Perfect It Aint

As the title indicates, perfect it aint. I'll rant and rave, maybe even curse once in a while. You are welcome to join me with your comments. At worst I'll just tear out the rest of my hair. At best, I may agree with you. Or maybe I'll just ignore it, because you know, perfect it aint!

Location: Barboursville, Appalachia, United States

Retired, Financial and Management specialist, lived all over country, but for some reason, decided to retire to West Virginia (that's the new one, not the Richmond one). Please note that all material appearing on this blog is covered under my own personal copyright as creator, except those items appearing in the Comments that do not appear under the screen name of Tanstaafl or are attributed to others by citation. No license is intended or given to copy or redistribute anything appearing in this blog unless written permission is first obtained from the author.

Monday, December 19, 2016


So today is the big day.  Today the electors vote for the presidency of the country.  And some foolish few will either break state laws by their vote or , at the very least, break faith with the very voters who elected them to their exalted position of power.

I simply cannot understand why they even bothered to place their name for the job if they did not intend to vote for the person who garnered the votes to place them in their office.  How silly to tell the state Republican office that they would vote for whomever the voters selected and then turn tail and seek to obviate that very choice.

Not only silly, but to my way of thinking, should be criminal, with criminal penalties.  How about losing their voting privileges for about ten years?

And how about working to get a constitutional amendment eliminating the Electoral College.  Legally.  Instead of whining that the college is all wrong for the country.

But then again, I see nothing wrong with the Electoral College.  It has worked for over two hundred years without a hitch, already and will serve its purpose for  many more.  But most Americans do not understand its purpose.  And even as many do not understand that America is not a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be such.

The United States is best described as a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.  And that means that the founding fathers were too leery of democracy that they framed the Constitution to prevent any such foolishness.  I cannot believe under any circumstances that the founders of our country could foresee the great imbalance of the population density in our country, from a distance of almost two hundred thirty years ago.  But By George, By Sam, By Tom, By James and By James, they surely appear to have done so.

The U. S. has devolved into three countries, two heavily liberal and one heavily conservative.  Those dens of liberal iniquity, with a few exceptions, are located on each coast, with the Conservatives populating the vast interior of the land.

The Democrat party toots that Clinton won the election by almost three million votes.  Yeah, and Gore won by almost a million in 2000, too.  But both were (will be) defeated b y the Electoral College, which relies not upon the total popular vote, but by the popular vote WITHIN THE STATES.  So while those cited above DID win the overall popular vote, they did NOT win the majority of votes within the separate states.

Indeed, Clinton had a two million vote majority within the state of California, but all she won by that majority was the 55 electors that California has to offer.  With smaller majorities, she also won Oregon and Washington, thereby assuring the complete liberality of the West Coast.

Similarly, New York and the New England states, with an exception, went heavily for Clinton, as did Virginia.  So the East Coast was liberal also, as well as a pocket in the Midwest (Illinois).

But the rest of the country, the vast plains, the South, the Upper Midwest, the Mid-Atlantic (minus Virginia), and a couple other anomalies, went for the conservatives.

And the real purpose of the Electoral College was to ensure that those voters in those intra-American states would not be forced to lose their enfranchisement to the highly populated coastal regions, or to a demagogue with a huge following from some also highly populated areas (remember George Wallace?).

Each state is allocated electors based upon the total of the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the two Senators from the state. In West Virginia's case, that totals five.  In California that totals fifty-five.  West Virginia has a population of 1.8 million, California something like 35 million.  In West Virginia, each Representative represents about 600,000 people.  In California, that figure is about 660,000.  Recognizing that there are some really skewed numbers when you compare California with say, Wyoming, or Alaska, but those are rare, and we must give each state recognition in any event, so that the few exceptions do not spoil the broth, so to speak.

Let the whiners whine.  The fact is that the rules were known in advance, the rules will not change until an amendment is made to the Constitution, and let the intent   and the sense of the Constitution prevail -- as it will.

After all, as we found out in 2009, when the Democrats proclaimed it loud and clear, WE WON!  YOU LOST!  GET OVER IT!

And, contrary to Mrs. Obama's plaint, I now have hope again - for ALL America and the world.

Sunday, Sunday

So, it's a few minutes after six A.M. and it is so toasty under the covers.  Dozing and dreaming, I awake again at about ten 'til seven.  I realize my wife is awake but being very still.  So we lie there for a few more minutes and the phone gives a blip ring  -- and the power goes off.

