Do We So Much as have a Plan to Stop the Loss of Trees?

   Somewhere in all this cry of outrage against Brazil burning down the Amazon should come a little repentance at home.
   I wonder if a tree in America doesn't do as much good as one in the Amazon.
   Or, one in Europe. Much of the outcry against Brazil is coming out of Europe. I wonder what is being done there to save the trees, and read of a privately-funded reforestation program in France called Reforest'Action.
   I read how the U.S. ranks fourth in the world in deforestation, with it losing 29.2 million hectares between 2001 and 2014.
   Shouldn't we have a program of reforestation? That is the least. Even if you are saying we need to continue to clear trees out to make way for development, why not find new places to plant trees?
   Global warming is real. We have been in this wondering game long enough that we should be coming to our senses that the planet is indeed and surely warming. There is a crisis, and it is man-made. And, we know trees and plants eat up carbon dioxide. We must wonder, then, with all this concern of global warming, why no reforestation plans in the United States?
   Actually, there is an effort. Led by the U.S. Forest Service and the Arbor Day Foundation, 7.7 million hectares of forestation were added. between 1990 and 2010.  That is not enough. If 30 million hectares are lost, and only 8 million replaced, we are losing.
   Would it be asking too much that every new home development include trees? Do some cities already have ordinances requiring that? I do not know.
   Has ever a bill been introduced in Congress, calling for reforestation? How many such bills, if any, have there been in the 50 states?
   Has the government ever taken an inventory of our forests to draw a line as to which  are off-limits to being cut down? Do we have a plan that looks at what we've got, and which forests will not be touched? Why not?
   Failing to plan is planning to fail, it is said. How are we doing? And, why-oh-why are we not doing more?

(Index -- Climate change info)
 

Brazil will Hit the Pause Button, then Continue with Deforestation?

   Brazil has banned burning for the purpose of clearing land for 60 days. A moratorium, then: Stop burning for just this little amount of time.
   I suppose I read the news and am a little shocked. What? You mean they are clearing away the Amazon little by little, but will pause for a couple months since the world is outraged?
   That's all?
   But, I also must think of their position, how they feel it is their right to develop their property. They question why they cannot cut down their own forests, but other nations can.
   And, they have a point.
   I would guess a tree growing up proud and tall in America is as good as one growing straight and true in Brazil. If we are to meet them part way, we should plant a few more trees of our own. We, too, should ban the clearing of trees and forest land.

Do away with the Requirement that They Speak English

   If I had my druthers, I'd do away with the requirement that an immigrant speak English in order to gain citizenship.
   I do not like the rule, at all. I suggest that freedom is what America is all about. And, if you are not allowed to be different, you are not allowed to be free.
  We would have the "assimilate." I question the need for this. If they want to go their own way, or do their own thing . . . or speak their own language, I am not against it.
   Their failure to speak English will deprive them of jobs, of social interactions, and of relationships. It will make it hard for them to do most anything.
   Let that be enough. Their failure to learn English will limit them, in and of itself.
   Freedom is not about making everyone conform. It is not about everyone being forced to communicate with each other.
   Freedom of speech should include the right to speak the language of your choice. You should not only be free to say what you want, but to say it in the language you want. 

You can ride the waves

 or you can be crushed by them.

Comfort comes from friends

even as death from an enemy.

Wisdom seldom forces its way.

Distance divides 

only when communication fails.

Climate Change, Joseph Smith's Translation, and Rising Sea Levels

   Climate change affects our seas as much as anything, with rising waters. And, whenever climate change is discussed, the melting ice caps and their impact on global water levels is often mentioned. So, is there anything in biblical prophecy speaking of the seas?
   I find in Luke 21:25 it saying that there will be a "perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring." And, I think of the waves roaring in on islands in the Pacific as the water levels have risen.
  The Latter-day Saint prophet Joseph Smith added corrections and additions to the Bible, as he was inspired to make those changes. He added this to verse 25: "The earth shall also be troubled, and the waters of the great deep." Climate change is a troubling of the earth, and of the waters of the great deep, especially if "waters of the great deep" specifies that it is the oceans that are being referred to. Then, it becomes that this passage is referring to the seas being troubled in connection with the earth being troubled. I do not know -- is this significant? It seems it might be. Discussion of climate change usually (or at least often) does not leave out discussion of rising sea levels. Even so, Joseph Smith's Translation doesn't just say the earth will be troubled, but specifically that the waters of the great deep are to be included in this troubling.
   I will end by saying I don't know if the scripture in Luke is referring to climate change. I do not say that it is. I say, though, that from what I see, it is possible it is referring to climate change. That possibility is open.

Respect is something you should command, 

but never demand.

   From Joseph Smith's Translation, we read in Luke 21:25:
   "In the generations in which the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled . . . like the sea and the waves roaring. The earth shall also be troubled, and the waters of the great deep."

The Lord will Dry up the Pools

  "I will make waste mountains and hills, and dry up all their herbs; and I will make the rivers islands, and I will dry up the pools." -- Isaiah 41:15
   I wonder if this scripture could refer to anything brought about by climate change.

