The Senate Is Useless and Should Be Dismanteled

Senate Is Useless

Senate Is Useless


When almost ninety percent of the population supports expanding background checks for individuals buying guns online and at gun shows, and the Senate fails to pass such legislation, then the United States Senate is useless. How does that happen? What role does the Senate play if it does not represent the interest of the people?

Historically, when the House of Representatives and the Senate represented two legislative chambers that kept in check the two major parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, Congress actually had a real purpose! It was a bicameral setup where in one house, the House of Representatives, the members were elected to protect the interests of the constituents of the district in the state which they represented. The Senate, on the other hand, was made so that each state had equal representation, regardless of the state’s population. As we know, this is why each state sends two Senators to Congress.

The United States Senate Is Useless For a Couple Reasons


The biggest reason why the US Senate is useless is because it clearly does not reflect the will of the people at large. When close to 90% of the citizens agree on broader background checks for guns bought online and gun auctions, and when 74% of the National Rifle Association (NRA) members support the measure as well, then how does that become blocked? 90% of the time we don’t agree on anything! Senate members work to fulfill the interests of the lobbies that support them. In this case, it was in their better interest to appeal to the gun lobbies which hold many of the Senators’ positions by the balls.

The proposed document did not ban any weapons nor capacity on ammunition. It did not take anybody’s guns away. The government wasn’t coming to anybody’s front door. It was simply proposing to do more background checks. Who would that hurt? I am not hating on guns. This is just one of the most recent examples of the point that I am trying to prove. We could take any other example, dissect it, and come to the same conclusion.

(Related Article: A Case Against Gun Control)

The second reason the Senate is useless is because it takes ages to get legislation passed.

Founders hoped Senators would be more likely to consider the long-term effects of legislation and practice a more mature, thoughtful and deeply deliberative approach in their deliberations. Setting aside the validity of this “maturity” factor, the Senate undeniably does take longer to consider bills, often brings up points not considered by the House and just as often votes down bills passed easily by the House.  –

Mature? Thoughtful? Deeply deliberative approaches? Please! Is that how they passed the Monsanto Protection Act swiftly with most of the useless Senate not aware that it was slipped into the legislation? What was so mature and thoughtful about that? Once again, proving that the Senate is useless really isn’t that hard. Still not convinced?  How about a sadly hilarious list of all the things the senate has done and is doing to waste all of our time and money?

The bottom line is, the House of Representative members are elected every two years, which means they are running for reelections more often and are more likely to stick to the opinions and wishes of their constituents. Let’s not forget that legislation also gets passed faster in the House of Representatives. On the other hand, the useless Senate members are elected every six years, and are not swayed by public opinion as easily.

The House members are supposed to represent the interests of the people. The Senate members are supposed represent the interest of the State. But what are State’s interests if they are not the people’s interests?

Two solutions: Either dissolve the useless Senate and completely dismantle it. Or, if there is any legislation that is in very high interest to the people, then that should be able to become law by just passing it through the House of Representatives. It shouldn’t be so difficult to pass something that is accepted by nearly every american citizen!



It Says Organic: Does That Mean It’s Non GMO?

non GMO food products

USDA certified organic non GMO Wheat

GMO or non GMO? That is the question….

Lately, GMO products have been hit with some bad publicity. I recently went to a local grocery store in Palatine, Illinois and took a photo of this USDA Organic certified wheat package. In case you can’t see it, this is a whole wheat Gemelli brand wheat product with the fancy USDA Organic logo. However, an organic label alone does not guarantee that you are getting a non GMO product.

What’s the Difference?

non gmo use graph

The agriculture industry has decided the answer to the question for you: “GMO or non GMO?” .

The difference is what each of these terms describe. The term organic is used to define how a product is grown. GMO and non GMO are adjectives that describe whether the product is genetically altered in some way. GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism. An organism that is genetically modified can still be grown organically.

