+menu-


  • Category Archives Policy Without People
  • Coerced by Federal Bathroom Laws?

    Basic Federal Education and Bathroom Laws

    The feds — specifically, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights — insist that drawing any distinction is sexual discrimination banned by Title IX of the basic federal education law. “The district continues to deny a (self identified?) female student the right to use the girls’ locker room,” charges Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon.

    The feds have given the school 30 days to comply, or face enforcement action.

    COERCED BY FEDERAL BATHROOM LAWS?

    THE FEDS CAN WITHHOLD SIGNIFICANT CASH FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS IF THEY DON’T. THE FEDS HAVE GIVEN THE PALATINE, ILL., HIGH SCHOOL 30 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL BATHROOM LAWS, OR FACE ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

    ———————————————————–

    My comment….
    Jan 10,  2015 THE FEDERAL ACT OF COERCEMENT.
    TO MAKE PUBLIC AMERICAN SCHOOLS, DO SOMETHING BY USING FORCE OR THREATS, FORCE OR THE POWER TO USE FORCE IN GAINING COMPLIANCE, AS BY A GOVERNMENT OR POLICE FORCE.

    “WE THE PEOPLE” MUST HOLD OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL AND WA STATE BATHROOM LAWS AND RULES

    AS, NO AMERICAN CITIZEN COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE THE U.S. CONGRESS OR THE WA STATE LEGISLATORS EVER INTENDED TO CREATE THEM

    ————————————————————

    Behind My Back | A WA State Bathroom Rule

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-wastatebathroom-rule/

    2 days ago – … on wood burning. Category Archives A WA State Bathroom Rule … by Joseph Backholm, FPIW.org | January 6, 2016. Last week, news broke …

    ———————————————————-

    Dec 26, 2015….

    Washington Quietly Adopts New Transgender Policies

    dailysignal.com/…/washingtonquietly-adopts-new-transgender-bathroo…

    6 days ago – The House passed a reconciliation bill rolling back key provisions of Obamacare. … One day after Christmas, Washington state quietly adopted a set of new … The rules, adopted by the state Human Rights Commission, make it … to use the restroom that is consistent with their gender identity” and in most …

    JANUARY 8, 2016 WA STATE

    Gov. Inslee Won’t Answer Question About Bathroom Rule …

    www.fpiw.org/…/govinsleewontanswerquestion-about-bathroomrule

    3 days ago – FPIW communications director Zach Freeman talked with Gov. Jay Inslee

    —————————————————————————————-
    NOVEMBER 3, 2015 THE FEDS — specifically, THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT’S Office for Civil Rights — insist that drawing any distinction is sexual discrimination banned by Title IX of THE BASIC FEDERAL EDUCATION LAW. “The district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room,” charges Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon.

    Federal bureaucrats have no business rewriting the law to deny that reality. Nothing in US law suggests these “trans” rights, AND NO ONE COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE CONGRESS EVER INTENDED TO CREATE THEM.

    Cultural “progressives” have embraced the transgender-rights agenda, but the public hasn’t. Yes, Americans today are more willing to play along with “I identify as” — BUT NOT TO THE POINT OF PRETENDING SEXUAL ORGANS DON’T EXIST.

    ——————————————————————–

    Uncle Sam’s insane push for transgender rights in school locker rooms

    By Post Editorial Board
    November 3, 2015 | 8:41pm
    Talk about lunatic overreach: The federal Education Department is bullying high schools across America to treat “trans” teens exactly as the sex they “identify” as — all the way up to using the same locker rooms and showers.
    Many schools have knuckled under, since the feds can withhold significant cash if they don’t. But one Illinois district is refusing to go along.
    Mind you, the Palatine, Ill., high school already lets the teen in question play on a girls’ sports team and even change in the same room, but in a curtained-off area. Staff refer to the student as “she,” and so on.
    The feds — specifically, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights — insist that drawing any distinction is sexual discrimination banned by Title IX of the basic federal education law. “The district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room,” charges Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon.
    The feds have given the school 30 days to comply, or face enforcement action.
    Insanity squared:
    This railroads over other students’ privacy rights. However the kid in question “identifies,” that doesn’t change the reality of what others see in that locker room.
    Federal bureaucrats have no business rewriting the law to deny that reality. Nothing in US law suggests these “trans” rights, and no one could possibly believe Congress ever intended to create them.
    Cultural “progressives” have embraced the transgender-rights agenda, but the public hasn’t. Yes, Americans today are more willing to play along with “I identify as” — but not to the point of pretending sexual organs don’t exist.
    Look: The school has gone the extra mile to be accepting. (Is it fair to other players to let a biological male compete in a woman’s sport?) It’s just showing some respect for the views of other students — and their parents.
    The real offender here is the feds, by sending a strong and demeaning message to the rest of those girl athletes: Your privacy and your opinions don’t matter at all.


  • WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    WOTUS Water Runs Down Hill
    So, the LAW OF GRAVITY becomes the EPA WOTUS WATER LAW OF THE LAND?

    ———————————
    I DON’T NEED AN APPLE TO FALL ON MY HEAD TO UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS)

    Last year the administration wrote new definitions that would have subjected all waters (running down hill) within 4,000 feet of a navigable water to EPA review and control.

    —————–
    USGS WATER SCIENCE SCHOOL ” water returns to the earth from precipitation falling on the land, where “GRAVITY” either takes it into the ground as infiltration or it begins RUNNING DOWNHILL as surface runoff”

    ——————————-
    USGS WATER SCIENCE SCHOOL “NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, IT TRIES TO FLOW DOWNHILL”

    (SO DO WETLAND WATERS JUST SEEP DOWNHILL?)

    ———————————-
    The Environmental Protection Agency says ANY BODIES OF WATER near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will (RUN DOWN HILL AND) fall under federal regulation.

    ————————–
    NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, GRAVITY RUNS WATER DOWN HILL

    —————————–
    Indeed, science has proven that each water basin has its own land area of the water cycle, including its rainfall, its snow melt, recharging the aquifer, surface water, groundwater, rain that is absorbed into the soil RUNS DOWNHILL. Rain that is not absorbed by soil RUNS OFF DOWN THE HILL

    .——————–
    But how does much of the water get back into the oceans to keep the water cycle going?
    Indeed, the U.S. Geological Survey science tells us that 93 to 97 percent of well water used for domestic or irrigation purposes, RUNS DOWN HILL and is returned to the watershed in the proximity of where it was withdrawn.

    And, ALL precipitation, rain and snow melt do the same, GRAVITY TAKES WATER DOWN HILL as infiltration or surface runoff.

    ————————————–
    The EPA says, the new rule applies to tributaries and ANY BODIES OF WATER (that runs downhill) near rivers that (run down hill and ) “COULD” seep into waterways and “AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT”
    ———————————————————————————
    PLF UNDERSTANDS THE GRAVITY OF  (WOTUS)

    Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit challenges Obama Administration’s new
    “waters of United States” power grab

    WOTUS rule – Pacific Legal Foundation
    https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus
    Pacific Legal Foundation
    PLF Principal Attorney M. Reed Hopper, who successfully argued the … We will alert you when we file our lawsuit — and keep you posted along the way, as we …
    —————————————————————-
    Judge blocks Obama EPA rule as federal power grab over state waters A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.

    ——————————-
    THE SUIT IN QUESTION WAS FILED BY 13 STATES (ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, IDAHO, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA AND WYOMING),
    which claimed, among other things, that the WOTUS rule is a threat to state sovereignty because it asserts federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)that should be subject to state government control. As a general matter (and as the Supreme Court has recognized) land-use control is generally beyond the scope of federal power. In this case, the district court concluded that the states were likely to succeed on the merits as the EPA had adopted an “exceptionally expansive” view of its own jurisdiction under the CWA. According to the court, the WOTUS rule “allows EPA regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the ‘chemical physical, and biological integrity’ of any navigable-in-fact water,” and therefore exceeds the limits on federal regulatory authority identified by the Supreme Court in Rapanos.
    The EPA, said it will only honor the injunction in the 13 states that had sued, and will move forward with the rules in the rest of the country.

    —————————————————
    OUR WA State legislators “DID  NOT OBJECT” to WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)
    Washington State attorney General “DID NOT” file a law suit against WOTUS on behalf of the citizens of WA State.
    Washington State attorney General “DID” file lawsuits against ONE Superbowl ticket vendor, Arlene’s Flowers, and Hanford.