They Came from the World Over and We Shared in the Discussion

   Was neat to have the UN in town, and for local voices to be part of international discussion of the issues.
   One visit does not a pattern make, nor of itself fulfill a prophecy. Still, I cannot but help think of Isaiah 2:2-3, which speaks of all nations flowing unto a city in the mountains, and of coming to learn the ways of Zion.

Global Warming? Wonder at the Scriptures

   I do not say the burning of the earth and the warming of the seas and the warming of the atmosphere, and the changing of temperatures is a biblical sign that the end is near, but I wonder.
   And, I think it not wrong to wonder.
  I am told to look for the signs,  so I look. I look at what is happening, and say, Could the signs of the times refer to this?
   The earth and heavens roll together as a scroll? Whatever could that mean?
  Tonight, as I wondered about climate change, and considered the fires roiling through the Amazon, I turned to Revelations 16.
   "And the second angel poured out the vial upon the sea." Do we see anything currently happening with the seas, that this could refer to?
   ". . . and every living soul died in the sea." Our seas are rising, and the prediction is, they will wash ashore. I don't think, though, it is being said they will rise so high as to claim a good part of humankind.
   Perhaps we must think the revelations refer to something else -- not to the rising of the seas from climate change. But, at this point, I think it not wrong to look around, and seeing little else going on that might fit, wonder.
   "And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun." It would appear, then, that this heat will come from the sun. Is this not consistence with global warming?
   "And power was given unto him to scorch men with fire." I think of the fires in and near the arctic. And, I think of the fires in California, and how many they have scorched.
   The Amazon? Perhaps those fires are lit by man, not by the sun. Still, they might afflict the whole earth. And, afflictions and pestilence lies in that, and the Bible speaks of affliction and pestilence.
   "And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues." Instead of seeing the hand of God being unleashed, they suggest God is not behind global warming. 
   ". . . and they repented not to give him glory." Despite all the evidence of climate change, they hold to their beliefs. They reject the warnings of the scientists. They repent not. They refuse to see God's hand -- his glory -- in what is going on.
  No, I don't not know that Revelations 16 is speaking of climate change. The revelation might yet lie ahead -- completely ahead of us -- and to look at what is happening now will only lead us astray. I might, indeed, be stretching when I wonder if it is climate change.
  I only know that to look at scripture, and to look around at what is happening, gives cause to wonder.
   And, I think it not wrong to wonder.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Brazil's Right to Burn the Amazon is not a Moral Right

   Where there is the right to own, there is the right to ruin. I think of Brazilian Jair Bolsonaro. "Brazilian sovereignty is not negotiable," he says, leaving it clear that it is Brazil's decision as to what becomes of the Amazon. Other countries do what they will with their forests, why should Brazil not be able to do as it will with its forests?
   As you burn, you create gases contributing to global warming. Raze the earth, and say that the earth is yours.
   Where there is the right to own, there is the right to ruin? You certainly have the power. But, if we say you have the right to ruin the earth, make that a legal right, not a moral one.

(Note: A sentence saying 20 percent of the world's oxygen comes from the Amazon was deleted 8/31/19 upon reading a National Geographic article saying that is not true.)

(Index -- Climate change info)

 Justice for the poor

 measures a nation 

more than its GNP.

Freedom fades 

when fairness flees.

Sailors of the sea need ships to sail, yet we do not say the ships are not to credit when we reach a distant shore.

My answer to those who say, Guns don't kill, people do.

Why wait for tomorrow, 

when today is at hand?

The haughtiness of death is in that it supposes no one can answer it, and the humility of heaven is in that it does have an answer.

Wisdom's secrets 

are whispered 

only in ears that hear.

Shades drawn on life 

cannot cover the windows 

of a brighter day.

Words whispered 

are for ears that hear.

Love's bounty

 is always shared. 
-

The tears shed at death 

pour from eyes blind of tomorrow.

Tomorrow doesn't come 

to those who sleep through it.

The mountains of life are not reached

 by those who wander the beaches.

Those rich in pride 

do not invest in wisdom.
-

Society will tell you 

that the tools of death are not responsible 

for their carnage.

The only peace in death

 is that there yet remains a tomorrow.

Death washes away a life, 

but it cannot shed the distant shore.

Death's grave is the planter box 

for a brighter tomorrow.

The scars of death 
are left on the living.

These Children Might Account for Some of What We Pass Off as Fraud

  Many of the children immigrating into America come with adults who are not their parents, an act seen as fraudulent and wrong. I believe I read the other day that DNA tests were done, and showed that 30 percent were not with their own parents.
   Tonight, I read a Deseret News story about a shelter in Columbia that rescues children. Its workers go right into the sewer-filled streets, giving the children bread and hot chocolate so the children will sit down and listen to them -- as they talk the children into leaving with them.
   It is wonderful the workers rescue the children from the streets and take them into their shelters. But, I cannot but help wonder how many children are similarly rescued, and matched with adults to come to the United States for a better life.
   I do not think it right that we are too quick to judge. Maybe some, maybe many of immigrants found with children other than their own are only using those children as tickets into America.
   I only know that if charity workers are taking the children and rescuing them by placing them in shelters, other charity workers are likely rescuing them and sending them to a better life in America.
   At least some of the children arriving here are probably but orphans being rescued from the streets. Of all the people we let into America, these should be at the front of the line.

