>First Photographs

>A couple of the fist photographs from the new WISE infrared telescope launched last December.

Click here to get detailed information on the WISE telescope.

The first photo is Comet Siding Spring.
The second photo is the Andromeda Galaxy.
The third photo is the WISE telescope.

>Here It Comes !

>It’s not at all certain that the health care bill will pass. If it does, it will have to do so through reconciliation. As could have been predicted, one of the last arguments will be over abortion. Whether you are pro choice, or not, it seems silly for the Congress not to be able to approve paying for a legal procedure, that the judicial branch of the government declared legal decades ago. It also seems silly that aliens (legal or not) are not only not included, but even if they offer to pay their own premiums, cannot buy medical insurance.

No doubt this bill will solve a lot of problems, but I still think it is a bad bill. Although, if left to the ideas of the Republicans, we would not even have this much. So the cry now is, pass it and we will fix it later. Crazy, but not that unusual for federal legislation. It’s really to bad Republicans decided to attack the President on false, personal issues instead of the provisions in the bill, or even offer a serious alternative, but that was their irresponsible choice.

The whole debate was just stupid. Calling the President socialist. Claiming the President was destroying America. Bringing guns to meetings. Turning town hall health care meetings into shouting and shoving matches by instructing people to attend those meeting with the intention to disrupt the meetings as much as possible. I guess these are the kind of actions left to a Republican party void of any constructive ideas.

With Dick Army and Newt building, financing, directing, and motivating groups to instill confusion and anger into the debate, then falsely and cowardly claiming it was a grass roots movement by the American people. The most laughable claim by Republicans, was saying that this health care bill will bankrupt America. As if Republican financial policies over the last 28 years had not already bankrupted America, not to mention the CBO says the bill will save 100’s of billions of dollars over the next 20 years.

The strangest claim is that the government is taking over health care in America. Republicans have intentionally confused the issue so badly, that many Americans don’t even know that Medicare is a government program! There was a chance to explain the bill to Americans, that’s what the town hall meetings were for. If Republicans had allowed a serious debate on the bill, they might have been surprised that Americans would reject the bill. Now Republicans are saying lets start over. Of course, that’s what their goal was, to kill the bill. And what evidence is there over the last 30 years of Republican leadership, that they would do anything to reform health care, or health insurance?

So pass the bill and tweek it later. The bill, as it is, will solve many problems and insure 10’s of millions not now insured. I would hope the American people have learned during this process how little the Republicans care about the serious problems of the American people.

>Yukon Aurora

>
Yukon Aurora with Star Trails
Image Credit & Copyright: Yuichi Takasaka / TWAN / www.blue-moon.ca

Explanation: Fixed to a tripod, a camera can record graceful trails traced by stars as planet Earth rotates on its axis. But at high latitudes during March and April, it can also capture an aurora shimmering in the night. In fact, the weeks surrounding the equinox, in both spring and fall, offer a favorable season for aurora hunters. The possibilities are demonstrated in this beautiful moonlit vista from northwestern Canadian territory the Yukon. It was taken during the early morning of March 1, off the Klondike Highway about 60 kilometers south of Dawson City. To compose the picture, many short exposures were digitally combined to follow the concentric star trail arcs while including the greenish auroral curtains also known as the northern lights.

>Less Writing More Pictures

>

>Fight For Your Government

>Over the weekend Iraqis voted for a new government. It’s not the kind of government we would accept, but it is a new start for them. When voting in Iraq, a voter gets their finger dipped in ink. It does not come off for days. That’s important, because voting in Iraq can be a death sentence. In fact, the last count I heard, 35 Iraqis were murdered just because they wanted to vote. Yet, even hearing about these murders, Iraqis went to vote in record numbers. The ink marks them for death by the terrorists. That does show courage and the passion the Iraqi people have, to see that they have a new government.