    A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.

    WA STATE IS NOT PART OF THE WOTUS LAWSUIT
    ———————————————————————————-

    WA STATE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE GRAVITY FED TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT of WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS.
    Indeed, WA State Dept. of Ecology MUST FIRST ADOPT AND DESIGNATE THE SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BODIES OF WATER, within 4,000 feet of a navigable water, including wetlands near a river, lake, saltwater, or standing water, that (run down hill) can affect waterways (run down hill and) “COULD” affect the environment, that shall fall under the WOTUS Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act and become subject to EPA review and control.

    ——————————-
    So, September 2, 2015 WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY filed the following rulemaking with the Office of the Code Reviser: Rule preproposal
    (using only online public notification?)

    ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE (WAC 173-22)
    ———————————————————————————
    What’s Up With WOTUS?
    9/3/2015
    Implementation of the Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” (usually referred to as the WOTUS rule) was set to become effective on August 28, 2015. Several lawsuits were filed by agricultural groups, among others, requesting a preliminary injunction, or order, to halt the rule’s implementation until lawsuits could be settled. Late in the afternoon on August 27, a District Court judge in North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction stopping the WOTUS rule from going into effect for thirteen states, including Nebraska.
    FOR ALL OTHER STATES WHO DIDN’T HAVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS ISSUED, THE RULE TOOK EFFECT AS PLANNED ON AUGUST 28, 2015.

    Why were lawsuits filed against the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers (CORP) following release of the final WOTUS rule? Several lawsuits were filed following publication of the final WOTUS rule in the Federal Register.

    Twenty-seven states, along with industries from petroleum to construction, and agricultural groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, and National Pork Producers Council all filed separate lawsuits. These numerous lawsuits have since been consolidated into a single lawsuit that identifies three arguments for vacating the rule.

    The first argument is that the finalized WOTUS rule exceeds the intended purposes of the Clean Water Act and represents an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government on land. Second, the rule-making process is designed to give the public an opportunity to comment on all aspects of a rule. In this case, EPA added items to the final rule that were not in the proposed rule.

    The third, and perhaps most concerning argument, is that the EPA may have inappropriately worked with environmental activists to lobby for the rule and support the agency’s agenda. If true, this represents an abuse of the federal rulemaking process by the EPA.

    What does the temporary injunction mean for Nebraska farmers? It means that, for now, the status quo will be maintained. So current guidance documents and existing regulations for making “jurisdictional determination” will continue to be used by the Corp. New definitions and parameters outlined in the WOTUS rule will not be part of the Corp’s checklist when making these determinations in Nebraska. Jurisdictional determination simply means that the Corp reviews the necessary checklist regarding features of a water body, and possibly conducts an on-site inspection, to make a decision about whether the water body should be under their jurisdiction as “waters of the U.S.”

    The temporary injunction does not halt the rule entirely; it simply postpones implementation of the rule until legal proceedings are completed (which could take months or even years as we saw with the new AFO/CAFO regulations a few years back).

    If the pending lawsuits are not successful, and the WOTUS rule is eventually implemented in Nebraska, it remains to be seen what parts of the rule will remain and which will not. In Nebraska, we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
    Source: Amy Millmier Schmidt, UNL Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer
    ————————————————————————————
    By Jonathan H. Adler August 28, 2015
    UPDATE: On Friday, the plaintiff states informed the court that the U.S. EPA had announced it would continue to apply the WOTUS rule in states that did not challenge the injunction.