The Kidnapping of Aaron Mendez Underscores the Danger

  Organized crime members stormed a shelter in Mexico where refugees awaited entering the United States, seeking to kidnap Cubans there in hopes of extorting their families for cash. The director of the shelter, Aaron Mendez, offered himself in their place, and has not been seen since.
  Is the Remain in Mexico policy humane? Is it reasonable? Does in leave the migrants in harms way? Does it only increase the gravity of the humanity crisis at our southern border?
   From an online article in the Texas Observer, I read:
   "The reported kidnapping is further evidence of the crime and unsafe conditions that asylum seekers and their advocates have been complaining about in Nuevo Laredo and other border cities. Doctors Without Borders, which works along the border, recently said that 'asylum seekers in Nuevo Laredo are constantly exposed to robbery, assault, extortion, kidnapping, and homicide.' "

We Complain about the Cost of Immigrants, but Should We?

   If we were to tally up the cost to our healthcare system, to our education system, and to our prison system, the cost of immigrants coming to America would be breathtaking.
   So it is said.
   I consider. Much of the cost is incurred because we don't allow them in. We have a court system just for them. We have jails just for them. We process them slowly, which means the expense of our courts and jails is increased. The expense of educating their children? If you are referring to their not paying taxes, then consider that if they were legal, they would be paying taxes. Healthcare? I do wonder if they are of any greater offense than the American citizens, who run up bills on the government. Blaming the immigrant when seemingly everyone else is also running up bills is disingenuous.
   These are the poor. These  are the needy. They seek escape from conditions in their home countries. They arrive, and we toss them in jail for arriving. And then we complain about the costs, when the costs are largely a result of our efforts to keep them out. 

If a President were to try a Takeover, could Our Guns Stop Him?

   It is the year 2020. A new president has just been elected and the old one refuses to leave office, suspending the norms of government and declaring marital law.
   The election was a fraud, and these measures are necessary to preserve the nation, he says.
   What are the chances of such a scenario? I would say little. I think our courts and our military and our people would realize that such a way of doing things just isn't the way things are done. No, not in America.
  Coups are for other countries, not for America.
  But, I will confess that when I think of President Trump, I somewhat wonder if he is not capable of such an audacious move.
   And, yes, I wonder if, for him, the people might even follow.
   The reason I bring up this scenario, is that we are told that we cannot ban guns, because that leaves open the possibility government will take away our freedoms. I'm just trying to think of a scenario where that could happen. Now, lets say a president did declare martial law, and did declare all bets -- I mean, all freedoms-- off for the moment, in order to deal with the crisis. Would our having guns make a difference?
   What would those having guns, do with their guns? Would they march on the White House?
  Think of this, also: Those who cite the Second Amendment as a defense against tyranny largely fall into the Trump camp. If it were Trump taking over the country, would they still be inclined to take up their guns?
   But, if they did, could their guns do any good? If they marched on the White House, would a few missiles quickly stop them? Or, could they go guerrilla and fight a war not out in the open and, indeed, make a difference?
   My first thinking is that they couldn't make much of a difference, but then I begin to wonder.
   If we are to argue that guns are a defense against tyranny -- if we are to argue that nations fall when guns are lost -- then it would be good to think up possible scenarios such as this, and to think them through, so as to consider if the threat is valid.
 

Come up with a Scenario to Show Private Guns are a Defense

  It is said and repeated: Before taking over a nation, the government takes away guns from the people.
  And, there you have it: We cannot ban guns here in America, for that would precipitate the downfall of our nation. End of discussion.
   Is it true? If we banned guns in America, what would happen? To begin with, the federal government is already in charge. So, to suppose that they are going to take charge -- well, they already are in charge.
   What you must mean, then, is that the federal government will take our freedoms once it has our guns. Or, do you mean it will be easier to haul us off to jail? Just what do you envision happening? If we are to lose our freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or freedom of movement, what events are to happen, and how is the gun going to stop them? Suppose we banned guns, and no one had a gun. Suppose the government then said, "You have no right to oppose this government and we are going to haul you off to jail."
   I think of the journalists who have lost press credentials during the Trump administration. They expressed themselves against Trump, and lost their credentials as a result. Would it have done any good if one of them had pulled out a gun, and said, "You can't do this. I have a gun"?
   If you fear we will lose our freedoms if we lose our gun, I wait. Come up with a scenario where freedom of speech or freedom of religion is being lost, and someone steps in with a gun and saves that freedom. Or, maybe it is a mass of guns and a private militia stepping forward to save a nation. But, I want an example of what might happen.
   Red Dawn? I believe the story line there has it that America's military is struggling, and the citizens step into help fight for their country. I don't see how that story proves freedom will be lost if guns are banned. It does suggest, though, having guns allows private citizens to step in and help if America's war machine is ever challenged. I wonder if even that story line is a strain. Could a populace armed with hunting rifles, or even AR-15s, stand up to Russia's military might if the U.S. Army was not holding off the foe? 
   Come up with a scenario. Tell me how our freedoms might be lost if we don't have guns. I'm not saying you can't, I'm just saying I'm having a difficult time realizing what that scenario might be.

  "Climate skeptics and deniers have often accused scientists of exaggerating the threat of climate change, but the evidence shows that not only have they not exaggerated, the have underestimated." -- Naomi Oreskes, Michael Oppenheimer, and Dale Jamieson, writing in the latest issue of Scientific American. 