America can barely get half their eligible voters to vote. I wonder what would happen, if Americans had to risk death to vote? We take our freedoms for granted, and I believe the lack of citizenship, is part of the cause of the mess we are in and the inability of our legislators to legislate. The only poll worth a shit, is an election. We seem to accept polls as a fact of what the American people want, but polls are wrong on a regular basis. Low voter turnout, is a danger to a free society. We could take lessons from most of the World on being good citizens and voting, since America has one of the lowest vote turnout percentages in the World.

If people around the World come out and freely elect their government, who are we to disagree with their choices? If Palestinians freely elect Hamas as their leadership, should we overthrow their government? If Russians freely elect Putin, or other leaders wanting to return to an oppressive, Socialist system, should we overthrow them? The operative word here, is “freely.” Stalin won all his elections by over 90%, but those were not elections of free choice. Our past is full of overthrowing elected leaders around the World, because we disagreed with their ideology. That is how we created the mess and bad feelings towards America, in Iran.

If people around the World want to elect madmen, or have a government policy that calls for the elimination of another country, that is a situation we have to defend against. Attacking and invading Iraq was a war of choice and opportunity, not necessity. It was also a war we knew we could win. Can we say the same, if we decide to attack and invaded Iran? When it comes to war, having right on your side, is not a good enough reason to attack a country. The History of our military (with its civilian commander and chief) has been able to avoid the most common way a government is overthrown, by their own military.

America had a voter turnout of 80-95% for almost 180 years. It’s only since the middle 20th century, that voter turnout has been 45-55%, and a couple of times nearing 60%. If voter turnout was 80-90% we would have a lot less arguments about what our government does. High turnout elections do tend to clarify the direction of legislative actions. It will not end debate, or even uncivil discourse, but it will give elected officials the certainty of who they have to answer to when they vote on new laws. Elections are term limits and the more people who turn out to vote, the more often and faster change in government will occur. Low voter turnout defines rule by minority. Something we claim we are not. The victors do get to write the rules. If the victors are not writing the rules, you can be sure the politicians are not listening to the voters.

>Have A Nice Weekend

>

>Space Station

>
The International Space Station from Above
Credit: STS-130 Crew, NASA

Explanation: The International Space Station (ISS) is the largest human-made object ever to orbit the Earth. The ISS is so large that it can be seen drifting overhead with the unaided eye, and is frequently imaged from the ground in picturesque fashion. Last month, the station was visited again by space shuttle, which resupplied the station and added a new module. The ISS is currently operated by the Expedition 22 crew, now consisting five astronauts including two supplied by USA’s NASA, two by Russia’s RKA, and one by Japan’s JAXA. After departing the ISS, the crew of the space shuttle Endeavour captured the above spectacular vista of the orbiting space city high above the clouds, waters, and lands of Earth. Visible components include modules, trusses, and expansive solar arrays that gather sunlight that is turned into needed electricity.

>Republicans: Intentionally Hurting America

>

Going beyond just saying no, or lying about the truth of Democratic policies; Republicans are intentionally hurting individual Americans and America.

Of course I have known for decades that Republican policies have been hurting America (facts prove it) and have been hoping Americans would wake up and see the dangerous intention in Republican policies, but, unfortunately they have not. It is so obvious now, that I would call Republican behavior a danger to America, just like our other enemies.

Republican Bunning stepped in and stopped the work of the transportation department, which means thousands will be out of work, and important maintenance work will not be done. His act also means millions will not get extended unemployment benefits. When asked about his act, Bunning gave the middle finger to the reporter. This is an opinion held by, and backed up by his fellow Republican caucus members.

Minnesota’s Gov. Pawlenty just eliminated General Assistance Medical Care in Minnesota. This is care for the poorest of the poor in Minnesota. This is happening all over the country, brought on by the “No New Tax” pledge most Republicans signed in the last 10 years. Yet, refusing to cut spending, or raise taxes to cover spending, they have left us with the obvious effect of no money to pay for the needs of the programs set up generations ago, to serve the public.