    Late Friday, the district court responded with an order for supplemental briefing on whether the injunction “applies nationally or in a limited geographic area.” Briefs are due on Tuesday, September 1.
    ———————————————————————
    CALIFORNIA IS NOT PART OF THE LAWSUITS
    California Farmers Claim EPA Water Rules Extend To Dirt Fields
    August 31, 2015 6:22 PM
    SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY (CBS13) — Farmers say federal regulators are going too far and are taking away their water and chipping away at their property rights under a new rule.
    The Environmental Protection Agency says any bodies of water near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will fall under federal regulation.
    Since the 1980s, the EPA has regulated any water you can navigate through, including rivers and large lakes. But the new Clean Water Act Rule will add smaller bodies of water to the government’s oversight.
    Bruce Blodgett with the San Joaquin Farm Bureau says the new rule would include any standing body of water, and dry land that can potentially hold water.
    “This field is a great example,” he said. “This dirt field would now be ‘waters of the U.S.’ under this proposed rule.”
    The bureau says the new rule allows the government to require farmers to get permits to farm from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    “We have a lot of fields that are fallow, sitting idle this year, because of the drought,” he said. “That will enable the Corps to come after those lands when they try to bring them back into production next year saying, ‘No, those are now waters of the U.S.’”
    Under the new Clean Water Act rule, the bureau claims any private property with a pond and any farm with an irrigation district is now under federal regulation.
    But the EPA says, that’s not true. It says the new rule applies to tributaries and water near rivers that could seep into waterways and affect the environment . The agency says it’s not going after ponds and won’t interfere with farm irrigation. It says ditches that are not constructed in streams and that flow only when it rains are not covered.
    A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit. California is not part of the lawsuits, but farmers are watching.


  • Making Stone Soup

    Making Stone Soup? You’ve never heard of it?

    OK… Let’s start here with the historical record of STONE SOUP, it  is a 1548 folk tale some paint as a lesson in “COOPERATION” found in many parts of the world. others just leave stone soup as a pure and simple confidence trick.

    The is an analogy. that  examines the 1548 “COOPERATION” of the people, by the people, and for the people vs. the pitfalls of the FEDERAL 2015 COORDINATION PROCESS, OF  POLITICALLY appointed  government  agencies, federal, state, tribal, and  local and their employees.

    Reasoning by “ANALOGY”  plays a role in strategic decision making that is LARGE  but largely overlooked.

    It  should inspire People to stop and think about the Politics in the  Federal “COORDINATION” process in America today.

    ———————————————————————

    Making Stone Soup 1548 (a folk tale)

    Soup of the people, for the people , by the people

    Based on COOPERATION by people in a time of need.

    Once upon a time, somewhere in post-war Eastern Europe, there was a great famine in which village people jealously hoarded whatever food they had

    It was a long time ago, after  a war between two kingdoms.  When the war was over, the surviving soldiers were all sent home.

    The soldiers had been given meagre  rations, and many ran out of food on their way home and had to resort to hunting in the woods or begging, and many died of hunger before making it home.

    Now it came to pass, that a group of three hungry soldiers were heading home to the same town, and they had run out of food, when they came upon a village.

    They knocked at every door in the village, but at every one they were told that there was no food. Indeed it was  a time of  great famine and the village people jealously hoarded whatever food they had

    With no other option, they went to the inn.

    “Innkeeper,” said the first soldier, “we have no food and have been walking for days.”

    “If you have money,” said the innkeeper, “then I have plenty of food for you.”

    “Good sir,” said the second soldier, “our army was defeated, and our wages taken as spoils of war, so we have no money.”

    “In that case,” replied the innkeeper, “I can be of no help to you.”

    “But perhaps you still can,” said the third soldier, “If you cannot offer us food, perhaps you would be so kind as to let us use one of your cauldrons today.”

    The innkeeper was perplexed.  If they had no food, why would they want a cauldron?  But he had a cauldron that he would not need that day, so he saw no reason to object.   “Alright,” he said, and led them to the store where his spare cauldron was.

    The three soldiers carried the cauldron out into the village square and began building a fire underneath it.  The innkeeper, still perplexed, looked on as the soldiers drew water from the well to fill the cauldron.  “What are you doing?” he asked.

    “Ah,” said the first soldier, “we are making stone soup.”

    “Stone soup!” cried the innkeeper, “why I have never heard such nonsense.  You cannot make soup from a stone!”

    The soldier smiled, but said nothing. He took a small bag from his backpack, and opened it.  Inside were several stones.  He took each one in turn, examined it closely, and sniffed it.  Eventually he chose three and dropped them in the pot.  “Ah,” he said, “these will make a good soup.”

    The innkeeper was stunned, and went back to his inn.

    Shortly afterwards, another villager appeared. “What are you doing?” he asked.

    “Ah,” said the second soldier, “we are making stone soup.”

    “Stone soup!” cried the villager, “why I have never heard such nonsense.  You cannot make soup from a stone!”

    “Ah no,” said the soldier, “that is where you are wrong.” He took a spoonful of the soup and tasted it.  “Yes, it’s coming along quite nicely now.”

