It’s illegal to paint wild turtles Florida issues warning



Florida Wildlife and Conservation puts out a plea to protect their turtles after discovery of painted shells (on live turtles). The plea was put out by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on Facebook, “Tortoises and turtles don’t need touch-ups!” as well as giving advice on what to actually paint, furniture, canvass or maybe your fingernails. In their warning they discuss the health dangers of painting turtles. First, making them much easier for predators to see. Second, hindering their ability to absorb vitamin’s to toxic chemical exposure from the paint. These are just two of the hazards for the turtles.

Under Florida law it is ILLEGAL to paint turtles, the Florida marine Protection Act  for those DOPES who believe molesting these creatures is funny or it is art.


Florida Wildlife and Conservation Facebook page




No Comments

Tyson Foods Safety Violations, fines, OSHA Budget Cuts



Tyson Foods receives $264,000 in fines for safety violations. Workers exposed to various workplace hazards. Two safety violations repeat’s from 2013. Tyson makes claim that they take workers safety “seriously, with 500 health and safety specialists  in their employ.” After a worker severed a finger, OSHA investigated the incident and found more than a dozen serious violations along with the repeats.

Many of us each day put ourselves at risk in the workplace, knowingly and unknowingly. OSHA the agency that is in place to protect workers has seen their funding reduced over the years and as recently as in in FY 2016. From 2015 to 2016 funding for the safety of workers has went from $552.8 million to $524 million. Tyson’s violations should be a two-pronged wake-up call. First, OSHA needs more funding to hire inspectors to inspect more often. Second, fines need to be more severe. Will a $264,000 fine change Tysons behavior? Tyson is the WORLDS largest processor with a market cap of approximately $27 billion making this fine a joke.

In the United States in 2014 there were more-than 4800 deaths in the workplace.





No Comments

Who signed NAFTA into law? Bill Clinton already!

President William J. Clinton



Spin this is what is being put on the subject of who is responsible for the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) In a recent opinion column on dated August 13, 2016 RMuse the author attempts to spin NAFTA into a George HW Bush trade agreement. Why? If you have been paying attention to the 2016 election, this trade agreement and the next on the burner the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) have been a hot topic. Former Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has campaigned against the proposed TPP and has campaigned on the destructiveness of NAFTA on our country. Republican candidate Donald Trump has also campaigned against these “bad trade agreements” blaming Bill Clinton for the mess the countries economy is in.

All hands on deck! In defense of Hillary Clinton, RMuse for cleverly uses the words “ceremoniously signed” by George HW Bush in an attempt to let Bill Clinton of the hook. Bill Clinton’s economic record is important as candidate Hillary Clinton plans to use the former President as an economic advisor. RMuse goes on in his article discussing how overall NAFTA has helped the nation. The job loss was not due to NAFTA but to Republican policies on taxation and incentives to move the jobs overseas.

Yes, Bush did ceremoniously sign the trade agreement in 1992. BUT, it was President Bill Clinton who politicked to have it passed through Congress. And President Bill Clinton made it law Dec 8, 1993, roughly one year after Bushs ceremonial signing. Did President Clinton make changes to NAFTA yes he did.  So can we say RMuse  is attempting to cloud the NAFTA question.

As for moving jobs overseas? If there are no tariffs on trade and the playing field is level, which is what NAFTA did, isn’t that enough to create the movement of jobs to cheaper MEXICO? That was the incentive and only one business needed. Buisness did not need tax policies to drive jobs away. RMUSE’s opinion is utter nonsense.

The title of the article, Trump is wrong, NAFTA was not Bill Clinton’s creation is accurate. But the REAL question, “Is Bill Clinton responsible for making NAFTA law” he most certainly is.





No Comments

Trump’s foreign policy experience Obama 2008?

“Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world” In a 2008 New York Times article candidate Barack Obama made this statement in an effort to counter accusations that he lacked foreign policy experience. In the 08 election, Obama cited his ties to relatives in poor villages in Kenya and growing up in Indonesia as some of his real life experiences that was his education in foreign policy. Arguably, his opponent in the primary Hillary Clinton had more foreign policy experience. As did his general election opponent Senator John McCain. But despite his lack of traditional foreign policy experience candidate Obama won both races to become President Obama.

Fast forward to the 2016 election we have Hillary Clinton with all the traditional foreign policy experience and Donald Trump who has zero experience. But does he really? Comparing to President Obama’s living in another country or having family in a foreign land?  Trump has made some scary statements that is for sure! . But with that said, comparing his foreign business dealings with living abroad, I see some difference. To argue that Trump may have more than Obama did in 08? Trump has invested money in foreign countries. Dealt with government officials in some form or another in getting deals done. Wouldn’t this experience help in gaining knowledge of a countries customs and ultimately becoming versed in some type of foreign affairs?



We may not agree on Trumps positions such as making the North Korean President disappear. And we might view it and some of his other statements as reckless (which I do!) But in the end when they say “Trump has NO foreign policy experience.”? Back in 08 former Obama policy advisor Susan E. Rice said that “Mr. Obama’s experience provides a different kind of insight.” Can we make the same argument for Trump’s experience? “a different kind of insight” Let us not have a convenient memory when the president and other Clinton supporters cast these stones.



, , , , ,

No Comments

Ballot Question would doom NJ Pension System

minimum wage increase

image source

Should state workers unions be pushing for a ballot question to fund pensions? If the NJEA and the rest of the state unions haven’t figured it out yet, their pensions would be doomed. Why? Lets start with the single most important piece of information, these workers are in the minority when it comes to pensions. With that well-known fact, why would you be pushing for a ballot question? Do you actually think the voters of New Jersey will say “YES”????


The NJ Public Pension Fund is in the red $44 billion. The public unions in a desired ballot question want it balanced by 2020, paid in quarterly payments. Nearly $15 billion per year if the ballot question became a reality and was approved by voters. Our $15 billion figure does not include payments for normal contributions that need to be made as well in pension years 2017 thru 2020. CWA NJ State Director Hetty Rosenstein has called the pension funding crisis “a moral issue.” Senate President Steve Sweeney has taken some heat recently from the unions over the ballot question. But Sweeney has it right: ““The easy thing is just to put it up and if it fails, say I gave you what you wanted. It died, it’s on you”  The voters of the state have given us 2-terms with Governor Christie which should be enough to tell you where their minds are at. Yes his poll numbers and approval rating are in the toilet. Fundamentally though, voters are against tax increases and they will be against any tax increase with YOUR pension payments tied to it. To push for a voter referendum is SUICIDE for funding your pension system. This is being said by someone who supports funding your promise of a pension. The pockets of the NJEA are deep but they aren’t deep enough to sway enough voters to say yes. The bottom line is the majority of voters do not have a traditional pension; what makes you think they’ll protect yours?

Do you think they need to figure out a different path to funding?


, ,

No Comments