Put That In Your Pipe and Smoke It!

It's been many years since the Surgeon General put warnings on cigarette packs about the risks of smoking. And there is a constant debate by non-smokers trying to limit the rights of smokers.

So here are some of my thoughts on this and other similar subjects.

Combustion of many substances releases those carcinogenic chemicals that are often touted by the non-smoking finatics as making their throats close up, triggering asthma attacks, tearing eyes and all those other "allergic reactions" from having to walk through a "cloud" when entering a building. But you never hear them complain about the pollution coming from their tailpipes, fireplaces, candles or a myriad of other items, yet they contain an almost identical chemical list with the exclusion of the flavoring agents added to tobacco.

I wonder why? My guess is that nobody put a label on the outside telling them that their is a risk of cancer from the combustion of these various substances. So why hasn't the Surgeon General put the same warnings on these other items?

And with the increased incidence of Type II Diabetes, why haven't any items that contain carbohydrates/sugars been label as potentially increasing the risk of developing this now rampant disease? We have teenagers being diagnosed with Diabetes Type II at an alarming rate of a disease that used to be reserved for late adulthood. But not to worry the food pyramid will save us all.

And since our government has now set the precident of suing the tabacco companies for the health care costs of cancer (and by the way our state governments have mostly sold the ability to collect these funds over several years in order to get some much needed cash immediately to fund "projects" of various natures) why is it that our government has also created legislation to prevent the suing of fast food corporations for making people fat? Being overweight is a serious condition, just like cancer, it can kill you. Will sugar be next on the list of prohibited law suits?

Let me tell you sugar is addictive just like tobacco. I can guarantee if someone put a piece of romaine lettuce beside a nice chewy brownie and you had to choose one, you'd be choosing the chewy brownie. And for those of you that are thinking about telling me that you'd choose the lettuce - I suggest you've got some form of eating disorder surrounded by the guilt of being overweight.

Diabetes, obesity and cancer can all kill! But it's your choices that ultimately determine your future. Life is about taking responsibility for your choices, not blaming others. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!

UAV's

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, one of the lastest technologies put into use for border control. I am just so annoyed with the bullshit our government spends ridiculous amounts of money on. By the way the first one crashed, but DHS is ordering 3 more. But while I was trying to get cost and use information on this 2100 pound flying drone which is basically used for surveilence over desert terrain, I came across another site The Center for Public Integrity and part of that site talks about the windfalls of war.

As I was looking over the various contractors and $$$ that are being spent in Afghanistan and Iraq I came across Dell Marketing (Dell Computers in disguise). The contract was given to them for $500,000,000

to provide the U.S. Army with PCs, servers, storage systems, networking equipment, operating systems, commercial software and accessories. The contracts also provide for biometric devices like fingerprint recognition and wearable computers.

Now most people know that you can get a pretty fancy laptop for around $1,500, but even if we assume an average cost of $3,000, which would include 100% premium for the cost of corruption, the contract would provide for roughly 166,666 computers but yet even if every deployed soldier was given a laptop there would still be left over computers.

On top of that, Dell was not the only computer firm to be awarded contracts for computer equipment. There were also contracts awarded to HP, GTSI Corporation, and Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems.

These are the "things" that just gall the American public. The lack of consideration of spending our tax dollars. When most Americans can't afford to have their own laptop and our government just has no cosideration for the effort of the American public to generate the money they spend. And what happens to these computers after the war? I mean why didn't our forces already have the necessary equipment prior to the war? Do we really need to purchase all new equipment every time we get involved in a conflict? And with all the governmental websites that abound none of them explain true value of these easily spent dollars. It's always a contract that list some vague non-quantifiable item. When the American public enters into a contract we are very aware of the terms and conditions prior to signing the bottom line. For example the contract would specify:

• 1 Dodge RAM, purchase price $35,000


• Trade-in reduction $ 5,000


• Remaining balance $30,000


• Financed over 5 years at 10.00%


• for a total of $33,000


• and a payment of $ 550 a month

So I hope I've made my point.