    The villager was intrigued, and wanted to try the soup, but he didn’t say anything.

    “But there’s something missing,” the soldier continued, “maybe a little salt and pepper.”

    The villager jumped in at this point.  “I have some salt and pepper at home.  I’ll give you some in exchange for a bowl of your soup.”

    The soldiers looked at each other for a while, then eventually agreed.  The villager ran off to fetch the salt and pepper, and the soldiers added it to the pot.

    Another villager arrived. “What are they doing?” he asked the first villager.

    “Ah,” said the other, “they are making stone soup.”

    “Stone soup!  Why I have never heard such nonsense.  You cannot make soup from a stone!”

    “Ah, well,” said the first, “I’ll tell you when I’ve tried it.  I swapped a little bit of salt and pepper for a whole bowl!”

    One of the soldiers took a spoonful of the soup and tasted it.  “It’s coming along quite nicely now.  But there’s something missing,” the soldier said, “maybe a bit of carrot.”

    The second villager jumped in at this point.  “I have some carrots at home.  I’ll give you some in exchange for a bowl of your soup.”

    The soldiers looked at each other for a while, then eventually agreed.  The villager ran off to fetch the carrots, and the soldiers added them to the pot.

    One by one more villagers arrived, and one by one they swapped something in exchange for a bowl of the miraculous stone soup: potatoes, barley, cabbage, celery, turnips, beans….  As the ingredients were added, the smell of the soup got better and better, until all the villagers wanted to try it, and swapped something for a bowl.  But eventually the cauldron was full, but only half of the villagers had given anything.

    “Ah,” said the first soldier, “it is ready.  But you know what?  I always like a bit of cheese in my stone soup.”

    “You’re right,” said the second soldier, “it is ready.  But you know what?  I always like a bit of salami in my stone soup.”

    “You’re both right,” said the third soldier, “it is ready.  But you know what?  I always like a bit of bread to soak up every last little bit of my stone soup.”

    Hearing this, the remaining villagers ran home, each returning with a lump of cheese, a salami or a loaf of bread to exchange for his own bowl of this incredible stone soup.

    In the end, everyone in the village — including the soldiers — got a bowl of stone soup, with a lump of cheese and a slice of salami in it, and with a hunk of bread to soak up every last bit, and no-one was hungry.

    ————————————————————————————————————–

    THE SHORT FORM OF 1548  PEOPLES COOPERATION

    Making Stone Soup of the people, for the people , by the people…

    A community effort of PEOPLE, coming together, in a time of great hardship and need.

    1. People bring wood and start a Bonfire in the town square

    2. A huge caldron is provided by the local  innkeeper

    3. A bucket brigade fills it with water from a stream

    4. The soldier throws in the soup starter, a stone

    5. People bring contributions in exchange for a bowl of soup.

    6. A little bit of salt and pepper. some carrots, a chicken, potatoes, onion, rice, barley, cabbage, celery, turnips, beans,  peas, several large bunches of BROCCLI,  seven crawdad’s are added, 2 pork sausages, a hand full of peanuts,  bits of cheese, a few pieces of beef, slices of salami and  loaves of bread.

    The last to arrive was a fisherman,  he said, “I had nothing to give in exchange for bowls of soup for my hungry family, so I went fishing, and by the grace of God, I caught this fish, please put it into the pot”

    7. In the end, everyone, all of the people in the village — including the soldiers, the mayor and the city council,  — got a bowl of stone soup, with a lump of cheese and a slice of salami in it, and with a hunk of bread to soak up every last bit, and no-one was hungry.

    Hmmm.. Stone Soup of the people, for the people , by the people…

     IN SEVEN EASY STEPS

    —————————————————————————————————————–

    Reasoning by “ANALOGY”  plays a role in strategic decision making that is LARGE  but largely overlooked.

    THIS ANALOGY should inspire OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TO  stop and think about the RESULTS OF THEIR Government coordination process in AMERICA  today.

     ———————————————————————————

    THE LONG FORM OF 2015 GOVERNMENT COORDINATION  POLICY

    Making Stone soup

    Based on the know pitfalls of the POLITICO  government to government coordination plan

    Indeed, Too many government cooks can spoil the broth  in 2015, especially when about  half of them are vegetarians’  and the broth is made from beef, pork  or chicken.