We say  simultaneously, "Well the power just went off."  She says that she will call the power company.  But before we do that we pour water through the coffeemaker and have our first cup of coffee for the day.   Oh, it is a Bunn that is kept on all the time so that we can have hot water for coffee for a short while after power failures occur.

About seven-thirty, we go to the shed and get some wood and start fires in the two fireplaces.  Pull out the battery powered lanterns and prepare to wait it out.  Can't get through to the power company people, only their computer voices which assure us they have the outage noted and are working on it, and it should be back on by eight o'clock.

Yeah, right, and the pigs are flying too.

And after a four and a half hour outage the power is back on and the world is happy again.

Just another typical Sunday in Appalachia.

Monday, November 14, 2016

Thanks, Pa

A while back the Cabell County Commissioners decided to charge every citizen of Cabell County an additional fee.  Now the amount of the fee varies according to the habits of the particular citizen.  As nearly as I can calculate, it costs me and my family about fifteen dollars per month.

Puzzled?  Didn't hear about the additional fee?

I refer to the Commission's failure to place a recycling vote on the November ballot.  The proposed levy would have amounted to about $33.00 per year for us.  That is compared to the current monthly fee charged by Republic Services for garbage pick-up multiplied by twelve.  I do not know what Republic's current monthly fee is, because I do not use it.  I buy twenty bags each year, use about fifteen of them and don't have to buy any every three or four years.  The bags cost $2.50 each, so my annual cost for garbage has been running between $2.50 and $5.00 per month for the last few years, as the recyclable items have all gone to the dumpsters provided by the County under contract with Rumpke.

Years ago the monthly cost from Allied Waste was about $20.00, which calculates out to about $240.00 per year.

As it appears that I will now have to place all those recyclables into the regular garbage stream, I would assume that my annual cost will be about the same, plus any inflation over the past three or four years.

So let's see--My before cost above is a maximum of $5.00 per month, $60.00 per year.
My new cost will be about $240.00 per year, assuming no inflation.
The difference is about $180.00 per year, or that fifteen dollars a month I suggested above.

Now, IF the Commission had placed the measure on the ballot, and it passed, I would have to pay that $33.00 per year, plus the $60.00 per year, for a total of about $93.00 per year.  And the recyclables would have gone into a recyclable stream and not the landfills.

The recycle bins at all locations were constantly overflowing, even though Rumpke was making two pick-ups per week usually, at least at the bins I used.

Based upon the Commission's inaction, I decided that I would not vote for anyone on the Commission who ran for re-election. That decision was removed from me as no one on the Commission ran for re-election this year.  But the terms of the  two remaining 2016 Commissioners will be expiring in two or four years, and I have a good memory.  I will not vote for either Cartmill or Bailey, and will actively pursue their defeat should they either or both decide to run again for any office.

So, thanks, Pa, for giving your boy a good head for figures without being a figurehead.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Howdy, Pa

Thank God, the election is over.

The results were highly pleasing    ---   or highly displeasing, to everyone in America.

And, of course, we have the protestors walking the streets--notice they do this after dark mostly, so their faces cannot be seen and traced--by their parents who are still providing that basement bedroom for them, as well as their health insurance, totally subsidized by the American taxpayers.

I'm tempted to turn the tables on them and repeat what they, or their brothers and sisters, said to  us in 2008 and 2012--"WE WON.  YOU LOST.  GET OVER IT!."  But they would not understand.

And that makes them stupid.  And stupid cannot be fixed.  If only they were just ignorant.  Ignorance can be ameliorated, but stupid cannot.


Watching a broadcast this morning, I heard a debate between a black lady and a black man.  She was conservative, he not so.  They were discussing the aforementioned protestors (I guess I should use the term rioters since a person was shot in Oregon, huh?)

  Anyhowsomever, the gentleman was declaiming that Mr . Trump must go on national media and   explain his entire campaign once more and apologize for any hurt feelings that may or may not have occurred among the blacks, browns, Muslims, domineckers, Rhode Island Reds, Canada geese, etc.  And got downright vociferous about it, he did.

The lady said that, no, it was not Mr. Trump who was the sitting president, nor the challenger to Mr. Trump, and it was those two who should get off their posterior openings of their alimentary canals  and do any explaining to these fellow travelers.

Wanna guess who I thought was right?


Holy cow, a Republican was elected sheriff in Lincoln County, WV!!!  The old apple cart is just getting more upset all the time.