Republicans (McCain and others) are now crying about using reconciliation to pass legislation, although they have used it over 20 times to pass legislation. They claim the difference is that reconciliation should not be used for entitlement program legislation, but that’s exactly what they used reconciliation for in the past.

It’s obvious they are lying, but Americans don’t seem to grasp, that Republican lies and legislative acts, are hurting Americans and America. Republican mistakes and lies have been hurting America, for decades. Republican policies have brought us to the sad situation of high unemployment and financial crisis we have today. It actually started decades ago, and caught up with us during the Bush Presidency.

Republican ideology has been clear for decades, cut the government. Cut the programs Americans have voted for, and supported for decades. Cut taxes. Cut the funds necessary to run government. In other words (words very clear) kill off the American government. Republicans want to see the American government die. They are the stereotype of an enemy of America, and state it very clearly. Why would you listen to, or follow a group, that wants the demise of our government?

We have to start viewing Republican legislative behavior, as a security risk to the United States. Stop treating their position as just another voice in the public debate, because their cry for limiting government and especially cutting taxes, is bankrupting, thus killing off America.

Republicans seek to hurt Americans and America. Every American should call them traitors and run them out of America.

Take away their American citizenship (which they obviously do not care about-just as they do not care about the plight of Americans) on grounds of trying to overthrow the government and their cry to want to secede from the Union.

Let Palin and Beck start their own country somewhere thousands of miles away from America.

>Any Good Republican Ideas Out There ?

>It’s misinformation to say that the Teabaggers are a grass roots movement, given that the people behind the movement are the likes of Dick Army. Yet, it has stirred up an old traditional attitude among Americans, that all politicians are crooks and not to be trusted. There is a lot of truth in that statement, which is why it is so easy to get millions to agree with it.

It’s understandable to see why the conservatives of 40 years ago thought the generation of sex, drugs, peace, rock n’ roll, and anti authority were loonies. There were many loonies in that crowd. It’s one thing to say, all you need is love, but it’s another thing to understand the reality of 5 billion people living together on one Earth, and all the good and bad that goes along with humanity.

It’s harder to understand why conservatives of today are so willing to believe the ravings of uneducated talk show hosts, or ideas like birthers and shouts of the President being a Communist, a Fascist, or a Socialist. Of course their past behavior (McCarthyism, racism) does bend towards paranoia, but even the uneducated could use a dictionary to know their accusations are wrong.

It’s understandable that conservatives have a more stubborn (unmovable) ideology, but their current political strategy is a failure, and could be dangerous for the country. I have not over the last 45 years called my political opponents thinking as stupid, but there is no other way to explain the position of today’s Republicans.

As a people, we allow way to much stupidity to be aired under the guise of freedom of speech. An idea does not deserve respect just because it is an idea. Can we no longer simply reject dumb ideas, especially those that have been proven, to be a failure?

At long last sir…………..have you no brains?

>Cartoons: Since It’s All Just A Joke

>

>Wyden – Gregg Tax Bill

>A bipartisan tax bill (Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2010) has been offered by Senators Wyden and Gregg. Below is an article from the Wall Street Journal. It is co-written by both Senators describing their new tax bill. At the end of this article explaining the details of their new tax bill, is a link to the official summary of the bill.

Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2010

By Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Judd Gregg

There is an important issue looming on the congressional horizon: how to address the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of this year. We believe there is a consensus way forward, which is why we are introducing the Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2010.

By streamlining and modernizing the outdated tax code, our proposal would eliminate many of the specialized tax breaks that currently benefit one group of Americans over another. The changes we propose will create policies that benefit everyone. They include: fiscally responsible middle-class tax cuts, business tax breaks to help American companies compete globally and create jobs, and a fairer and simpler tax system for all Americans.