    Under The bipartisan Healthy Sustainable Food Act

    In 2015  THE MAKING OF THE STONE SOUP must be coordinated by  an appointed  Soup committee of government  agencies, federal, state, tribal, and  local and their employees. As it requires  federally mandated access to healthy local foods, the appointed politico Soup Coordination Committee must  approve the Soup Making events and the  ingredients, as required by the best  available science on Healthy food.

    “What are they doing?” asks the first out of town, appointed Soup Commissioner Clueless.

    “Ah,” said a person from the Local Soup Kitchen, “We  are making stone soup for hungry people.”

    Commissioner Clueless  responds with “Stone soup!  Why I have never heard such nonsense.  You cannot make soup from a stone!”

    The mayor exclaims, ” Close it down, it is illegal, the local people  did not get a permit for this event.”

    The director of the Local Soup Kitchen immediately applies for a emergency permit for the event. He is advised that it will take 90-120 days.  The EPA requires an environmental impact statement and the local health dept needs time to review the Soup Kitchen’s health violations prior to issuing a permit.

    Making Stone Soup in 2015

    THE  COMPROMISE  of  GOVERNMENT COORDINATION

    1. People bring wood and start a Bonfire in the town square

    Problem?

    a. Where did you get that wood? It’s illegal to cut firewood in designated wild forests.

    b. Put out that bonfire,  the President signed an executive order on carbon emission, I’m calling Ecology and the EPA, I’m going to report you, there is air quality burn ban in effect,  There is a smog alert in effect, you are contaminating the atmosphere ,We don’t even allow cigarette smoking here,  you’ll start a wildfire, I am allergic to smoke.

    COORDINATION COMPROMISE

    The wood cutter is arrested, the bonfire  is put out. Does anyone have a propane stove?

    2. A huge caldron is provided by the local  innkeeper and placed over the propane stove

    3. The town is in a drought emergency and there is no public water supply. A bucket brigade fills the caldron with water from a nearby stream

    Problem?

    a. You can’t take water from that stream, that water is for the fish, put it back, I calling WDFW enforcement and the tribes and they will arrest  you.

    b. Is that pure filtered water? Does it have chlorine or fluoride in it?

    COORDINATION COMPROMISE

    All of the water is carried back and poured in the stream, pure filtered water must be used or no water at all. The national guard is called and a helicopter arrives with bottled, pure filtered water.

    The huge caldron provided by the local  innkeeper is filled with pure filtered water and placed over the propane stove.

    —————————————————————–

    4. The soldier gets out his soup starter stones to throw in the  caldron.

    Problem?

    I’m from the State Health Dept., don’t you dare put those filthy rocks in the soup, that’s disgusting,   who knows where those stones have been, they could cause a pandemic. Show me your food handlers permit.

    COORDINATION COMPROMISE

    No stones are permitted  in the stone soup.

    Hmmm.. so much for the STONE soup.

    We’ll just call it “soup de jour”

    So far, hours have passed and the hungry people have made it to this point … a cauldron full of water over a propane stove, food handlers permit of all participants have been verified and the local soup kitchen has been reluctantly allowed to continue  because they have a pending emergency permit .

    Yep, that’s how it works for PEOPLE  in 2015 , using the government COORDINATION process.

    ——————————————————————

    5. The local People bring contributions in exchange for a bowl of soup.

    THIS IS WHERE THE SOUP HITS THE PROVERBIAL FAN

     The best  available science for the Healthy Soup Making ingredients.  

    Problems? Problems? Problems?

    From the “SOUP TO NUTS” is an American English idiom conveying the meaning of “FROM BEGINNING TO END”.

    The partisan political agenda that over rules the people’s solution

    Problems? Problems? Problems?

    6. A little bit of salt and pepper, some carrots, a chicken, potatoes, a few pieces of beef, onion, rice, barley, cabbage, celery, turnips, beans, okra, peas, tomatoes, several large bunches of BROCCOLI,  seven crawdad’s are added, two pork sausages, a hand full of peanuts,  bits of cheese, , slices of salami and  loaves of bread.

