Jeanne Shaheen casts 96 votes so far this year

That's about one vote a day.   Actually the Senate has this quaint custom of requiring two votes on every issue.  First they vote to take a vote, and then they vote on the issue.  So less business than you might think got transacted.  So what did our democratic senator vote for?

Top vote getter, with 55 voters, was nominations.  Judges mostly but some administration appointees like Janet Yellen for the Federal Reserve chairman.   The rest of 'em were just middle weight judges for all over the country.  The constitution does require the "advise and consent" of the Senate for judicial appointments, but I never expected anything like that number of judges.

Next , there are the 9 votes cast to extend unemployment benefits beyond two years.  Used to be, un employment only lasted a few weeks to tide you over til you found a new job.  Now it runs for two years, and Jeanne voted 9 times to make it even longer.

Then there a 8 votes for the "doc fix".  Some years ago, Congress voted a sizable cut in medicaid/medicare rates.  The doctors all screamed.  Rather than repeal the cuts for good, Congress votes a postponement of them, every year.  Nothing is ever really final in Washington.

Then we come to 8 votes for mystery bills.  The website said "No short title submitted for this bill".  So it could be anything.  The Senate should never pass a mystery bill.  If we don't even have a title, it could be anything, and is probably harmful.  Jeanne voted for these concealed time bombs 8 times.

And now we get to flood insurance.  Private companies refuse to write flood insurance because it's a loser.  Everyone knows which land will get flooded and which won't.  Homeowners liable to getting flooded buy flood insurance. Homeowners on higher ground don't.  All flood insurance policies have to pay off after the flood happens.  In response to the cries of owners of waterfront property, and realtors, and mortgage lenders, Congess passed a federal flood insurance plan years ago.  You can buy flood insurance from the feds, the premiums aren't cheap, but the coverage is first rate. And Uncle Sam looses barrels of money after every flood.  It got so bad, that the Biggert-Waters reform act was passed in 2012 to try and limit taxpayer losses.Since nothing is ever final in Washington,  the flood insurance lobby keeps bringing up bills to repeal Biggert-Waters.  Jeanne Shaheen voted for Biggert- Water repeal 4 times.

And we have 4 votes in favor of assorted waivers to Obamacare. Three votes in favor of reforms that are supposed to do something about sexual assault in the armed forces. 2 votes in favor of the farm bill, and a single vote each for Ukraine aid, raise the federal debt limit, and to kill parts of the Budget Control Act.

So.  We have 55 votes for democratic judge nominees, 27 votes that give taxpayer money away, 8 mystery votes, 6 miscellaneous votes.

Scott Brown is looking better and better,

CIA pleads its Behghazi case

They are on TV as I write this.  They had a CIA guy name of Morell (a good name in mushrooms) in front of a Congressional committee.  Morell was acting CIA director at the time.  He had a group of (unnamed) DC based CIA pundits (analysts he called them)  gin up a report on Bengasi, day after it happened.  He says the analysts never talked to the White House,  no pressure was ever placed on them, and they came up with the "It was a protest that got out of hand" story.  Some hour later, a report from the CIA station chief on the ground in Benghasi came in, the station chief  called it a terrorist attack.  Morell claims he passed the station chief's report on the the analyists, and the analysts stuck with their story.  So Morrell  decided to go with the DC based chairborne warriors rather than the field officer on the scene.  And that's how Susan Rice went on the talk shows that Sunday and peddled the "demonstration that got out of hand" story to the country. 
   Good work Morell.  Anyone knows that first hand reports from a responsible man on the scene are more dependable than vaporings from DC pundits. 

What's wrong with making political contributions?

I dunno.  But Harry Reid thinks it is unAmerican for the Koch brothers to contribute money in support of their political beliefs.  Far as I am concerned, putting money behind your political beliefs is a commendable act of good citizenship..  Especially when I agree with some of those beliefs.  There are plenty of left wing rich guys giving money to Democrats  (the name George Soros comes to mind ). 
  America is a two party country.  Supporting either party is a public good.   

It's acceptable even if it doesn't meet spec.

This from Mary Barra, new GM CEO to a Congressional committee investigating the GM ignition switch failures.
  In all my career in engineering, I never heard anyone ever say anything like that.  The rule anywhere I ever worked was simple, if it doesn't meet spec, back it goes and we don't pay for it.  That's what incoming inspection is about.
  To hear the CEO of GM, a long time engineer there, say that GM would accept parts that don't meet spec means that GM doesn't believe in written quality standards.  Apparently GM will ship anything, whether it is any good or not.
   Talk about a dysfunctional corporate culture.
   Mulally at Ford would never say anything like that. 
   My next car won't be from GM.  