GMO plants have their genetic code changed in a way deemed beneficial by scientists, not by nature.  Before 1997 the USDA Organic label did not specify whether or not the produce grown organically was non GMO or if GMO plants needed to be excluded from the definition of organic. Over the years the USDA has changed it’s stance.

The USDA government website states that,

USDA organic standards describe how farmers grow crops and raise livestock and which materials they may use…

These standards cover the product from farm to table, including soil and water quality, pest control, livestock practices, and rules for food additives.

Organic farms and processors:

  • Preserve natural resources and biodiversity
  • Support animal health and welfare
  • Provide access to the outdoors so that animals can exercise their natural behaviors
  • Only use approved materials
  • Do not use genetically modified ingredients
  • Receive annual onsite inspections
  • Separate organic food from non-organic food

These standards specifically state that USDA certified organic products are in fact non GMO products as well. This is not necessarily true for all organic standards and certainly has not been true at all times in the past.

According to,

In 1997, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its draft National Organic Program rule. At this time, they proposed that organic allow the use of GMOs. This proposal was unacceptable to consumers, manufacturers, retailers, farmers, and basically anyone who had anything to do with organic.

The battle ended with consumers and farmers reigning victorious.

The final rule outlines that an organic operation has to document that it has not used GMOs and takes reasonable steps to avoid contact with GMOs. Whether a product is labeled “100% organic,” “certified organic” (with an allowance of 5% non-organic ingredients) or “made with organic” (a minimum of 70% organic ingredients), none of the ingredients are permitted to use genetic engineering.

That means in a “made with organic” cereal containing 70 percent organic ingredients, the remaining 30 percent non-organic ingredients cannot be produced from genetic engineering. Providers of non-organic ingredients being used in organic products, must also be able to provide proof that their ingredients are non GMO.

So the USDA Organic certification on a product is the government’s guarantee that these products will contain only non GMO ingredients. If you want to avoid GMO products and go only for the non GMO, then this is as sure of a bet as you can get at the grocery store.

non gmo map

Want to go non GMO in he US? Good luck.

How To Tell If A Product is Non GMO

If you don’t want to buy exclusively USDA certified organic products but would still like to eat non GMO foods there is another way to go about your grocery shopping. It is common for produce to use short numbers called PLU codes, or price-look-ups, to indicate what kind of product is behind the label. It can be used to indicate manufacturer, color, etc. It is often used to indicate growing conditions. The major benefit of the PLU system is that each PLU code is unique to each product, regardless of where you buy it. This is key for those people going the non GMO route.

The PLU Code user guide states that:

The IFPS shall be responsible for deciding the assignment and definition of qualifying prefix digits
for international recognition. At present, only three digits have been allocated:

0 Applies to all non-qualified produce and is generally presented without the leading
“zero” digit.
8 Genetically modified
9 Organic

This means that if the PLU code is five digits the first digit indicates organic or genetically modified, but it is not mandatory for the producer to specify if they do not want to. If the PLU code is four digits, then PLU code will not indicate whether the product is GMO or non GMO. While it is not currently a requirement in the United States to label GMO produce, in the USA and Canada, food manufacturers are not allowed to label their food as 100% organic if any GMOs are used.  To be 100% certain that your food is organic: look for an organic label, a 9 at the beginning of a 5 digit PLU code, or just grown your own.



Sources: USDA says “organic” means “non GMO” Organic Agriculture National Organic Standard

International Federation of Produce Standards

IFPS- Produce PLU Codes User Guide

Organic 101: Can GMOs Be Used in Organic Products?

Organic Food Council- Certified Food Logos

Snopes- PLU Codes

Another Casualty of the Paramilitary State

A recent example of ridiculous police excess has led to the death of another non-violent citizen of the United States, a country that has increasingly become the police state dystopians have feared. This inevitability has been intensified over the last several decades by the odious War on (Politically Incorrect) Drugs.

Police forces across the country have become heavily militarized, often procuring their military-style equipment directly from US Army surplus sales. As police forces have begun to look more and more like Armed Forces soldiers, they have also begun to ape military tactics to an appalling degree.