    The last to arrive was a local fisherman,  he said, “I had nothing to give in exchange for bowls of soup for my starving family, so I went fishing, and by the grace of God, I caught this fish, please put it into the pot”

    Problems? Problems? Problems?

    a. SALT  is a problem? You can’t put salt in the soup it is unhealthy for people. It causes high blood pressure. many people are on a low salt, no salt diet

    b. CHICKEN is a problem?  I am a strict vegetarian, a vegan I do not eat chicken. Was that chicken grown without hormones? Is it a free range chicken? Was it grown under PETA humane conditions?

    c. POTATOES, RICE AND BREAD  are a problem?  White food makes people obese  Are you trying to kill everyone? Obesity has led to over 120,000 preventable deaths … Obesity is an epidemic in America. Bread contains gluten. I must have gluten free food only, I won’t eat anything that is not on my gluten free food list.

    d. BEEF is a problem?  Beef is loaded with cholesterol, High cholesterol affects 42 million Americans, and 63 million more have borderline high cholesterol High blood cholesterol is one of the major risk factors for heart disease. I’m a strict vegan, I don’t eat meat.  Was that cow  grown without hormones? Cows are the  major cause of air pollution, their poop is contaminating the entire earth. Was it grown without hormones, without antibiotics and under PETA humane conditions?

    e. VEGETABLES are a problem? carrots onion, barley, cabbage, celery, turnips, beans, okra, peas and several large bunches of BROCCOLI.

    Don’t try to pull a fast one on us. This committee watched the GMO movie 85% of the food we eat daily contains…    GMO’s  are present in 85% of processed foods in America. I will not eat genetically modified anything. Are those vegetables ORGANICALLY grown?  Show me the ORGANIC labeling. BROCCOLI, Are you an idiot, everybody hates broccoli, it is the most despised vegetable know to man.

     f. CRAWDADS and PEANUTS are a problem?… For God sake are you trying to kill somebody? This is a public health issues We must prohibit fish and seafood, as they  can cause severe allergic reactions, some people are allergic to peanuts, tree nuts, fish and shellfish.

    g. PORK SAUSAGE and SALAMI? are a problem Forget it, pork is pigs meat, it is prohibited among those of the Islamic and the Jewish faith. Muslims are forbidden by God to eat the meat of the pig (pork).,  You don’t feed sausage  and salami, a blend of ground pork, garlic, sea salt, containing, High, fat, cholesterol and salt, to those who cannot eat pork.

    h. CHEESE  is a problem? Forget it, High fat, cholesterol, salt, Cheese made from Cows milk, cows are the  major cause of air pollution, their poop is contaminating the entire earth. And, many people are vegetarians, vegans, and lactose intolerant.

     i. ONE SINGLE FISH  is a big problem? This fish is an endangered salmon. It’s fins have not been cut, this is illegal, arrest that man on the prima facie evidence of possession and confiscate that fish.

     It’s actually a big deal,  for people, as the Federally Appointed Public Soup Committee, we must prohibit putting  illegal endangered salmon in the Public  soup…  for the protection of the public health.

    COORDINATION COMPROMISE

    a. No SALT in the soup

    b. No CHICKEN in the soup

    c. No POTATOES in the soup

    d. No BEEF in the soup

    e. No VEGETABLES

    f. No CRAWDADS and PEANUTS

    g. No PORK SAUSAGE and SALAMI

    h. No CHEESE

    i.  No FISH with or without  fins

    ————————————————————————————

    7. In the end, THIS ANALOGY IS A  BIG DEAL FOR THE PEOPLE, using the FEDERAL 2015 COORDINATION PROCESS, by  appointed  government  agencies, federal, state, tribal, and  local and their employees.

    The Hungry people, everyone single of them, were provided with a bowl of Healthy, Federally approved GOVERNMENT PUBLIC HOT WATER SOUP.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Reasoning by ANALOGY plays a role in strategic decision making that is LARGE but largely overlooked.

    In this analogy,  Politico Government cooks with good intentions sacrificed (threw out the baby with the bathwater) in an attempt to make their Soup healthier for the public.

    Throw out the baby with the bathwater is an idiomatic expression and a concept used to suggest an avoidable error in which something good is eliminated when trying to get rid of something bad, or in other words, rejecting the essential along with the inessential.

    If you understand this analogy no explanation is necessary

    If you don’t understand this analogy no explanation is possible.