The IRS estimates that each year Americans spend nearly $194 billion and 6.6 billion hours on tax compliance. Under our simplified approach, most taxpayers will be able to use a straightforward and shortened one-page 1040 IRS form to file their federal income taxes. In an effort to make paying taxes even simpler, taxpayers will be able to request that the IRS prepare a tax return for them to review, edit and sign.

We reduce the number of tax brackets from six to three—15%, 25% and 35%—and simplify the tax code for individuals and families by eliminating the alternative minimum tax. By nearly tripling the standard tax deduction, creating new opportunities for tax-free saving, and eliminating restrictions on personal exemptions and itemized deductions, under our proposal most Americans with an annual income of up to $200,000 will fare as well or better than they do under the current system. Furthermore, they won’t have to worry about maintaining the records and receipts necessary to document itemized deductions.

In order to encourage investment, our legislation would exempt taxpayers from paying taxes on the first 35% of their long-term capital gains income. To qualify as a long-term gain, investments would have to be held for at least six months for the first $500,000 of capital gains, and for at least one year for capital gains after the first $500,000. This will give smaller investors more flexibility than they have now to respond to a volatile investment climate.

Another key element of our proposal is a flat corporate tax rate. Currently, U.S. corporations are at a competitive disadvantage internationally. They pay the second highest tax rate in the industrialized world. Our legislation would reduce the top corporate tax rate, which can exceed 35%, and replace the existing six corporate rates and eight brackets with a single flat rate of 24%. This will cut the U.S. corporate rate by nearly 30% and, for the first time in nearly a decade, give American corporations a competitive tax advantage over foreign competitors in Canada, Germany, France and many other countries.

As our economy continues to recover from one of the most significant economic downturns in history, our tax policy should be a tool for encouraging growth and stability, rather than an incentive for individuals and businesses to invest in more favorable tax climates.

We make fiscally responsible tax reform possible by eliminating many of the specialized tax breaks strewn throughout the tax code. Our legislation maintains the most popular tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction and the health-care tax exclusion, while eliminating specialized exemptions such as a company’s ability to deduct as a business expense punitive damages resulting from lawsuits.

Our legislation also eliminates tax incentives that encourage American businesses to keep more of their foreign earnings overseas and export jobs by repealing the rule that allows U.S. companies to defer taxes on foreign income. And we take a hard line on corporate welfare by directing the Congressional Budget Office to examine the roughly $90 billion that the federal government spends to subsidize businesses directly and indirectly each year. These steps not only make the tax code simpler and fairer for everyone, they reduce opportunities for individuals and businesses to cheat the system and avoid paying their fair share.

This legislation represents a bipartisan compromise on major policy reform, something that doesn’t happen much in Congress anymore even though a majority of Americans want such compromises. Of course, working together from different sides of the aisle means that neither of us got everything we wanted, but we are proud of what we did get: a comprehensive approach to tax reform that will give all Americans an opportunity to get ahead.

An official summary of the bill can be read here

>Bipartisanship

>What price do I have to pay, to be bipartisan?

Do I have to ignore History, Science, Math, common sense, true facts, and other proven gauges of investigating information before I make a decision? Do I change a decision I have made, because someone who disagrees with me, calls me names, or spews ideology at my ideas instead of facts?

Somehow I think the facts I gathered to come to a decision, have to be shown to be either wrong, or logically shown to mean something else than the conclusion I came to digesting those same facts. Obviously the later is more probable, being that I am human.

I’m not the brightest bulb on the block, but using History and the other traits I mentioned above, usually keep me from making to many mistakes. The best lesson I learned in school was how to study and do research, not the particular facts I learned in any class.

It is a fact that compromise has to part of a mutual agreement between opposing viewpoints, whether we are talking about politics, or other issues between people. Compromise means neither side gets 100% of what they want. The greatest compromise I can imagine, was to allow slavery in a new Constitution, that pronounced all men are created equal. Would you compromise to allow slavery, to ensure the formation of a new government?