Artichokes

An amusing veggie to eat.  Actually a thistle.  You pluck off the leaves one by one and nibble the tender part off the bottom of the leaf.  With mayonnaise.  You discard the tough and fibrous upper part of the leaf.  They are in season, not too expensive, and tasty.  One artichoke can make a nice light meal, and many of us find a light meal plenty filling.  The impressive size of the artichoke, and the amount of plucking and nibbling makes them seem like more of a meal than they really are.  Note.  DO NOT put the used leaves down the disposal.  They are tough and stringy and will clog your drain, but good, every time.
   Cooking is simple.  Boil or steam them until tender.  About 45 minutes.  The Barefoot Gourmet has an entire chapter explaining how to prepare them.  Barefoot is into garlic, and recommends slicing up a whole fresh garlic clove and placing slivers of garlic in between the artichoke leaves.  Me, I'm not a real garlic fan so I skip that part.  But do slice off the stem and the top 1/2 inch or so, leaving a round spot about the size of a silver dollar.  Put them in a pot, sprinkle a generous amount of salt on the cut off tops, dribble some olive oil on top of the salt.  Add cold water and go for it. 
   Virtuous.  And tasty.

How to destroy your civilization

Simple.  Start World War I.  In 1913, the last year before the war, Europe ruled the world.  Her technology, steam railroad, telegraph, steamships, repeating firearms, telephone, machine woven textiles, electricity, and mass production was totally dominant.  Non European countries could not even duplicate European technology, they had to import it, from Europe.  The less advanced regions of the world were "colonized" (taken over) by European countries and run for the benefit of the colonizing countries.   
   After four years of slaughter and destruction on the Western Front, the Russian revolution, and the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian empire the European countries were too shattered, too broke, and too demoralized to keep it up.  What's worse, the seeds of the second world war, and the following  cold war had been planted.  In 1918 the Allies were too exhausted to invade and occupy defeated Germany, and convince the Germans that they had truly lost the war.  The Communists had seized power in Russia and would keep it for 70 years.  The majority of Germans felt they had not been beaten fair and square and were ready to try it again twenty years later.  This brought Adolf Hitler to power and kicked off WWII, which was as bad, or worse, than the first one. 
   What went wrong?  First.  The Austro-Hungarian empire could see and feel it's power crumbling in the face of nationalist feeling among it's massive subject peoples.  The German speaking Austrians and the Hungarians had struck a deal to share power and run the empire.  The rest of the empire, the Balkans, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Moldavians, Bohemians, and others were second class imperial citizens, and wanted out.  The ruling Austro-Hungarians knew that when the subject peoples got out, they would be reduced to running a third class eastern European now-wheres-ville.  They saw the Sarajevo assassinations as the pretext for a sharp little war that would  teach their subject peoples to shut up and do what they were told.  The ruling eleite believed that unless they took drastic action they were doomed, so they were strongly motivated toward war.   War was their salvation.
   Second.  Germany, a brand new country created just 45 years before, lacked national institutions with the power to constrain the central government, a monarchy with a nut case monarch.  The nut case liked international crises, the Sarajevo killings looked like a fine crisis, he decided to stir the pot.  When the Austrians came the Berlin asking for support in their hassle with the Serbs, he told them to go right ahead, kick some Serbian ass.  With that backing, the Crush-Serbia-Now faction in Vienna was able to silence their opponents and kick off the war.
   Lessons learned.  First, if you run an Empire, you want to give everyone in the empire a stake in it.  The Romans understood this; they would make anyone a citizen of Rome.  Even the Apostle Paul was a Roman citizen. The Austro-Hungarians might have survived and not needed a brisk little war to shore up the empire, if they had worked harder on giving everyone in the empire a fair shake.  Second,  you want to require assent from everyone in the country before going to war or taking steps that lead to war.  If  approval in the Reichstag and in the foreign ministry had been required for the infamous "blank check" that Wilhelm II issued to the Austro Hungarians, it would not have approved.  And WWI would have been avoided. 

NLRB claims workers need approval to unionize?

This came up in respects to the "unionize college football players" hooray.  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) granted permission to the players to form a union.
   Eh?  I thought anyone could form a union.  "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble... "  First Amendment.  Forming a union, I call that peaceable assembly.  Why should government approval be needed for that?  Of course the Obama people think that government approval is needed for breathing, eating, and drinking. 
   Not that I am in favor of changing college athletes from students who do sports to workers for pay.  What does need to be looked into is the current deal.  Playing sports in return for an all expenses paid degree is a fair deal.  But if the player fails to gain the degree, that's a swindle. I don't know just what the athlete graduation rate is, but if it's less than 95%, heads ought to roll.  Granted, the kinds of kids that go out for football and basketball (jocks we used to call 'em) are not the most promising students.  But with decent guidance, some tutoring, and some serious motivation, they ought to graduate.  "You can't play unless you have a C average" is serious motivation.