Skunk Scents:
These will be added to  as the Skunk ponders the ways of the world.

Guns do not kill people. People Kill People:

I have never known a case of a gun, on its own, hunting down and killing anyone. McVeigh and Nichols killed 168 people and injured over 800 without firing a shot. They used fertilizer and diesel oil. I can find no evidence that they were even armed. Where is the ban on fertilizer and diesel oil? The terrorists that destroyed the twin World Trade Towers were armed with box cutters. Where is the demand to ban box cutters?

The Boston Marathon Bombers had no guns.  Should we ban pressure cookers?

The latest Ding Dong in DC was only armed with an Infinity.  Luckily she did not kill anyone except herself but now must we ban automobiles?

If we ban guns, the mentally deranged will find other ways to reap mass casualties. Nerve gas is not that hard to make. It is nothing but an organic phosphate compound. Do a Google search and you will come up with some disturbing results. (be sure to delete your browsing history afterwards though! NSA tracks such inquiries! ) Fertilizer and diesel oil are readable available. Black powder and pipe are available in hardware stores and on line or you can make it yourself. So who is the real culprit? Start with the ACLU that has caused action to keep the mentally deranged out of institutions and in our midst. I believe that every single individual or group, with the exception of terrorists, has exhibited mental deficiency characteristics well before carrying out a mass killing. Fifty years ago, they would have been institutionalize. Now they walk among us, killing at random, because to confine them would violate their constitutional rights. What about the rights of those killed? Guess they do not matter.

Guns, explosives, poison gas, etc do not kill people. People kill people. Until that is recognized and addressed, the killing will continue.

Guards in schools, yes, so long as they are properly screened, trained and employed. Yes. Teachers with guns? I don't think so. Carrying a gun is already too glamorized to children. If Johnny's fifth grade teacher carries a gun, won't Johnny think it is "adult" for him to do the same? I believe he will. Do violent video games desensitize children to killing? Possibly, children sometimes have a hard time telling the difference between reality and fiction. Did we play cowboys and Indians when we were kids? I did. I grew up on a ranch in Idaho. I had a .22 rifle when I was 10. I was paid $0.05 cents per ground squirrel that I eliminated. Why, cattle often stepped in the their burrow holes and broke their legs. Did I play cowboy and Indian with the .22? No, I knew the difference between play and reality. I questions that kids now do? Why don't they? Because their parents have failed to teach them the difference. But isn't that the job of schools and educators? NO!! It is the parents job, a job that many have neglected. We see the results daily in the news paper

 Did Syria and Assad really use chemical weapons?  The Skunk fully believes that nerve gas was employed but by whom?  Why would Assad use such weapons and risk retaliation from the US, although that retaliation seem a bit slow in coming? Such retaliation would gravely injure his war machine, possibly to the extent that the rebels could prevail. He also would risk World opinion, even the Russians, turning against him.  All for what, a thousand  non-combative casualties?  His military could rack that up in a single night. with no questions asked. Assad had everything to loose and nothing to gain by using chemicals.  It is a loose-loose for him  On the other hand, what if it was the rebels and have blamed it on Assad?   US retaliation could severely cripple Assad's war machine, allowing the rebels an easier victory.  In addition, the tide of World opinion would be turned for them and against Assad, possibly gaining them more recognition and supplies.  They would have everything to gain and nothing to loose.  For the rebels, it is a win-win situation.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin "ghost PT boats"?  or the non-existent WMD's in Iraq?  Who is to say that this is not just another False Flag flown by our so called leaders?  Obviously they know what really happened but are they sharing it with us?  Your guess is as good as mine.

Lets Tax Off-Shore Tech Support

How many times have you called for Tech Support or Customer Support only to be greeted with: Hello, my name Joe. How may I help you today? You explain your problem or request only to have it parroted back at you. With; I apologize for your inconvenience and then have your request repeated back to you, but realize that Joe has missed the entire problem or request. He is totally out in left field; that is if you are even able to understand him due to the pronounced accent that definitely indicates that English is not his first or even second language.

So you try again and if you are extremely lucky, after several attempts to verbalize your request, he finally gets it. Then he places you on hold for an extremely long time (maybe hoping you will hang up and go away?) When he comes back he starts with a list of things to try, such as; is the appliance plugged in and other simplistic and dumb questions. He goes through all these simplistic cures until you finally realize that he has no idea how to fix your problem and hang up. You have just wasted an hour of your life that you will never get back and the problem still has not been solved. Sound familiar? Painfully so I would guess! So what to do about it?

I don’t think our government can levy a tariff on telephone calls going out of the US but I believe that can on “Goods and Service” coming into the US. Any company that out-sources their Technical or Customer Service an off-shore provider, be it a subsidiary of that company or a third party provider should be taxed for that service when it enters the US. The tariff must be sufficient that it becomes more economical for the company to provide the service in the US than from off-shore. Will it cost us more? Yes, but won’t it be worth it to actually speak to an American when you call for service? Plus, think of how many millions of Americans have lost their jobs to these off-shore providers. If the tax is applied properly, companies will find it more economical to provide the service from US assets than from off-shore assets, which is why they moved it off-shore in the first place. It’s a win-win scenario. Millions of Americans are again employed in the tech/customer service industry. The companies get a tax break for employing Americans and we get to talk to someone that is competent and can speak English that we can understand.

Write your Congressmen and propose this solution.

Enter supporting content here