tend to be seeking additional education, better jobs, and a real desire to become Americans.

Control Barriers And Privacy Issues

Controlling computers is necessary for successful operation. It has also become a frustrating requirement.  Why? It's become necessary to safeguard the information  a person inputs - or suffer the danger of losing it to computer thieves (or hackers).  I've don't know an explanation for the term "hacker", but it's used  to describe a person with the ability to invade another somebody elses  computer. The computer industry reaction has been to erect barriers to prevent information thievery. To do this it is necessary to make several changes. 

Now there are: 
  • number codes, passwords, and PIN numbers, 
  • fictional and non-fictional identification words (or numbers), 
  • user names, e-mail numbers and ip addresses, 
  • and more that I'm not familiar with.  
These are used to protect even the simplest programs. For a while all of these "barriers" were stored in a persons memory. This eventually strained a normal person's memory - and coded programs and clever lists were specifically developed by professional programers - who have now found ways to hide them  complete behind other  (master) barriers like Apple's "iCloud". 

But have all of these "barriers" really solved the security problem? For a short while perhaps, but it looks more and more like any computerized information, no matter how encrypted, is still subject to hacker attack. Hacker technology has improved just as fast as the "barriers" could be introduced. This is frustrating, and potentially dangerous regarding national security, military information, financial information and personal privacy.

So, what new  "fix-it"  is in-the-works?

Friday, December 4, 2015

Guns & Radical Muslims

San Bernardino has had a recent  Islamic Terrorist attack. 14 innocent adults and children were murdered by a Muslim couple living in a nearby suburban condominium with their infant daughter. No one suspected a link to terror - though the husband was a member of a nearby (peaceful) Muslim mosque.  By all reports the husband was a friendly person. He seems to have put up a good front but actually he was a terrorist, radicalized a few years ago in the middle east. There is less known about his wife who apparently was purchased (?) in the middle east and then radicalized more than two years ago. Then she came to America. These two deranged individuals left their baby with Grandma (who lives not far away in San Bernardino), then loaded their car (SUV) with explosives, guns, and bombs, and set out to kill people.  Specifically, people where he worked. They told Grandma that they were going shopping.

They went from Grandma's to a local rent-a-car agency and obtained an SUV. Then they returned to their home and loaded it with assault rifles, handguns, pipe bombs, and remotely controlled explosive devices. They had enough ammunition to annihilate the people of a medium sized city, and they drove this arsenal across town to where the place where the husband was regularly employed. He knew that his friends, acquaintances, and fellow employees were gathered in one room for a Christmas party. He and his wife walked into the festive room and without warning began shooting randomly into the crowd. Many  of the celebrants were killed or wounded immediately.  Blood and bodies were everywhere. When the smoke cleared there were 14 murdered and at least 22 others wounded. Many severely wounded. 

That's enough to begin a discussion about gun control. Immediately after the horrid event  (right on cue) the gun control zealots started to hit the media with their "BAN-THE-GUNS" agenda. It is infuriating (to me anyway) to see so many educated progressives (almost all Democratic Party sympathizers) screaming that "the sky will fall if guns aren't banned in America". They are provably wrong. 

Let's look at a few facts: 

Leading causes of death            (informed estimates)

Heart disease                                   600,000 per year
Cancer                                             580,000
Respiratory Diseases                         140,000
Stroke                                              130,000

Accidents (unintentional)                   120,000      
(3,000 accidental involving guns)
(31,500 suicides involving guns)
Total: 34,500

Alzheimer's                                          90,000
Diabetes                                              70,000
Kidney Disease                                     60,000 
Flu/Pneumonia                                     50,000

Annual Deaths In America                 1,840,000  (LEADING CAUSES as listed above) 

1.   Americans are now allowed (under the 2nd Amendment) to own hand guns, rifles, automatic high speed-high capacity weapons,  shot guns, and other  similar weapons. 

2.  They are not allowed to own cannons, high volume machine guns, bazookas, mortars, and other deadly weapons of war - and are subject to immediate confiscation upon discovery. 


