Texas has also had the nation's highest number of workplace fatalities -- more than 400 annually -- for much of the past decade. Fires and explosions at Texas' more than 1,300 chemical and industrial plants have cost as much in property damage as those in all the other states combined for the five years ending in May 2012.

Federal officials and fire safety experts contend that fire codes and other requirements would probably have made a difference. A fire code would have required frequent inspections by fire marshals who might have prohibited the plant's owner from storing the fertilizer just hundreds of feet from a school, a hospital, a railroad and other public buildings, they say. A fire code also would probably have mandated sprinklers and forbidden the storage of ammonium nitrate near combustible materials.

"It's tough to overstate the importance fire codes would have made," said Scott Harris, a former emergency management coordinator in Texas for the Environmental Protection Agency, who is now with UL Workplace Health and Safety, a safety science company. "Texas just hasn't wrapped its brain around this fact yet."

--> BECAUSE TEXANS HAVE NO BRAINS!! ...sheesh!

And this is the worst:

In chemical fires, firefighters often bear a heavy toll. Ten of the at least 14 people who died in West were firefighters, and two more were residents helping fight the flames. This week, officials from the state firefighters' association said the 50-foot-tall memorial to volunteers killed in the line of duty, on the Capitol grounds in Austin, had no room left for new names, not even those from West.

And ultimately, this sentiment runs deep down there:

"Businesses can come down here and do pretty much what they want to," said Mr. Burka, senior executive editor at Texas Monthly. "That is the Texas way."

Wow.

Obama starts at minute 32:30 if you'd like to skip to it. But make sure not to miss the intro music as he's walking to the dais. Obama's comedic timing is just flawless. Impeccable. So talented...wow.

Investigators with California's election watchdog and attorney general's office are hot on the trail of the true source of millions in dark money spent to defeat two hard-fought ballot propositions last fall. The wide-ranging probe has conservatives worried that a network of nonprofit groups used to move secret money around the country could be in for some unwanted exposure.

As the probe progresses, some conservatives are nervous that more details -- such as the identities of actual donors -- could be publicized. "This case has got very, very deep and significant implications," says a conservative lobbyist with knowledge of the investigation. "A lot of folks are going to have their dirty laundry hung out, and it's not going to be pretty. Why would money go through such a circuitous route if not to conceal the donors?"

Egg-zactly!

Putin's "duckface" and two thumbs up are just priceless:

And here they are during their "International Topless Jihad Day" of demonstrations, taking on the President of Tunisia:

Good for these woman - putting their bodies on the line against masochism, despotism, and Islam, receiving death threats all along the way. They are brave and honorable.

Every time you see an Iraq vet who's disabled, you can think of Steven Hadley, as he's quoted in this story today in the NY Times:

Mr. Hadley told a small group gathered here to dissect the long-term lessons of the Iraq war that it never occurred to him or his boss, President George W. Bush, to ask: "What if Saddam is doing all this deception because he actually got rid of the W.M.D. and he doesn't want the Iranians to know?"

Instead, the White House and the intelligence agencies leapt to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader who had pursued so many weapons of mass destruction in the past, must still be on the same quest.

"It turns out that was the most important question in terms of the intelligence failure that never got asked," Mr. Hadley told a discussion organized by the RAND Corporation and Foreign Policy magazine.

How believable is that? Hadley expects us to believe that there were NO analysts at the CIA or Defense Department that didn't articulate this very same hypothesis? Yeah right.

Just as the administration ignored or deep-sixed any intelligence that contradicted their story, just as they pushed this bogus line that we couldn't "let the smoking gun of Saddam's nuclear weapons be a 'mushroom cloud'", this idea that no one thought of Hadley's scenario is laughable.

These men have the blood of tens-of-thousands on their hands. And we'll be paying the multi-trillion dollar bill for decades to come.

"The true significance of 1937 requires no hidden clues; it was plain for all to see. The American people signaled their acceptance of judicial review as the proper way to alter the meaning of the Constitution, but only so long as the justices' decisions remained within the mainstream of popular understanding." Justice Owen Roberts, who executed the “switch in time that saved nine" by changing his vote from one minimum wage case to the next, would later acknowledge that "it is difficult to see how the court could have resisted the popular urge" for change.

1937 is explained in this Book Review by Emily Bazelon:

In 1937, faced with a Supreme Court that he saw as mulishly blocking his effort to rescue the country from the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared war on the justices -- and on the whole notion of deferring to their interpretation of the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is it written that the court is the final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning through judicial review. The court took for itself the power "to say what the law is" in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison.

A century and more later, Roosevelt protested. He told a colleague that when he stood before the chief justice to take the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, he wanted to say, "Yes, but it is the Constitution as I understand it, flexible enough to meet any new problem of democracy -- not the kind of Constitution your Court has raised up as a barrier to progress and recovery." And to make his legislation stick, the president moved aggressively to "pack" the court with as many as six new justices of his choosing.

Friedman writes,

"It frequently is the case that when judges rely on the Constitution to invalidate the actions of the other branches of government, they are enforcing the will of the American people."