But remember this, right now the PA Legislature is considering transparancy rules concerning lobbyist disclosure. Although it seems that there may be a twice a year disclosure (which in this day in age is ridiculous - it really should be made available as it happens) they have not yet agreed to identify the reason the lobbyist has "taken them to a ball game". But without the identifying the organization, the $$$ and the reason we will have no more information to legitimize their actions than we do today.

Term Limits

"Term limits" sounds like a great idea given the constant corruption in our government. But as with most process changes people don't really think about the implications. Just this year in PA after the pay raise issue and then the legislators attempt to increase their pensions and the lack of property tax reform the electorate showed several incumbants just where the door was, which was a big suprise to many long-term incumbants. But what didn't happen was that several district legislators weren't ousted because they had no contender or they had a poor contender.

So what would happen if we should instill some term limit? My guess would be that more often than not we would replace a tolerable legislator with a "newbie" just because we had no other choice and in many instances it would more than likely be an unopposed election. Is that really what we want to do?

As long as money remains the primary control over the election process the electorate will rarely have a chance of electing someone that will truely represent them regardless of term limits. Let's face facts, the parties control the elections by controlling the primaries. Just look at the PA Federal Senate race. Our primary choices were: Rick Santorum, Bob Casey Jr, Adam Sandels and Chuck Pinacchio and even though Chuck Pinacchio obviously resonated with voters the most during the debates and Bob Casey Jr the least, Bob still managed to pull off winning the primary even though he failed to assert his position on any particular subject. And once again we will be stuck voting for the lessor of two evils during the November elections.

We already have term limits, it's called voting, because as we could tell by the changes that have already occured as a result of the primaries here in PA several long time legislators will soon become lobbyists.

Shocked Yet Again - Federal Constitution Gay Marriage Ban Ammendment

I just continually seem to be baffled by the action of our government. As you may or may not know on this past Wednesday a vote was taken by the Senate on ammending the Constitution of America to ban gay marriage. (It failed, short by 18 votes of the 2/3 majority needed.) Now I'm not suprised by the typical political propoganda to try and rally the voters by using the old "demise of society" for one reason or another. But I am suprised that the ammendment would actually encourage promiscuous sexual behavior by the mere fact that they want to ban relationships. And I am suprised in a time when the country is involved in a no-win war, we supposedly have funding issues for the two biggest entitlement programs in our country, we have above $3.00 a gallon gas prices, the average discretionary income of the American worker goes less and less everyday, we have immigration issues, border and port control issues and on and on and on like no other period in our country's existence that our legislators feel that ammending our constitution to ban gay marriage is the top priority.

But having written my congressmen concering my view on this issue I was extremely shocked by Rick Santorum's response. I was expecting a long discertation on the evils of gay relationships and how they effect communities blah blah blah. But what I got was several paragraphs concering why it is an issue followed by one paragraph that explains his position.

I believe that redefining marriage sends a message to the next generation that children do not need mothers and fathers, and alternative family forms are just as good as traditional families. Furthermore, I cannot think of anything more vital to the preservation of our society than encouraging traditional marriage in which children are raised by a mother and a father. Additionally, I think it is wrong for the government to legitimize the concept that children do not need mothers and fathers. There is an abundance of research and literature supporting a healthy marriage's positive effect on children. Children that are a product of a healthy marriage are less likely to be poor, less likely to fail at school, and less likely to have an emotional behavioral problem requiring psychiatric treatment.

What? What the hell? He's talking about gay people parenting children. Gay people have been adopting children for years and some have even been involved in creating children, although not through the normal means. So Rick is promoting a ban on gay marriage to prevent them from having children? Is he that disconnected from society? Perhaps they should amend the constitution to have us elect people that have a clue. And if this is truely his thought process perhaps the ammendment should prohibit gay people from rearing children -- instead of banning them from marriage.

you can look at my blog titled PA Constitutional Marriage Bans (which I changed slightly by removing the replacing the PA parts with the federal counterparts)


Rick's entire letter to me

Dear Mr. Clay:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Marriage Protection Act. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.