OK.  I admit that I did read Peyton's column this morning.  I did not agree with it but that is nothing new.  I also watch MSNBC.  And CNN.  Probably as much or more than I do FOX.  But that is just due to my overriding philosophy of "Know Your Enemy!"  I can't watch my backside all the time, so knowing what those blockheads are doing by keeping them out front helps keep me more alert to the times when they are turning sneakier and trying something stupid (there's that word again!).


So Hillary Clinton and her army spent close to a billion or more on a winner, and lost.  Donald Trump spent about 250 million on a loser and he won.  Times is strange, Pa!  I sat up until about 1:10 AM Wednesday and then decided that Trump had won despite all the network talking heads saying that it wasn't to be.  But it had to be because either Pennsylvania or Michigan was going to put him over the top, and sho-nuff they did.

But the most interesting thing in the whole shebang was the report, later denied of course, that Joe Manchin said that if the Senate tied at 50-50 he would caucus with the Republicans.  Well, Joe, since you act like one, walk like one, talk like one, why not just go ahead and be one.  At least then you would be in the same party as all the other federal elected officials from the state.  And you wouldn't even have to quack for us!


Well, Pa, I'm gonna watch the Cowboys and the Steelers, so ya'll take care and youins come to see ussins sometime.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016


Well, here it is election time again, and the chickens----- are out all over the place.

I refer, naturally, to those politicians who love to advertise, but are chicken---- to place their party affiliation in their ads.  I refuse to vote for them based solely upon that fact.  If they are too scared to place their party affiliation in their ads for my vote, I'll return the favor by staying away from them.

Back years ago, the Board of Education here in Cabell County was NOT non-partisan as it is now.  I did not like then, and still insist  that any person elected as a non-partisan loses all that non-partisan crap as soon as they are sworn in.  In this area, that means practically every non-partisan reverts to his or her Democrat philosophy as soon as elected.  If you don't believe it, just look at the decisions the Board has made over the past thirty years or so.

Now, the state legislature, in full control, both houses, of the Republicans, has voted and the governor of course approved bills that make ALL judicial races being non-partisan. Of all the piss-poor bills to come out of this supposed conservative legislature, these ones were some of the very worst.  So now I have to go to extreme lengths to discover that Benjamin is a Republican, as is Wooten, and I have no idea of what the others are, so I'll vote only for the ones I already know are more conservative in view (although I have some real concerns with Benjamin, but he sure beats the hell out of Ketchum).   And I would not vote for McGraw to be the dogcatcher's vomit.

And it gets worse, in local judicial races, the circuit judges have been separated, illogically,  not by geographical division with in the county, but by the incumbents, so that each incumbent has his/her own division, and can be next door neighbors with any other judge and still be elected, again with no  party affiliation.  If this aint the very model of idiocy, I don't know what is.  H---, we even elected Justices of the Peace by geography, and it was stupid and not cost effective to make them 'magistrates'.

Speaking of which, they also run by divisions, and guess what.  The incumbents all got their own division, too.

To say the judicial election system has gone to Hell in a handbasket is beleaguring the point.

Non-partisan is definitely not non-partisan.  It allows the very worst to run for office without any identification at all.  I know some  of the current 'magistrates.'  Some have good reputations, some not.  I also know some of the candidates, by reputation, and would vote for them only they were running against Darrell McGraw.  And then I'd hold my nose while puking.

By the way, since I'm on a tear, you may as well know that I fought the removal of the miscegenation laws also, along with the approval of same-sex marriage laws, highly approve of any state which passes the currently vogue 'bathroom' laws (I mean after all, what is wrong with a person who stands and to pass water using the men's room and one who squats using the women's room?), and approve of the RFRA's now in legislatures across the nation.

Friday, March 04, 2016


Stacking them up as of today, and subject to change of course---

Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Romney.

Marco is still getting in the mud with Anus, and both of them are beginning to stink.

Cruz is the steadier of the two, and is a strong conservative also.

Kasich is not going to win, but has the best proven track record.  I particularly admire his willingness to work with the other side when necessary to accomplish the overall goal.  But he does not have the following yet.

If such a thing should happen as a brokered convention, he has a chance.

If not, he would still make a great vice president, which neither Cruz nor Rubio would.

Yeah, I put Romney back in the mix.  I can't believe that he would jump into the fray out of altruism.  But I'm not sure I can support him this time around.  But if the alternative is Anus, or, God forbid, Clinton, I'll take him.