Botched Paramilitary Raids

Botched Paramilitary Raids– CATO
Photo Credit:

Violent no-knock warrants for non-violent and victimless crimes have become standard operating procedure for police departments across the nation. This (incomplete) map from the CATO Institute, largely the work of current Huffington Post journalist Radley Balko, records instances of paramilitary raids in the US that have resulted in the deaths of innocent people and police officers, raids on innocent suspects and other examples of police excess. Balko estimates that paramilitary no-knock raids are used to serve drug warrants about 150 times each day across the country. Although the map hasn’t been updated since June 2011, it still dramatically illustrates how dangerous and widespread these shameful police tactics are being employed.

These violent raids are usually used to serve drug warrants, but this story from Memphis demonstrates that the cops are also willing to use these tactics when confronting another terrifying breed of deranged criminal—animal hoarders. The suspect, whose name has not yet been released, was shot and killed during a daylight raid last Friday.

After neighbors complained about the “sights and smells” of animals, the police raided the unnamed man’s home to serve an animal cruelty warrant. The police report that the deceased, described as being in his mid-late 60s, was armed and pointed a weapon at the police. An unnamed officer shot the suspect, who died at the scene.

Memphis PD Sgt. Karen Rudolph reported on the findings inside the house:

“Inside the house we did find a lot of cats, dogs. “I’ve been told there were raccoons, possums, chickens.”

Well, we can all certainly rest assured that this crazed human can no longer roam the streets, menacing the masses with his unholy cat horde. /snark/

If the suspect did indeed point a weapon at the officers (a finding that can no longer be verified, thanks to trigger-happy cops), they were perhaps correct to shoot and neutralize the suspect. But the police committed Original Sin in this instance: they created violence where none existed previously. When a group of armed men force their way into someone’s home, it’s easy to understand why a person living there would feel threatened and want to defend their life and property. The natural, base instinct of self-preservation does not wait to see if violent intruders are in fact police officers or not. In your own home, you have an absolute right to shoot first and ask questions later in such chaotic situations.

Sometimes these paramilitary raids are absolutely the necessary response by the police. Hostage situations and shootouts, for instance, demand immediate and violent action to prevent imminent or further loss of life threatened by such suspects.

The horrific reality is that these raids are very infrequently used to neutralize violence. Rather, they inject violence into situations that previously lacked any. Most of these home invasions are performed to serve non-violent drug warrants, with the police stating that no-knock raids give an element of surprise that makes it impossible for the suspects to dispose of any evidence.

If these suspects possess so few drugs that they can easily be flushed, perhaps these people aren’t committing so heinous a crime that necessitates a violent SWAT raid. Just sayin’.

The truly frightening thing about instances like this is that seldom does anyone question the general mentality of the police involved. Except in situations where violence is already present and transpiring, military-style raids should be the absolute last option. These days, however, paramilitary tactics are more and more becoming the standard method of first response. Having a dialogue with the suspect and actually trying to peacefully assess the situation is becoming an antiquated notion in America. If the man was indeed such a threat, wouldn’t it be safer for everyone involved to park a few officers down the street and nab the suspect when he went to make a cat food run?

None of this should really be a surprise. If you start calling something a war, people will start to act like warriors. If cops dress like soldiers, they’ll soon behave like them. My personal pet peeve is when police officers refer to we Little People as “civilians,” as if the police are occupying hostile territory.

Police comin', yo!

Police comin’, yo!
Photo Credit:

The officer who fired the fatal shot is on paid leave, as per protocol, and will almost assuredly face no disciplinary punishment for ending a human life. Sad to say, I feel increasingly as if America has become occupied territory, with one set of rules for the “civilians” and another for the occupying forces.

The War on (Some) Drugs is the most destructive and shameful domestic policy since slavery. Indeed in some ways it serves the same purpose as America’s history of involuntary servitude: as the demographics of drug offenders in state prisons illustrate, the WoD disproportionately affects blacks and other minorities. Blacks and Hispanics account for about 80% of drug prisoners despite making up only 30% of the US population.  Instead of being trapped on a plantation, these new victims are locked in penitentiaries, and the effect of their incarceration trickles down into the next generation. The WoD has certainly played a part in the tragic reality that over half of black children are raised by only one parent.