On January 24, 2005, Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado introduced S.J.Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Act. I joined Senator Allard as an original cosponsor of this resolution, which proposes an amendment to the United States Constitution that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

As you may know, on May 17, 2004, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts became the first state in the history of the United States to legalize same-sex marriage, by a four to three decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The court came to this decision by claiming that same-sex couples have a right to marriage under the Massachusetts Constitution. Despite that for thousands of years traditional marriage has been defined as an institution between one man and one woman, and the wealth of evidence of its benefits for children, the court declared, "[t]he marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason." Regardless of efforts to block, delay, or modify the court's decision, beginning on May 17, 2004, Massachusetts was forced by the Court to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Through the Massachusetts court decision, the fundamental principles of marriage have been attacked by unelected judicial activists who have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage. The Massachusetts court has made it clear that they interpret marriage merely as a contract for individuals rather than a social institution that exists for the common good. Since this decision, a number of states have been forced to determine the breadth of the Massachusetts decision. Same-sex couples from across the country have gone to Massachusetts to get married and then return to their home states and demand under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution that the marriage be recognized, despite a clear residency requirement in the Massachusetts law.

With these developments, we can no longer assume that current federal or state laws can protect the institution of marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, is sound law that aims to protect traditional marriage. However, it cannot adequately protect marriage from judicial activists who wish to reinvent their state constitution and ultimately the U.S. Constitution. In fact, traditional marriage has been challenged in nine states, and four of these states' (California, Maryland, New York, and Washington), trial courts have found a right to same-sex marriage-in each case relying in part on the Massachusetts decision. At least 35 lawsuits have been filed challenging those states' marriage laws as unconstitutional. Additionally, a Nebraska federal court found unconstitutional a state constitutional amendment that was passed by 70 percent of Nebraska voters.

The American people have spoken on this issue. In August 2004, the voters of Missouri overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment sustaining traditional marriage. Louisiana followed in September with overwhelming support to defend traditional marriage. Then, in November 2004, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah each passed some form of a state constitutional amendment defending traditional marriage. Seven more states will vote on constitutional amendments in the 2006 mid-term elections.

Pennsylvania law states, "it is hereby declared to be the strong and longstanding public policy of this Commonwealth that marriage shall be between one man and one woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth." However, the court decisions above make it clear that this law is in jeopardy unless an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is enacted.

I believe that redefining marriage sends a message to the next generation that children do not need mothers and fathers, and alternative family forms are just as good as traditional families. Furthermore, I cannot think of anything more vital to the preservation of our society than encouraging traditional marriage in which children are raised by a mother and a father. Additionally, I think it is wrong for the government to legitimize the concept that children do not need mothers and fathers. There is an abundance of research and literature supporting a healthy marriage's positive effect on children. Children that are a product of a healthy marriage are less likely to be poor, less likely to fail at school, and less likely to have an emotional behavioral problem requiring psychiatric treatment.

The federal government must continue to encourage a strong culture of marriage, with people marrying and raising children, because research shows this provides the best, most stable environment for children. This is an important issue that requires the people to have the right to define marriage for themselves and for their voices to be heard, rather than having it defined for them by unelected judges. Please know that I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to press for passage of the Marriage Protection Act.

Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to call on me again.
Sincerely,

Rick Santorum
United States Senate

Arlen Specter's Response

Dear Mr. Clay :



Thank you for contacting my office regarding S.J.Res. 1, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. The proposed amendment to the United States Constitution would define marriage as only a union between a man and woman. Amending the Constitution is a very serious step, and one we should never take lightly . This is a very difficult issue that requires careful consideration and thought.



Rest assured that I will keep your thoughts on this issue in mind should the Senate consider this or any other similar legislation. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov . Thank you again for writing .





Sincerely,





Arlen Specter