I can change as quick as Anus, too, so this is what it is today, and no guarantee for tomorrow.


Rubio - Yes.

Cruz - Yes.

Kasich - Yes.

Trump - Well, well, well, well, well, yes.

Does anyone really believe that lying posterior opening of the alimentary canal?

The day before he again threatened to run his own third party campaign.  And yesterday evening he assents that he will support whatever candidate the Republican Convention chooses for the office of president of the US.

The stench of his temporizing before finally assenting, well, it just plain stinks.  And since he changes any and every statement he makes daily, sometimes within the same paragraph, does anyone believe him?

I don't.

I'm giving six to five.

Monday, February 29, 2016


Is this a resurgence of the old KKK?  Is David Duke now a kingmaker?  Is Donald Trump really that stupid?

The answers are:  No, No and No.

The KKK is the same old yesterday's news that it has been since the Roosevelt administration and before.  It raises it's ugly old head every four years and then falls back into seeming oblivion for the next four.  There will always be those who hate, those who lie in wait to come forth and spew their vitriol when the populace is generally upset over something completely at an angle from their beliefs.

But there is no resurgence, only a splinter in it's ass.

David Duke, like the KKK, is a figure from the past who has outlived his message.  Sure he was a power in his heyday, but that old power is gone forever.  And, sure, like the KKK, he gains some respectability every now and then, but it is like a snake that has had it's head cut off.  It will twist and turn,  causing great concern among the uneducated for a short while, but will soon lose even the ability to do that.

Donald Trump is far from stupid.  He is really a brilliant mind, but also a consummate liar and braggart.  And, as with so many, practically all liars, sometimes he gets trapped by his lies.  When you tell so many, it is really difficult to remember all that you have told, and, sooner or later, will find that you contradict yourself.  When it happens, the consummate liar will then tell a covering lie that dismisses all previous ones on the subject.  If you need proof of that, check out the tale of the two Michigan legislators and their love affairs that surfaced about a year ago, and is just now resurfacing again.

I really do not think that the United States needs an arrogant consummate liar as president.

FBI vs. Apple

Anent the flap over FBI vs. Apple, a few thoughts in passing...

Hacking a telephone or a computer or computer system is a crime.  Be it a misdemeanor or a felony, state or federal, it is a crime.

No one, private citizen, government official or corporate citizen can be compelled to commit a crime.

Check it out with any competent constitutional lawyer.  It seems a number of amendments speak to this attempt by the FBI to force Apple to commit a crime (s).

The media hacks and pundits and just plain liars are constantly squawking that Apple must bend to the FBI.  'Taint so, McGee!

And they use the most outlandish reasons for saying so.  It's to prevent a crime--the crime(s) are already committed.  And by forcing Apple to bend to their will, the FBI is committing another crime and making Apple complicit with them.

It's to prevent terrorism--same answer, Charlie.

It's their duty to do so--nope, one's duty is to obey the laws, ALL the laws of his country.

For every argument put forth by the FBI and it's flacks, there is one simple answer--it is unconstitutional to force any being, private or corporate, to commit a crime. 

All the lollygagging about it is so much spoiled milk.  It is a power grab attempt by the federal boys
and must not be countenanced by any person who has a basic smattering of common sense.

Tuesday, February 16, 2016


Well, the GOP kids are at it hot and heavy.

You would think that they would understand that the more they tear in to each other , the fewer are the votes left for the 'winner'.

I admire John Kasich for his refusal to get involved in personal attacks.  Also Ben Carson.  Also, for the most part, Marco Rubio.

On the other hand, such fantasizers as Donald Trump are the world's greatest turn-off to politics that I have experienced in my 70 plus years.  He is the epitome of the old joke about  "I can tell when he is lying, because his lips are moving."

I have lost a lot of enthusiasm for Ted Cruz, as he seems to want to engage in the fight with Trump, when the best way to handle ignorance is to ignore it.

I have never lost my liking for George W. Bush.  I am not sure his outright campaigning for Jeb Bush will be effective.  And Jeb seems to want to be drawn into the catfighting ala Trump and Cruz, at times.

So where do I go from here? 