Until this dreadful policy is eradicated from the vernacular, American governments—federal, state and local—will use it as a bludgeon against the basic freedoms that are supposed to be unalienable to all citizens. I rightly fear that this manufactured “War” will continue, simply because it grants politicians and the police too much power.

Power is more addictive than any physical substance the drug warriors wish to contain. Wrenching it from those addicted to it is a difficult and dangerous proposition, but one that must be undertaken if the US wishes to remain a country free of the nightmares Orwell and Huxley prophesied. The first step is waking up to the cruel injustice that occurs every day as a result of these brutal, police-state tactics.






The New York Times: When Police Go Military

WMCTV-MPD officers kill suspected animal hoarder

The Sentencing Project- Distorted Priorities:Drug Offenders in State Prisons

United States Census 2010

United States Census- Living Arrangements of Children: 2009 

NASA’s Planned Mission to an Asteroid



NASA has done it again. Or will do. Maybe.

To their credit the National Aeronautics and Space Administration sports a hefty 54 year resume of boring old activities such as: landing on the moon (or not?), dramatically influencing technology, launching numerous manned and unmanned masses of flame propelled metal into space, and consistently planning missions that only psychedelic drug users and post doctoral rocket scientists could dream up. This time it appears that NASA has just about outdone themselves ( ( (IN SPACE) ) ).


Using a cleverly named “Space Exploration Vehicle“, astronauts will dock with a near earth asteroid. Once attached, (then called) astroidnauts will conduct a variety of experiments. Seth Borenstein from the Huffington Post writes:

NASA is thinking about jetpacks, tethers, bungees, nets and spiderwebs to allow explorers to float just above the surface of it while attached to a smaller mini-spaceship.

JET PACKS! Sign me up. Borenstein goes on to say:

It would take half a year to reach an asteroid, based on current possible targets. The deep space propulsion system to fly such a distance isn’t perfected yet. Football-field-sized solar panels would help, meaning the entire mothership complex would be fairly large. It would have to protect the space travelers from killer solar and cosmic ray bursts. And, they would need a crew capsule, maybe two, for traveling between the asteroid complex and Earth.


That’s right science! Start the inventing NOW!

There is even speculation on plans to tow an asteroid into orbit between Earth and the Moon. They’re probably wrong as even NASA failed to comment on such claims but speculation leads to inquiry and inquiry leads to paper work and paper work, as many of you know very well, leads to bypasses and bypasses have to be built.


Studying the asteroid is likely to lead to a greater understanding of the creation of our solar system. Many asteroids are considered to be the last remains of debris from the birth of our dear mother Solaris. Questions such as “Why?” might even be answered.

It’s pretty important to know your neighbors. I’ve had some crazy ones. You know the type, the ones that sound like they’re speaking some form of goat language and have a garage, driveway, and lawn filled with “started-project-debris.” Well The earth’s neighbors are sort of like this too. There hard to follow, hard to find, could and have totally wreaked havoc upon all of earth’s systems, and we don’t know about a lot of them. Dr. David Rabinowitz, of Yale University says that up to 1000 of these neighbors are about a kilometer or larger in diameter. Kinda Scary.

Oh and then there’s all the technology that is inspired by NASA. With every new mission comes a wave of new gizmos and gadgets to make it possible. This feeds our global economy as companies around the world compete for NASA bids.

This mission is considered by some to be a major leg on the space road to mars and in general the preservation of the human race. Humans as a race have a lot of work cut out in order to survive the ever looming explosion of the Sun. Admittedly it is a bit far off. We’ve got around 5 billion years to come to terms with the death of everything we’ve come to love. On the happy side it is likely that the asteroid visit will aid in cultivating further deep space (9) exploration.

NASA plans for this mission to go down in 2025.