What is Happening Today with Our Freedoms, that a Gun would Solve?

   Word is, often before taking over a nation, the government takes guns away. The surprising thing may be that this might have happened even in America, with the king of England ordering the seizure of weapons.
   So, it is suggested we, as Americans, should not allow gun control, should not allow our guns to be banned. Should not, should not, for our very freedom is at stake.
   To start, I would suggest it should be no surprise that governments would seek to take away weapons from the people in order to take over a nation. Yes, that can make sense.
  But, consider that conditions are different than they were in colonial America. In colonial America, if the Americans were to fight, they would need to bring their muskets from their homes. Back then, an army didn't supply the weapons. It didn't issue its soldiers their weapons. No, if the soldier was to have a weapon, he needed to bring that weapon from his home.
   If things were like they are today, the king probably would not have sought to take the colonists' weapons. If there had been a standing army, and it had all the guns the soldiers would need, it would have done the king no good to confiscate guns from the citizens.
   As we consider this today, what should we consider? If the government banned guns, would we be easier targets for take-over over by that government?
   To begin with, the federal government is already in charge. What you must be talking about, then, is would it make it easier for government to take our freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or to haul us off to jail on trumped up political charges?
   I wonder.
   I think it not wrong to look at our nation at present, and at situations where government might be incurring into our freedoms, and wonder. I think it not wrong to consider the times President Trump has stripped press privileges from journalists who were not friendly towards him. Would the journalist have done any good if he or she had pulled out a gun and said, "President, you can't do that. The NRA warned me this could happen, and I've got my Glock right here, ready to stop you."
   I think of the president not allowing immigrants to apply for asylum, and depriving them of human rights in the detention camps. Now, what would we think of them, if one of them pulled a gun and said he was going to stand up for his rights with an AR-15? Surely, that is not the way to handle the situation -- even though it be that rights are being taken by government.
   I think of all the talk of religious freedoms eroding. Never once have I heard it suggested we should take out our guns to keep the government from taking away those religious rights.
 

Mass Murderers are not at all Likely to be Women -- Why?

   If you took all the mass shootings since 1982, added them up, and asked how many were committed by men, and how many by women, would there be anything you could learn from that?

   Of the 114, 110 were by men, 3 by women, and one jointly by a man and woman. 

   You can either write it all off as genetics -- or you can suggest the secret to stopping mass shooting might be hidden here. If it isn't genetics, is there a difference in how we train men and how we train women?

   Does society's role for the man have anything to do with it? I truly do  not know. Maybe women are just gentler people by nature, and that's the end of it.

   But, I wonder.  

Red Flag Laws? Consider Those Already not Allowed Guns

  What of the opposition to red flag laws? Such laws, depending on how they are written, take weapons away from those who threaten violence.
  As we consider such laws, we should realize we already restrict some people from owning guns. It would be worthy to notice who. Reviewing this list might be interesting to you in and of itself. You might just be shocked to learn so many are on the list. This is a red flag list, of itself.
   1. Felons and those who have been imprisoned for more than a year. And those awaiting trial on felony charges.
   2. Fugitives.
   3. Those who abuse their spouses.
   4. Those using controlled substances. (I would imagine this is just those who are convicted, but don't know.)
   5. Those who renounces their citizenship.
   6. Anyone who has been committed to a mental institution or adjudicated as being mentally "defective."
   7. Those receiving a restraining order for stalking.
   8. Those dishonorably discharged from the military.
   9. Non-U.S. citizens, which includes undocumented residents.
   Yes, I will wonder if the above list is accurate. I am amazed so many are on it. I got it from Axios.com, if you want to look it up.
   It is argued that it is not fair to take a weapon from someone simply because they are accused of having made a threat, which is what a red flag law often does. But, note that those awaiting trial on felony charges are in the same boat. Some of the others on the list also are people who have not yet been convicted.

Idle Words can Contribute to the Character of a Nation

   There is a phrase among us: He ought to be shot.
   Pause, if you will, and realize this phrase contributes to gun violence, and might be contributing to all the mass shootings we are having.
   He ought to be shot? Let me give you another one, one you've probably used yourself:
   Let him rot in hell.
   Or, how about this one: He deserves everything he gets.
   Such phrases teach hate. They teach that some people deserve our hatred. Ultimately, they teach us that some people ought to die.
   I hope you die. There is another one.
   We ought to make a list of these phrases, stamp them in our mindsets, and resolve never to use them.
   Here is the danger: When we start teaching that some people are worthy of death, we start teaching that killing them might be justified. Now, different people will pick different people as being unworthy of life. Some might just pick out the Osama bin Ladens of the world. Others will pick the gays and lesbians. Others will pick police officers, and others, Muslims. Then, there are home invaders; Who would ever say they should not be shot?
   Everyone will have their idea of who ought to die.
   So, if we would justify murder, we would begin by teaching that some people are worthy of death.
   If we, as a society, would reflect on the thought that what we teach, is what we become, we would realize that the gun violence and mass shootings are not entirely out of our blame. We teach death, and someone listens and picks out someone they think as being unworthy of life.
   And kills them.
   Perhaps our idle words have more effect than we give them credit for having.