I admit, I am really partial to Marco Rubio, have been for quite some time.  Sure he's a raw untested kid, but the guy who is in the White House now has less successful experience, even now, that Rubio does.  And I have noticed that Rubio hasn't gotten rattled since that New Hampshire debate.  Indeed, he is much stronger now in public appearances.  I like his ideas on immigration, foreign affairs, defense, and the economy but I am not too familiar with his views on domestic policy.

Carson is a lost cause.  Probably the most honest and likable person in the race, he just does not project the aggressiveness I feel we need.  Be a great vice-president.

So would Kasich.  I feel that Kasich would be able to tackle the economy and do wonders with it.  He and I disagree on a few of his social issues but I think he is strong on defense and he seems pretty aggressive in his views overall.  A great guy to have at your back.  But he want to be out front.

Well, here goes - in order of preference - Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Cruz, Carson.

You are correct.  I did not rank Trump.  I will not vote for Trump, period. I guess I agree with GWB on that, (paraphrasing), usually the poorest choice is the loudest boor in the room.


So Governor Tomblin is asking the Legislature to loan 60 million bucks to the Workers Compensation fund from the Rainy Day Fund.

Huh?  Did I hear that right?

Aint the Workers Compensation in West Virginia covered by private insurance now?  Ever since the state government funded Brick Street, a private corporation, fully funded b y the state of West Virginia at start-up?

And we now have about five or six private insurance companies handling Workers Compensation payments?

Then why in all good billy hell would the state still be involved in any monetary way?

I know I aint the quickest rat in the pack, but what am I missing?  I've been out of the world of business for a few years, but it seems to me that the state would hold only a supervisory position in Workers Comp now, the same way every other state that privatized Workers Comp is.

And a couple of  months ago it seems I heard that Brick Street was doing great.

Now, change topic, but not--what does Tomblin mean a "loan"?  I have never heard of a government making a 'loan' like this that was ever repaid.  The federal boys have never paid back all that Social Security money they 'loaned" to fund Medicare.  The federal boys have no intention of repaying Medicare for the $750 billion they "loaned" Obamacare.

So when does Tomblin expect to repay the Rainy Day Fund for this "loan"?  Hell, he will be out of office before the first payment comes due.  Why should he worry about it?

The answer is, he doesn't.  Only the taxpayers will.  Just like with the loan to Obamacare.  That president will be out of office, too, before anyone wises up and poses the same question to him.

Wonder what pet program will get the "loan" from Obamacare?


Let's see, now.

After the loss of one Supreme Court justice, there is left only eight.  And yesterday I heard a guy pontificating that we have to have nine.  That we have always had nine.

And he is supposedly a learned person.  One who has no facts based in reality.

The Constitution assigns responsibility for establishment of a Supreme Court to the Congress.  It does not specify the number which must be to compose a Supreme Court.  The Constitution wisely leaves that n umber up to the Congress.  Sure, the President must approve any bill to change the number, but the bill must originate in the Congress and be approved by Congress before the President gets his/her shot at it.

History?  Over the course of it's existence, the Supreme Court has been composed of as few as four and as many as twelve. 

The last time it was attempted to change the number of justices was way back in FDR's administration, when he tried to pack the court.  He failed miserably.

Under the 'advise and consent' rule, the President has the responsibility to appoint a nominee for the court.  The Senate then has the responsibility to 'advise and consent', more correctly in parlance the advise or consent" rule, for the Senate can advise the President his choice is not advisable or, contrariwise,  to consent to the nomination.  Neither the President nor the Senate is under any time constraints.

Past practice has been for the President to not nominate anyone to the Supreme Court during a year in which a presidential election is held, but this is simply a practice and not a law that must be adhered to.

The Democrats insist now that the president MUST appoint someone and the Senate MUST either approve or disapprove quickly.  The Republicans insist the Democrats are wrong on both counts.  The Republicans in this case are correct.  The Republicans seem to be split - some insist that the president can make an appointment and the Senate can either sit on its thumbs or take up the appointment and deny it.  They are CORRECT also.  But some insist that based upon prior practice, the president should sit on his thumbs and do nothing.  I do not think that is correct, as there are no prohibitions on the president about the time needed or used to make appointments.

The Democrats insist the Senate must take up any such appointment the president may make.  They are completely wrong in that insistence.  I would refer them to Senator Schumer of their own party, back in 2007, who then proclaimed loudly and clearly that the Senate at that time would not take up discussion of any Supreme Court appointments the then president G. W. Bush might make in 2007 or 2008.

Similar to the protests certain Republicans are making now.

Paybacks are hell, aint they?