3.  Perhaps new legislation should be discussed and voted on. 


4. Such legislation might require that all rapid firing guns be "SINGLE SHOT PER TRIGGER PULL" weapons. 
* * * * 
  • As far as I know, following this condition does not distort the original intent of Constitutional 2nd Amendment.  
  • Neither should it change the "right to carry" laws. 
  • Nor should it affect weapons use by qualified police officers, S.W.A.T. teams, bank guards, jewelry salesmen and etc.  
  • The ultimate object is to confiscate all outlawed rapid firing weapons on discovery, and make it illegal to make or sell such weapons without suitable restrictions. 
  • Note: There would have to be a period time to turn in these weapons AND BE PAID TO DO SO. The expense should be covered by the Federal Government.



Dixon

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Our Climate Is Warming ?

It's December and cold days have returned and make an appropriate counterpoint to the Climate Change Conference being held in Europe. Most nations have representatives at the conference who, in turn, are advised experts on the subject. Interestingly, they are all  avoiding a few specific facts in order to promote the urgency of Climate Change. 

1.   Why do they so carefully avoid saying that there is no consensus that anything unusual is happening?


2.   Many meteorologists (and other scientists) believe our planet may not be warming (or cooling) any faster than it has during it's entire known history.  


3.    Human beings, with their industries and synthetic chemicals probably influence our climate to some degree but most informed people question the amount. 


4.    Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer. 

5.    Western Antarctica ice  is melting - but is offset by the cooling of ice on the Eastern side. 

6.    Melting sea ice doesn't raise the water level of the ocean. The ice is already in the ocean. 

7.    Only ice melting sheets & polar cap ice that is over land can raise sea levels.

8.    Long before the protective ozone layer formed 300 million years ago, life could not emerge from the oceans without being fried. The earth had to have cooled. 

9.    North America and Europe experienced cool weather from 1500 to 1800, and the time period became known as the Little Ice Age. 

10.   During the winter of the mid 1600's the Baltic Sea froze over, allowing people to walk from Poland to Sweden across the ice. 

11.   During the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze over, allowing people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and that's not so long ago.

At the Climate Change Conference they formally adopt the (existing) goal of limiting global warming by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times. They have concluded that the goal can be reached by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The idea of de-carbonization is something that has appeared recently. It's meaning has not yet been defined. A few experts say it means that there has to be a sharp reduction of carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Is this truly an emergency?

Stay tuned.




Friday, October 23, 2015

Rage

Greed has always been around and we are no different in this respect than people in any other country.  How this has affected governments has come to interest me. I've tended to be increasingly curious and have begun to question what I've learned about the Founding Fathers. Were all of these guys so brilliant, perfect, and without greed?  I doubt it.  In our  carefully drawn government I find that political greed is especially noxious. Think about it.  Certainly our taxes are not being spent the way the Founding Fathers intended. Why? Is Free Market Capitalism really the best way to go?

Our Federal Government is supposed to certain expenses important to all of the states. This would include expenses that are beyond the state's ability to handle - and all expenses that applied to another state or states. (I think of intrastate highways and  bridges, intrastate power transmission lines, care and protection of rivers, and so forth).

The Federal Government is (I think?) specifically not to tax and spend unlimited amounts  in general. But it does. Who grants that permission?  Certainly all American cities  should not pay expenses that apply only to individual states. Was this general concept wrong from the beginning?


1.  This has been interpreted to mean that, despite the inability to become economically viable any time soon, all American citizens must pay a subsidy to my neighbor so that he can afford solar electric power at his home.  Why?

2.During the years of the Eisenhower presidency it was decided that every taxpayer must pay farm subsidie, thereby controlling which crops a farmer could plant and grow. Why?

3. Paying some farmers NOT to grow certain specific crops. troubles me. Millions of human beings die for lack of food and water.  NOT planting a crop when you could provide it to a needy people doesn't make sense. Why do we do this?

4.  Artists and art itself are dubious money makers. In the days of cathedral building and before, powerful Royal Houses spent prolific money upon the arts. It was was more or less traditional in non-democratic nations. That age passed long ago. Now  our Federal Government that provides grants and subsidies to the American art world. . Whoa!  Who is deciding what our art and culture should be?  As it stands, our citizens have little or no control.  Why?
That's just four examples. 

There are many more.