 

Has a Clever Quote Deceived Us?

   Say someone left a marijuana joint sitting on the kitchen counter. It might sit there untouched for a year by one person, he going past it and never being tempted. But, another person, one who has never used marijuana before but who gets thinking about it as he sees the joint morning after morning, he might eventually pick it up and smoke it.
   So it is with the gun. Yes, it is an inanimate object. But, it just being around can influence us. We say guns don't kill, people do. But, that's an over-simplification  and a dismissal of the truth that while guns are inanimate objects, they can and do influence us.
  Clever quotes can be used to deceive us, and it is unfortunate that that is what has happened.

We cannot be Exclusionary in Our Thinking

   When it comes to gun violence, we must not be exclusionary, feeling we can solve the problem if with just a single solution.
   Background checks? More people carrying weapons to defend? Whatever you see as the answer, one answer isn't enough.
   No, we must not be exclusionary in our thinking, riding all our hopes on a single solution. Gun violence is caused by many factors. If we would address it, we must address them all. The gun, itself, is a factor. Hatred is a another. Emotional well-being yet another. If we would address gun violence, we must cover all the facets that cause and encourage it.

Ronald Reagan once said "an AK-47 is not a sporting weapon nor needed for the defense of a home."

Greenland's Ice Caps Lowered a Notch

   Scientists didn't think Greenland's ice sheet would be melting at this rate until 2070. (And, they said this would be the worst-case scenario for 2070.) Fifty-five billion tons, lost over five days in July and August. Hottest month on record? To add to that, unprecedented wildfires burned through Greenland, Siberia, and Alaska, helping melt the glaciers.
  I have not heard if some of the water is expected to freeze again, making this not a permanent loss.
  But, to those of us watching climate change, this is a noteworthy event.
   The hottest month recorded, July was. Seasonal ice melted perhaps quicker than any other year in modern history in Alaska. The arctic and antarctic ice levels reached record lows.
   On the flip side, in early June a news story reported Glacier National Park was removing its, Gone by 2020 signs. During the Obama Administration, signs were posted saying the parks glaciers would be gone by 2020. But, some appeared to even be growing and it was no longer evident they were about to disappear.
   No word yet on how July's record heat affected Glacier National Park, so we must but wonder. It would seem it perhaps didn't have much effect, or there would be news stories.

Massacre Rim is Purportedly One of Darkest Places on Earth

  From the file of news deserving more attention comes the story of Massacre Rim, which sits in northwestern Nevada, six miles from the Oregon border.
  One of the darkest places in the world, it has been named one of only about 10 Dark Sky Sanctuaries on earth. Four of the sanctuaries are in the U.S., and of them, Massacre Rim is the newest and largest. 

Gun Violence: Would We Benefit from a National Day of Love?

   You rally a cause by giving it a holiday. Patriotism is infused by the Fourth of July. Love of parents is increased by Mother's Day and Father's Day.
    And, so we have a problem: Gun violence and mass shootings. Is one novel answer to have a national day of observance? You could go a number of ways with this. We could have a day just to debate and consider gun violence. Or, we could have a day of love in which everyone shows love for each other but especially for those who sometimes get left out. The idea is, emotionally stable people are less likely to commit gun violence, and there might be no greater stabilizer than the acceptance of others.
   Ending gun violence will probably take more than just one answer. But, encouraging people to value each other is a key element, and a national day to drive this home would help.

As I Read about Cordyceps, I wonder

   I sit my small sack of mushroom powder next to my computer as I study one of its ingredients, Cordyceps. And, I wonder.
   As I read how the potential health benefits are promising, and how, in China, Cordyceps has been approved for treatment of heart arrhythmia, I wonder. As I read how much of the research has been limited to animal and lab studies, I wonder.
   I've wondered before if natural medicines get passed over by American drug companies because they cannot be patented and therefore cannot reap enough money for the drug companies.
   I wonder this again, then.. China has approved Cordyceps for treatment of a heart condition. I don't belief the U.S. has. Is it because Cordyceps lacks heavy profitability?
   And, I wonder again at how Cordyceps has been around all these years, yet we are still learning about it. Is this not so with so many of our natural medicines? Cordycepts has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for centuries, yet we do not know everything about it to this day. Studies have been done on mice and such, but not enough studies with humans.
  And, I wonder about the studies that have been done. Government studies? Who funded them? This is important, for I want to know the roll of government medicine versus private medicine. Which one is best? Or, should government do some things and private medicine do others? I wonder if studies currently done by the pharmaceuticals are kept under wraps. Why should they share proprietorial information? This makes an argument for public (read: government or charity-funded) studies vs. Big Pharma studies.

Hot Off the Press: Americans Favor Banning Assault Weapons

   I read that in 1993, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons.
   And, I'm shocked. Have times changed?
   But, wait, there's more: Back then, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan supported banning semi-automatic weapons.
   Well, thinking surely a poll today would be different, I word search and am shocked, left tumbling down the stairs in surprise. This just out, hot off the press, hours ago: Two-thirds of America support a ban on assault weapons.
    The source? None less than a Fox News Poll.