It’s a given that people will not compromise on all issues. The more issues they will not compromise on, the more stubborn you might define them; unless you suspect their stubbornness is due to some other reason, than protecting their convictions.

Bipartisanship is more of an attitude towards negotiations of solving problems, than merely being willing to allow an issue you disagree with, become part of a bipartisan solution. Offering an open mind and the opportunity for all to voice their ideas is basic bipartisanship. Compromising on ideas, is more advanced bipartisanship.

To me, being a good American means defending something I disagree with; in order to apply the main goal of all American citizens, the right to live their lives as they see fit as long as it does not impede the rights of others. I can disagree with others choices, as they can disagree with mine, but I have respect for their choices and would not want to make their choices illegal because I disagree with them. Choice is freedom. The more choices, the more freedom. The fewer choices, the less freedom.

Seems to me that ideas that have been proven wrong by History and other empirical evidence, must be argued against, and not compromised. Seems to me that uncivil words and oratory have no place in debate, discussions, or trying to reach serious solutions, to serious problems. So “Gotcha” or attack tactics are out. Ideological stubbornness is not conducive to reaching agreements. Of course outright lies and false information and facts must be rejected up front.

We cannot govern by extremes. So how much weight, or any influence at all, should we give to extreme ideas and viewpoints? Extreme does not mean without passion, it means meeting the guides I mentioned (empirical evidence) above.

>Yucca Mountain

>

Yucca Mountain

It was another one of those bipartisan legislative panels, that was assigned the task of deciding where best, to bury our nuclear waste. The panel (after a lengthy investigation) decided on Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

This decision was the origin of “Not In My Back Yard” cry from people all over the country. It was unpopular with Nevadans and other States in America did not want this waste site in their State. Nevada drew the decision, and other States were happy they dodged this bullet.

This issue (connected to the issue of nuclear power) gets to complicated, to go into on just this post, so please link here, to get a basis of understanding along with a Google search on all issues.

I am not anti nuclear. I am aware of the problems of using nuclear energy, especially the waste issue. I am also aware of the false and overblown criticisms of the problems with nuclear energy.

America has not built a nuclear power plant in 30 years. Yet, countries around the World have been using nuclear power as part of their energy use all along. The French have the highest rate of their energy source in nuclear power. We have fallen behind in nuclear power design and experience because we stopped using nuclear power as an energy source. Nuclear power is the best source of non carbon producing energy known.

The President has stated his approval to have nuclear energy as part of our energy source program, and is pushing to have more nuclear power plants built. He is putting up federal money to help finance those new nuclear power plants. Fine.

It should be noted, that the Senate majority leader Harry Reid, is a Senator from Nevada and totally against storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, as are a majority of Nevadans.

And while the President wants the country to get back into building nuclear plants, he has stalled any use of Yucca Mountain as a site for our nuclear waste.

The President has put a hold on the license for Yucca Mountain to store nuclear waste. The President has set aside the previous decision of the legislative body that decided Yucca Mountain should be the place to store our nuclear waste. The President has set a new panel (co headed by Mr. Hamilton) to find a different place to hold our nuclear waste. The President did not allow any money for Yucca Mountain to operate, in his budget.

Why?

This is the first President in 30 years to support the use of nuclear power, so why would he put a stop to the use of Yucca Mountain for storing nuclear waste? Was the previous panel biased, or wrong in its decision to choose Yucca Mountain? Why have a new panel to do the same job the old panel has already done? Is there some scientific reason to change the Yucca Mountain site? This was a hard decision. It caused loud critics from all sides. Why do we need to go through this decision again?

This smacks of the usual political backroom deal. Possibly to give Sen. Reid support for his projected loss in his upcoming election. Unless the President can explain why the previous decision is flawed scientifically, I’ll have to assume he is shutting down Yucca Mountain, for merely political reasons. Something I find unacceptable., and so should most Americans.