But not always:

"What history shows," Friedman argues, "is assuredly not that Supreme Court decisions always are in line with popular opinion, but rather that they come into line with one another over time."

It's a fascinating time we live in. Let's see how they decide on Gay Marriage at the end of June. Will they "get with it" and follow the trajectory of the American public, which is now strongly supportive of this, or will they get stuck in their old-fashioned, 1950's, ways?

The movement for constitutional reforms that would end what organizers call "corporate rule" has arrived in the chambers of Congress. This morning, two members of the U.S. House of Representatives joined Move to Amend by announcing their sponsorship of the "We the People Amendment," which clearly and unequivocally states that:

** Rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings only, and not to government-created artificial legal entities such as corporations and limited liability companies; and

** Political campaign spending is not a form of speech protected under the First Amendment.

In making the announcement, lead sponsor Rep. Rick Nolan (DFL-Minnesota), said: "It's time to take the shaping and molding of public policy out of corporate boardrooms, away from the corporate lobbyists, and put it back in city halls – back with county boards and state legislatures – and back in the Congress where it belongs."

Ben Manski, a spokesperson for Move to Amend, agreed, saying: "Today, members of Congress join a movement that insists on the fundamental equality of all Americans, and that rejects the idea that the corporate class should have special protections against We the People."

The Move to Amend coalition was formed in 2009 in preparation for the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. Today, the coalition of nearly 260,000 people and hundreds of organizations has helped to pass nearly 500 resolutions in municipalities and local governments across the country calling on the state and federal governments to adopt this amendment.

The Move to Amend coalition makes a point of differentiating themselves from the other proposals that have come forward in response to Citizens United. "In every single community where Americans have had the opportunity to call for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw corporate personhood, they have seized it and voted yes overwhelmingly, stated George Friday, Move to Amend spokesperson. "The Citizens United decision is not the cause, it is a symptom. We must remove big money and special interests from the legal and political process entirely."

With your help, we can all join forces to make the 28th Amendment to the Constitution a reality:

Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Sign the petition and then join up in this movement. It's the ONLY way to bring real change to our system of government!

Postscript: Common Cause pushes back on the naysayers who believe that an amendment to the Constitution is a distraction.

Post-postscript: Here's just one of the many other groups coalescing around the movement to amend the Constitution.

As workers open their W-2 forms this month, many will see a new box with information on the total cost of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. To some, it will be a surprise, perhaps even a shock.

Workers often have little idea how much they and their employers are paying for coverage. In many cases, economists say, workers give up cash compensation to get and keep health benefits.

The disclosures, required by the 2010 health care law, are meant to make workers more cost-conscious. Health benefits are still tax-free. But labor unions and employer groups say it could be easier to tax them in the future, now that employers must report their value to the government.

The new information appears in Box 12 of the standard W-2 form, with a two-letter code, DD. The box shows the "cost of employer-sponsored health coverage." And that amount is not taxable, the Internal Revenue Service says on the back of the form.

How much are we talking?

Jay J. Makled, a union steward for the United Automobile Workers at the Ford plant in Dearborn, Mich., described his reaction after seeing that his health coverage cost nearly $16,000 last year: "It's quite expensive. I was surprised to see how much the company was paying for that benefit."

$16,000 a year in health care - paid by Ford without him even knowing it. All tax free. Imagine, though, if it were an after-tax amount? He'd have to make an extra $25,000 just to pay that $16,000 health care bill.

And folks don't think our system is broken? Thank god the new law busts into the open this elephant that's been walking around all these years.

The facts as they exist:

"People are often shocked when they see the cost, $12,000 to $16,000 a year," Ms. Huberfeld said. "Many Americans believe this is something they get free. But employers pay lower wages because they provide insurance."

Congress acted after Peter R. Orszag, then the director of the Congressional Budget Office, told lawmakers: "The economic evidence is overwhelming, the theory is overwhelming, that when your firm pays for your health insurance, you actually pay through reduced take-home pay. The firm is not giving that to you for free."

Yup - many Americans have no idea how much this stuff costs. Those who pay for their own insurance have known about this all along. Why should those who work for big corporations be immune to this dirty little secret?

The best part about this?

"Health coverage is a big piece of people's income and a large part of the social welfare budget," said C. Eugene Steuerle, a tax economist at the Urban Institute. "But the benefits are not taxable, and most of the spending is hidden, so we don't consider the trade-offs. If we want to get control of health care costs, people have to be aware of them."

That is the goal of the disclosure requirement, which was proposed by a bipartisan group of senators: two Republicans, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, and two Democrats, Max Baucus of Montana and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

And the worst part of this?

The tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits is the largest tax break in the tax code, costing the government roughly $180 billion a year in lost revenue, or 80 percent more than the home mortgage interest deduction, according to the administration.

How about that? A $180 billion subsidy from taxpayers to employees of big corporations. What about all the self-employed workers out here?

Barack Hussein Obama ceremonially opened his second term on Monday with an assertive Inaugural Address that offered a robust articulation of modern liberalism in America, arguing that "preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action."