In America, They Banned the Manufacture of These Guns

  A few pages into the '90, we banned some guns. Yes, right here in America, land of the Second Amendment.
  And though the law was challenged on Constitutional grounds, those challenges were denied by the courts. Imagine, the Constitution says you shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and yet the courts allowed it, anyway.
  Might be because the law said nothing of owning and bearing guns. No, it sidestepped that by simply banning the manufacture of certain semiautomatic weapons. Go ahead and keep and bear all the guns you like, but we just won't allow any to be built in the United States.
   Understandably, the law did little to stop gun violence. If you can still own the gun, that is all that matters.
   We are coming up on the 25th anniversary of this law. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was enacted Sept. 13, 1994, and expired Sept. 13, 2004.

Will taking Guns from Criminals only make Them Heroes?

  Perhaps the Prohibition was a time when criminals were as glamorized and sided with as any time in our history. So, if we did go against criminals and seek to ban them from owning guns, it would glamorize the criminal. In a land of the Second Amendment, many of them would be seen as patriots.
  So, while I wonder if a ban on all or some types of guns in the answer, I hesitate. And, if I suggest that if we should ban assault weapons or such, I do wonder if we should make active effort to take them from the criminal more than anyone else.
   That might but make heroes out of them. What is the credo we have lived by? "If you want my gun, you will have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers." We will see the criminal as the defender of our Second Amendment rights.
   Still, as my mind goes back and forth on this, I do think that if we ban any type weapons, it is the outlaw who we should first seek to take them from.
   It is said, "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns." If there is wisdom in that statement, there can be some argument that we should get the guns out from the hands of the outlaws ahead of getting them out of the hands of the rest of us.

Do We Take the Gun from Those Who Threaten?

   Comes a comment, on guns, from a Catholic minister. "We need a cultural shift away from . . . the idea of freedom without responsibility or accountability."
   Shall we consider, then, not granting guns to those who do not show responsibility, those who are involved in domestic violence and other red-flag behaviors? This would take a massive effort to sort through those who qualify and don't qualify, but it is worth considering.
  As I think of the mass shooters, how many have had criminal records? That, alone, would not disqualify many of them. But, many of them have made threats. One thought for consideration is to take guns immediately from those who threaten, not giving them back until after a court hearing that clears them.
  That would take a lot of effort, though. Our courts could explode (would explode). The world is full of those who threaten.We might need a new court system just to handle these cases, alone.
  But, if the thought is, With Freedom comes responsibility, then with gun ownership should come responsibility. If you are wagging your tongue about hurting others, the gun should be taken.
   And, not tomorrow.

Taking Guns from Criminals would take a War

   If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
  I would suggest, then, if we ban guns (or certain types of guns), we especially ban them from gangs and criminals and outlaws and desperadoes.  Actively seek them out, and take them away from the criminals.
   But, I say this with much reservation.
   I am aware of the credo, If you want my gun, you will have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers. I am sure that will be the rally cry of the gangsters. They will not surrender their weapons. It will be war to take them away.
   So, how do we take them away? I do not know. Do we only take them when they fall into our hands? Or, do we raid their houses and their gang houses?
   I do not know. As I say, I see the need for ridding guns from the hands of the criminals, but I wonder at how to go about getting them.
   One thought, is to bring a bigger weapon. If we have a search warrant, and they do not surrender, go in with a cannon and blow them up. I think on this one, not deciding if it is right. I think of the battles with the rum-runners during the prohibition, and can see taking guns from the criminals today would result in even bigger wars than Al Capone ever encountered.
   I wonder, though, if that might be necessary. It is not good that the criminals have guns. We do want to take them away.

Look to Chicago and Mexico at what Strict Gun Laws Reap

  Look to Chicago, and learn, and live. Learn that it has some of the tightest gun laws in the nation, yet it is a den for violence and shootings.
   So goes the argument.
  And, look south of the border, to that riddled country riddled with drug cartels, and note all the violence and murders and massacres of one cartel by another. Mexico has but one gun store in the entire nation. It can take months to qualify to buy a gun. Many forms of guns are reserved for the military and police. Per capita, Mexico is well down the list about about 60th in the world in gun ownership per capita.
  I will wonder at that, whether it is correct --whether the count is complete on guns owned by the cartels and mobs. But, I will also look at how, yes, the mobs do inflict death on a seemingly defenseless society.
  Chicago? It lies next to two states with permissive gun laws. Studies show many of the guns in Chicago are brought in from neighboring states. It would be interesting to know how many guns per capita there are in Chicago. My quick search returned no such information.
 

Does America have the Courage to Correct its Gun Laws?

 Our nation is in need of courage. Mass shooting after mass shooting. Will we do what needs to be done? Or, do we lack that courage?
   Britain, 1996: A gunman walks into a schoolhouse and kills 17. Britain reacts swiftly, tightening its gun laws. There have been no school mass school shootings and only one mass shooting of any kind since.
   Australia, the same year: A gunman takes out 35. "We have an opportunity in this country not to go down the American path," Prime Minister John Howard's famously says after the massacre. Within two weeks, semi-automatics are banned. Just this June, a man took out 4 and injured one in Australia's second-worst mass shooting since the ban. He was limited to a pump-action shotgun. Had he had a semi-automatic, it could have been much worse.
   And, still fresh in our memory, New Zealand, March of this year: A white supremacist kills 51 and injures 49 in mosques. Quick comes the response. Gun laws slam down, banning many weapons. On this one, it is too early to say if it will reduce the mass shootings.
  And yet, in America, we lack the courage to even utter -- even say -- what needs to be done, much less to do it.
  Courage? It takes this to do what is right. Courage? It takes courage to take action when it is accepted all across the land and drilled into our consciences that the Constitution forbids us from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
  Courage? If our laws need changed, do we have the courage to change them? Our Constitution once deprived women and black people of full rights. We changed those laws. We should be no less equal to doing the right thing this time.
   Ask not what the law is; Ask what is right. The law can be changed, but what is right cannot.