>Smile You Look Better

>

>Getting Work Done in Congress

>We cannot govern from extremes. So, as the moderates disappear from Congress, it’s no surprise it gets harder to pass legislation and get any work done. It’s even more difficult to get anything done, when the Republicans refuse to participate honestly.

All the misleading talk from the Republicans does not help, but in the end it’s the votes that move bills. No matter what Republicans say, if they continue to vote no, nothing will get done.
It is not normal for the Republicans to vote in the negative, in unison. Their is certainly a vote strategy working within the Republican party.

Republicans have always been a tighter voting block than Democrats, but this voting behavior does not reflect the ideology of all the members of the Republican party. Their strategy, is to make the President appear impotent to get anything done (be an ineffective leader). Yet, the American people still like the President.

Republicans have only achieved hurting America, by getting nothing done. The Republican lies and misleading information is driving partisanship, but it’s their dishonest votes, that are stopping America from solving problems.

It’s to easy to call them stupid, but they know what they are doing. That makes their behavior, just that much more sinister. It’s easy to say that they are standing by their principles, but politics is about compromise. It would be normal to not question their convictions, but they now vote against the same policies they voted for, for decades.

The question is, how much will they hurt America, just to hurt the President? How hypocritical are they willing to appear, before they start acting in the best interests of the American people? How long will the American people put up with Republican political games, before they make Republicans pay for hurting America?

>Obama Killing To Many Terrorists ?

>An ex speech writer for the Bush administration Marc Thiessen (Wiki) wrote an article for Foreign Policy (article) based from his new book.

The premise is that President Obama is killing to many terrorists.

President Obama has escalated his use of drones to attack terrorists in the war on terror. Recent news reports confirm success with these drone attacks, killing many VIP terrorists. Mr. Thiessen’s complaint, or accusation, is that we should be capturing these terrorists, not killing them.

Mr. Thiessen states that the President is negligently killing these terrorists, and missing out on the information we could get by water boarding (interrogating) the terrorists, thus getting needed enemy information.

Mr. Thiessen offers anecdotal evidence and his opinion, that this is hurting (killing not capturing terrorists) the war on terror.

Mr. Thiessen ask us to take a great leap of faith and endanger the lives of American soldiers, by asking the President to stop killing our enemy. Especially given, that his evidence is so slim.

Mr. Thiessen assumes that every terrorist has information worth risking the death American soldiers. For troops to go deep into enemy territory to capture these terrorists, certainly puts our soldiers at a mortal risk. There is no guarantee, that any terrorist will have important enough information, to take that high risk. Nor is there any guarantee, that a terrorist will talk, even if captured and tortured.

We had hundreds of enemy detainees at GITMO, but decided only 3 had information worth water boarding them for. That’s not a very high percentage, to risk sending our troops to capture terrorists, instead of sending a drone to just kill terrorists.

The object of war, is to kill the enemy. If we can get information by capturing the enemy instead of killing them, it might be a risk worth taking depending on how certain we are of the information that terrorist might have. The risk (in this type of war) for our troops to capture the enemy instead of just killing them, is high.

Mr. Thiessen forms his argument by attacking the President of the United States. A debate of military tactics can be made without attacking the President. I take offense at Mr. Thiessen’s attack on the President, just to make his point about the strategy of using drones.

Seems he is just trying to sell books by attacking the President, not to mention that attacking a person to prove that a military tactic is faulty, is not a serious intellectual debate. Mr. Thiessen’s motivations are obviously political, not based in true concern for what’s best for the war effort.

Mr. Thiessen gives us no numbers, only a few anecdotal stories, that we have missed out on a lot of important information by killing terrorists instead of capturing them. Mr. Thiessen seems eager to send soldiers into unnecessary harm, to gain an unknown amount of possibly important information.

President Obama is having good success prosecuting the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is killing the enemy. I do not want President Obama to stop killing the enemy, especially based on Mr. Thiessen’s flimsy evidence, which appears to be based more on Mr. Thiessen’s political ideology, than good facts that would improve the war effort.

