Sometimes I Just Wonder...

...what kind of people make decisions that affect all of us.  Recently the US Court of Appeals ruled that part of Michigan's bottle/can deposit law is unconstitutional.  The state law requires that bottles and cans be identified as being sold in Michigan, for purposes of the bottle deposits.  I guess there was some Steinfield episode that mocked this??????  Well, I hope there is a Steinfield episode that mocks this decision.

I guess the court's opinion mentioned something about only nine states have bottle/can deposit laws.  What does that have to do with anything?  Haven't these Constitutional dolts heard of the 10th Amendment?  Oh, I forget, judges are now on the benches to impose their own views of what is best or not best.  With all the crap/litter on the roads with the deposit law on the books, imagine how much more trash would be out there without it!  If you can't imagine, go to Indiana, for one place, to see.

And what does a "Michigan" label on a bottle or can have to do with restraint of interstate commerce?  Maybe our cars should no longer have "Made in Highland Park, Illinois" labels.  Maybe there shouldn't be any sales taxes.  Don't they restrain trade by increasing the prices?

The best part was the suggestion that, instead of having the "Michigan" imprint, to ensure bottles weren't coming from other states, those without deposits, consumers could "save their receipts."  Yes, the dolts actually wrote that!

And, I still wonder at our members of Congress who define a "spending cut" as, not actually decreasing spending, but just not increasing it as much as planned.  That is, if the original increase in spending was to be 20%, but the actual increase is only 15%, that's considered a cut.  Huh?  That leads one to ask the question, "When is a 'spending cut' not a 'spending cut?'"  As noted in a recent column, that's akin to saying, "I wanted to gain 20 pounds, but I only gained 10.  Therefore I lost 10 pounds."  Yeah, "lost ten pounds" even though I now weigh ten pounds more than I did.

Will the baseball Hall of Fame voters select the "roid" abusers like Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, and others?  Who knows, although an informal poll showed none are likely to be inducted?  I laugh when I hear about "the integrity of the game."  Ha Ha.  Where is the integrity with ten minutes between innings for television commercials?  Where is the integrity of the game when the owners made millions off of gate receipts from people coming to watch the druggies?  Do they have to give back the profits?  Where is the integrity of the game concerning championships?  Will pennants and titles have to be taken down and returned if these druggies contributed to those championships?  After all, since they are Hall candidates, they must have played pretty big roles.  Where is the integrity of the game when players sign here and sign there, barely getting their bags unpacked before leaving for more money elsewhere?  "Integrity of the game?!?!?!"  Ha Ha, what a joke!