The Credo on Only Outlaws having Guns is Mostly False

  Is it true? And, shall we just accept it when they say it?
  "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
  Well, not true. Law enforcement will still have guns. Outlaws? Some will lose theirs and some will not. Some will not take the effort to get them on the black market, and some will. How easy will it be to attain them on the black market? That will depend on how deep our efforts go to clear guns from society.
  So, the credo on only outlaws having guns is mostly false. And, one wonders, if there will not be fewer outlaws. If fewer have access to guns, fewer will have the opportunity commit crimes involving guns.

If We Outlaw Guns, Only Guns Will have Outlaws

  If we outlaw guns, only guns will have outlaws. Knives will not be outlawed, so those who own them will not be outlaws. Ropes will not be outlawed, so those who own them will not be outlaws.
  The gun, alone, is of such distinction.
   But, think on this, then: Is the gun already to be considered more of a partner to outlaws than any other weapon?
   It is. No self-respecting criminal -- at least, major criminal -- is going to be without a gun. They travel together, like a sailboat and the rudder that guides the sailboat. Or, like toast and the butter that goes on the toast.
   If we can see this connection, shouldn't we see that taking guns out of the hands of criminals is like kicking the legs out from underneath those criminals?
   Who needs guns more -- the average person, or a criminal? If we were to take them from everybody, who would hurt the most -- who would stand the most to lose?
   The criminal. The average Joe might never need one.

The Gun Stands almost alone in its Ability to Facilitate Mass Murders

   In the industry of mass murder, the gun does not stand alone -- but almost alone. I can think of only one other partner it has that suits mass murders so well: arson. Bombs, they take effort to make. You can't stop off at Walmart and buy a bomb on your way home.
   Arson is the only other way of inflicting mass murder so convenient as is use of the gun.
   The argument goes, that if we banned guns, people would simply use knives, and ropes, and scissors. Not so. They might use them to murder, but they would not be able to kill so many at once as are killed with the gun.
   The industry of mass murder relies on the gun. To kill 50 at a time? You will need a gun. Or a fire. Or a bomb. Whatever other tools there are that can kill so many people at once, I am not certain.
   Do not say that banning guns will do no good. Say that we can't ban guns for this reason or for that. Say, there remains reason for not banning them. But, would it do some good? Would it reduce the severity of mass murders?
   Yes.

He who can keep his mind at peace 

can win the battles that rage. 

The Gun Follows where Hatred Leads

  When you spread hatred, you spread mass murder. If you spout hatred against the LGBT community, someone will take up to mass murder them. If you cast dispersions on Muslims, someone will take up to mass murder them. If you speak evil of those coming across the southern border, someone will want to kill them, as well.
   Where hate is, the gun follows -- and its usually a semi-automatic.

The tools of the trade might not be responsible for the product produced, but the product can hardly be made without them.

Would We Blame a Paint Brush for a Beautiful Picture

   Would we blame a paint brush for a beautiful picture, or a lathe for the metalwork it produces? Would we blame a hammer for a nail that's pounded, or a saw for wood cut in two? How about a drill? Is it its fault a hole is bored all the way through a piece of wood? If we outlaw any one of these tools, the function it is made for would be made difficult to achieve. It is no different with a tool of death, a tool of killing. If we outlaw it, the killing is made more difficult.
   It is easy to say, Guns don't kill, people do. It's a cute statement. But, does it really just redirect us, scurry our minds away from what role the gun really does play? 

Exposure to Violence, Easy Access to Guns in Very First Mass Shooting

  Two things from what was arguably the very first mass shooting in modern history: The shooter, a former Marine, was acquainted with violence, and probably had easy access to guns.
  It could be argued that if we learned just those two things, we might have so quickly found the secrets to avoiding many of the mass shooting since.
  Exposure to violence? Think of our movies and television and video games.
  Easy access to guns? Some would translate that to mean we should ban guns. I will not say no. I wonder, but am not ready to say yes. But, I will say this: A ban on guns would be a reasonable suggested response to that very first shooting. Tell me: Do we know but what if we had banned guns then, we might have side-stepped the continuous string of mass shootings we are experiencing now?
   The same goes for violence on TV and in video games and such. Do we ban it? I will not say no. Perhaps we should. Do I say yes, then? I wonder. I wonder if we should ban some of the violence. I do not know where to draw the line, but I wonder if we should, indeed, draw one.