Mr. Thiessen should get better military facts, and not use attacks on the President, if he wants to convince me, or the American people. Leave the political ideology out of it Mr. Thiessen, prove to America how not killing the enemy, is good for the war effort.

Here are the full addresses of the links above, if they do not work.

For Mr. Thiessen’s article in Foreign Policy:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/08/dead_terrorists_tell_no_tales

For a Wikipedia biography of Mr. Thiessen:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Thiessen

>SATURN

>The Hubble telescope caught this image of Saturn with its rings edge on.

>IDEAS

>For the most part, we seem to spend our time attacking ideas (especially political) instead of debating the merits and facts of those ideas. It is of course proper to question any ideas that are presented to be considered law. If you have an idea, you should be confident enough to put that idea to the test of scrutiny.

Ideas are best presented to show how to improve something, not to show how some other thing is faulty. If you cannot stand criticism of of your thoughts, then best you not offer your thoughts, and keep them to yourself. It is not courage to face the criticism of your ideas, it is a normal process, to be expected.

An idea on an issue, usually effects other issues. It’s absurd to hold a discussion to one issue when many issues are effected by one idea. If you have an idea about cutting taxes, then a discussion about what the priorities of government are, is unavoidable.

I want to hear peoples ideas, especially when they differ from my thinking and are presented in a positive manner. I will get turned off by a presentation of condensation, or an expression that others that don’t agree with your thinking, must be lacking in intelligence.

It is totally possible with facts, research of History, and common sense, to come to a conclusion that an idea is not workable; but that is a discussion of intellect, not emotion. It is normal, that the most successful ideas, were originally laughed at and condemned.

I have a totally open comment policy. That does not mean I will not delete comments for outrageous nastiness. It does mean the the prudish, shy, or timid folks should be forewarned. Public scrutiny is and can be an ugly experience.

Written expressions do come across differently, than in person expressions. Even when criticisms are put in the best of words, hurt feelings are inevitable. The critic shows their lack of intelligence when they use anything but intellect, to criticize others thinking and ideas.

As motivation to get you to express one of your ideas, I offer one of mine, and expect to hear your honest response.

When making hard choices on cutting government spending, it’s a given that someone somewhere will fight against that cut.

I think a good case can be made to cut the whole Department of Education from the federal government. Not on some ideological basis, but on the basis of priority.

Most educational spending (taxes) occur at the local level. The biggest part of most peoples property taxes, are expenses for schools. Federal expenditures are a very small percentage. Equal access disputes are normally settled by the courts. Direction of academic standards are effected more by college requirements, than decree by federal law. It is adequate, that educational decisions be made at the local level. It is fair, that local citizens decide how to spend their school taxes.

I know this one of the “holy grails” of the Democratic party, but we have to start cutting somewhere.

So, what do you think of my idea? Let me have it, in a constructive manner. Then express one of your ideas. It does not have to have anything to do with politics, or government.

>Electric Volcano

>

Sakurajima Volcano with Lightning
Credit & Copyright: Martin Rietze (Alien Landscapes on Planet Earth)

Explanation: Why does a volcanic eruption sometimes create lightning? Pictured above, the Sakurajima volcano in southern Japan was caught erupting early last month. Magma bubbles so hot they glow shoot away as liquid rock bursts through the Earth’s surface from below. The above image is particularly notable, however, for the lightning bolts caught near the volcano’s summit. Why lightning occurs even in common thunderstorms remains a topic of research, and the cause of volcanic lightning is even less clear. Surely, lightning bolts help quench areas of opposite but separated electric charges. One hypothesis holds that catapulting magma bubbles or volcanic ash are themselves electrically charged, and by their motion create these separated areas. Other volcanic lightning episodes may be facilitated by charge-inducing collisions in volcanic dust. Lightning is usually occurring somewhere on Earth, typically over 40 times each second.

>Laugh Break

>