On a day that echoed with refrains from the civil rights era and tributes to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. Obama dispensed with the post-partisan appeals of four years ago to lay out a forceful vision of advancing gay rights, showing more tolerance toward illegal immigrants, preserving the social welfare safety net and acting to stop climate change.

At times he used his speech, delivered from the West Front of the Capitol, to reprise arguments from the fall campaign, rebutting the notion expressed by conservative opponents that America risks becoming 'a nation of takers" and extolling the value of proactive government in society. Instead of declaring the end of 'petty grievances," as he did taking the oath as the 44th president in 2009, he challenged Republicans to step back from their staunch opposition to his agenda.

"Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-old debates about the role of government for all time -- but it does require us to act in our time," he said in the 18-minute address. "For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle or substitute spectacle for politics or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act."

We are all in this together, so let's hope compromise and action are the name of the game this term.

California has been Exhibit A for the fiscal upheaval that has rocked states throughout the recession. Year after year, California officials reported bigger and bigger deficits and sought to respond with spending cuts that left the state reeling.

So it was something of a moment when a jaunty Gov. Jerry Brown strode before cameras here on Thursday to present his budget for 2013-14.

"The deficit is gone," Mr. Brown proclaimed, standing in front of an array of that-was-then and this-is-now charts that illustrated what he said were dramatic changes in California’s fortunes.

"For the next four years we are talking about a balanced budget," he said. "We are talking about living within our means. This is new. This is a breakthrough."

But it gets better:

Mr. Brown was not just talking about a balanced budget. He projected that the state would begin posting surpluses starting next year, leading to a projected surplus of $21.5 million by 2014, a dramatic turnaround from the deficit of $26 billion -- billion, not million -- he faced when he was elected in 2010.

God bless Jerry Brown, right?

A newspaper's interactive map listing the names and addresses of gun permit holders in two New York counties has drawn a gathering avalanche of outrage this week.

As word spread across social media, thousands left comments expressing disbelief and anger at the map, compiled from publicly available information on handgun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland Counties and published online over the weekend by The Journal News, a newspaper based in White Plains and owned by the Gannett Company.

The clickable map is made up of thousands of dots, each representing a permit holder; by clicking the dots, users can view the name and address of each permit holder. Rifle and shotgun owners were not included because, the newspaper noted, those guns can be purchased without a permit. "Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so," The Journal News cautioned.

Is this a big deal?

We send the link...you decide.

And here's our President getting all choked up:

How many more deaths will it take for America to wake up and stare down the NRA and their insane support of easy-access handguns?

But what of the shoeless man?

For days, his bare feet -- blistered and battered -- were well known. Yet precise details about him proved elusive.

His name is Jeffrey Hillman, and on Sunday night, he was once again wandering the streets -- this time on the Upper West Side -- with no shoes.

The $100 pair of boots that Officer DePrimo had bought for him at a Sketchers store on Nov. 14 were nowhere to be seen.

"Those shoes are hidden. They are worth a lot of money," Mr. Hillman said in an interview on Broadway in the 70s. "I could lose my life."

Mr. Hillman, 54, was by turns aggrieved, grateful and taken aback by all the attention that had come his way -- even as he struggled to figure out what to do about it.

"I was put on YouTube, I was put on everything without permission. What do I get?" he said. "This went around the world, and I want a piece of the pie."

Perhaps the moral of the story is just to give the homeless man or woman straight-up cash, and forgo the present part of it?

This country is one of the most free in the world, and with it comes the freedom to walk barefoot, even if you're homeless and it's winter time.

What a difficult set of circumstances.

After $4 billion, two dozen presidential primary election days, a pair of national conventions, four general election debates, hundreds of Congressional contests and more television advertisements than anyone would ever want to watch, the two major political parties in America essentially fought to a standstill.

When all the shouting was done, the American people on Tuesday more or less ratified the status quo that existed at the start of the day: They returned President Obama to the White House for another four years, reaffirmed Republican control of the House and kept the Senate in Democratic hands. As of Wednesday morning, the margins in the House and Senate had each changed by just a seat or two.

All the election results, state by state for Congress, The White House, and all of the states' ballot initiatives, can be found here from AP.

In a surprise announcement, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said Thursday that Hurricane Sandy had reshaped his thinking about the presidential campaign and that as a result, he was endorsing President Obama.

He said he had decided over the past several days that Mr. Obama was the better candidate to tackle the global climate change that he believes contributed to the violent storm, which took the lives of at least 38 New Yorkers and caused billions of dollars in damage.

"The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast -- in lost lives, lost homes and lost business -- brought the stakes of next Tuesday's presidential election into sharp relief," Mr. Bloomberg wrote in an editorial for Bloomberg View.

"Our climate is changing," he wrote. "And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it may be -- given the devastation it is wreaking -- should be enough to compel all elected leaders to take immediate action."

It turns out that the October Surprise in this Presidential election cycle turned out to be a raging woman named, Sandy.

Yowza!