Backyard full moon

An inconvenient purchase

We are now edging, trimming, and mowing our lawn with a zero carbon footprint (aside from the impact of the manufacture and shipping process). We've been using corded (not cordless) edger and trimmer for years. By paying a little extra to the local utility company, all of our electricity comes from renewable sources (wind, solar, etc). And the mower I just bought today is a corded electric Black & Decker mulching mower. I'd actually bought a Neuton cordless mower, but it didn't have enough power to cut the St Augustine grass here in Florida, so I returned it. Well, now that I've tried the Lawn Hog, I'm real glad that the Neuton didn't work out.

The Lawn Hog was US$229, $184 less than the Neuton (the Neuton was $359 plus $20 for a mulching kit, plus $34 shipping). The price difference makes some sense, since this new mower has no battery. Batteries are expensive to buy, and also would have to be replaced every 2 or 3 years. By using a corded mower, we have no lead battery to deal with, no charger running 24x7, and this thing is powerful. I was amazed that it cuts better than our 6.5HP gas-powered mower! The first grass I tried it on was the small remaining patch in the fenced back yard, that needed about 3 inches of height cut off. The Lawn Hog hummed right through the tough St Augustine grass, and mulched it up with no problem whatsoever (we have no use for the rear bag, since we let the mulched clippings fall to the lawn).

Now, some folks don't like having an electric cord hanging from their mower. I can understand that. It is definitely inconvenient. But the very first mower we owned 25 or so years ago was an electric that we'd bought at a garage sale, so I was comfortable with the cord thing. And it's worth it to save money on the purchase, save hassle and expense on the maintenance of the mower going forward, and best of all, to know that mowing my lawn is no longer polluting the air. Oh, and it's quieter and doesn't stink :)

Impeachment is not ALWAYS about politics

Let's say, hypothetically, that the US president were to walk out on the street and kill someone -- shoot some citizen in the head and murder them. If that president were to then be impeached and charged with murder and sent to prison, I do not think one could call that an impeachment motivated by politics. No, that would be an impeachment and an imprisonment based on someone committing a serious crime, and then needing to be held accountable.

OK, now, look at Mr Bush and Mr Cheney. Our Congress is lied to about the reasons for invading Iraq. It is a crime to lie to Congress. There have been over 3600 US military men and women killed in Iraq. This does not count the contractors killed. This does not count the tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands?) of Iraqis killed. With thousands of people killed ...KILLED!!! ...due to the LIES of Bush, Cheney, et al, how can one say that to impeach them is political?!?

Hello? Is anyone paying attention? Is anyone thinking anymore?

No, this is not about politics. This is about holding senior officials accountable for the incredibly ghastly effects of their illegal activity.

Why is there ANY resistance to impeachment?

It is a crime to lie to the United States Congress. Bush lied to get us to invade Iraq. That constitutes a crime. And the results of that lie have been far FAR more serious than when Clinton lied about his affair. Yet many of the same folks who still trash Clinton every chance they get (and for the record, I am not a fan) - somehow these folks think there's no reason to impeach Bush. This is pure hypocrisy.

Pelosi has said that impeachment is off the table. Obama has said that he does not favor impeachment (that is why I removed the Obama banner from this site -- there's a lot I like about the man, and if he wins the Dem nomination, I will most probably vote for him). The ONLY reason why these folks would not support impeachment is politics. They are afraid to do what is right and noble and honorable. They do not want to offend potential donors.

We need a lot more honesty.

Children's Healthcare bill - and unfair tax

A couple of days ago I posted about Bush preparing to veto a bill that would extend and expand healthcare for millions of children in the US. The good part of the bill, of course, is the healthcare. The bad side is how it would be funded. The current US tax on a pack of cigarettes is 39 cents, and that tax would go up to one dollar. I'm not a smoker, but that does sound like a rather substantial hike.

Even worse is that the tax on a single cigar could rise to US$10! I don't smoke cigars either ...I don't smoke anything. But that is a ridiculous level of taxation. I do like to have a beer or a glass of wine. The beers I drink typically cost me under one dollar per bottle, and the wines are usually under US$10 a bottle. This tax would be similar to me suddenly having to pay an additional $10 per beer or $100 per bottle of wine. And that's a bit crazy.

What would make far more sense would be to repeal the tax breaks that Bush gave to his wealthy buddies, and put those millions to finance healthcare.