Learn from the Very First Mass Shooting

   Within the first one in modern history, might lie the answers in how to solve these mass shootings that have spanned through all the years since.
  Fifty-three years ago, it was. Former Marine Charles Whitman stepped atop a tower at the University of Texas at Austin and started picking off people at random. Aug. 1, 1966.
   What do we learn, in that short description of what happened? Well, he was a man exposed to violence, and one who probably had easy access to guns.
   What else about him, we may not know. A disrupted childhood? Job change? Upheaval in his personal life?  I mention these things because I read of a study by the National Institute of Justice that mentions them. Says a Deseret News editorial"
  "The study found several common threads — early childhood trauma and exposure to violence; recent changes in job status or traumatic changes in relationships that could be identified as crisis points that lead to violence; the desire to study what other mass shooters had done and how they had done it; and access to weapons, either purchasing them, illegally acquiring them or obtaining them from family members."
   We should go back to that first incident, and to see how many of the conditions existed that were found in the National Institute of Justice study.
   All the years of study since Whitman stepped atop the tower, and sprayed that form of death -- the first person to do so in modern times. Some of the answers were wrapped up in that very first shooting, yet we have not learned them since.

 

Pharmaceuticals Lock Up the Information

  Perhaps, then, I'm wrong.
  In two blogs, now, I've called for a major study of herbs, suggesting that for all the time they've been around, and for all the Chinese and Native American medicine men, and all the herbalists, and all the alternative medicine companies, a lot of study remains yet to be done.
   Today or yesterday, it occurred to me the pharmaceuticals have probably poured over all the herbs, studying them multiple times. The thing is, they don't release what they learn. They consider it proprietorial. Why would they announce what they've learned when that is just giving secrets away to the competition?
   A big, national study should try to include the pharmaceuticals, then. They have the information. Can they be encouraged to share what they've learned? Or, should we not even expect them to help?
  I go to bed wondering but what they should not be expected to share. If we are to learn all that is to be found about the herbs, we will need to duplicate what private enterprise has already done.
  There can be an argument, that while many are angered that socialistic medicine should be turned to on American soil, it might, yet, have its advantages. The pharmaceuticals will not dabble much in selling whole herbs, for there is not enough money. When they do find that a herb has a benefit, if they do not use a component to create a new drug, they lock up the information for future use -- which will only happen if they can put it in a product they see as financially beneficial.
  I wonder if it would not be better to have all the information on these herbs available, so we can be benefiting from it. If the private enterprise system locks away the information, then you must search to accumulate it in other ways, government studies being one option.
  Perhaps one way to get Big Pharma to share the information is to pay them for it. A large, government study would take a lot of money. Perhaps, an option is to instead spend a lesser amount of money to get the pharmaceuticals to share their secrets.
   Another thought, just as I'm about to let this blog go and go to bed: Yes, perhaps there is much study to be done, despite all the study Big Pharma has locked in its safes. The pharmaceuticals are not even going to begin studies unless they can see a product at the end of the line. They have no interest in learning the benefits of whole chamomile, for they don't ever intend to sell chamomile in whole form, anyway. If they can spot a component of chamomile that they can extract, they will study that, but not the herb's benefit if sold in its whole form..

 

Racism in the Voting Booth

   Then, am I a racist?
   I do not fault black people for voting for other black people just because they are black people. I am not so generous with white people, though. If a white person votes for another white person just because that person is white, that might be a problem.
   So, am I racist for allowing blacks to vote for blacks but not whites to vote for whites?
   Here's the difference: A black person who votes for another black person often does so as a show of support for black people. All of us, don't we vote for friends and neighbors quicker than those who are not part of our social group? Is this wrong? Black people voting for black people is much the same.
   But, white people voting for white people just because they are white? It does seem to me that this is often done not because that voter wants a white person elected, but because he (or she) doesn't want the black person elected. You are not voting for a race, but against one.
   This might be the prevalent scenario, but there are times when black people vote against whites. Racism can run both ways. 
Edit or delete this

He who thinks he is perfect has but one more flaw.

A Complete Study of Herbs is in Order

   I would think that if there were some big healing properties in the herbs, they would have been discovered by now.
   I mean big. If chamomile could heal cancer, or cancel a stroke, or erase inflammation, we would know it by now.
   All these herbs -- so loved by herbalists and many of us -- there might not be a cure in them. They may have properties that help, that ease things, but are any of them outright cures?
   Now, if you are reading along and supposing you know the direction I want to take with this blog from what I've just said, you are wrong. I think we should look deeper at our herbs, study them more.
   All the Chinese medicine men, all the Native American medicine men, all the herbalists, all the alternative medicine folks, and all the companies today that market herbs and such.
   I say, they haven't studied their natural drugs enough. And, I wonder if there are more benefits in natural medicines that what we are aware of.
   After all these centuries, all those who have poured over these herbs, secrets might yet be found.
   Part of the reason I say this, is I don't want to die. No, I don't even want to be reduced to not running or playing basketball. I'm desperate, and I demand we go back over everything, to see if something has been missed.
  And, part of the reason I hope more benefits can be found, is I read about some of these herbs and hear-tell of how there hasn't been enough studies done on them.
   Hasn't.
   Well, all these years and centuries in, it's time to fully study the herbs. We've been playing around with them all the existence of the earth, so it is time to find out and to know everything about what these herbs can do.
   When we find that something affects inflammation, delve deeper. Ask how. Ask, just what it is that it does? So, instead of having just a list of herbs that treat inflammation, we know exactly what they do. Does a particular herb just mask the pain? Does it remove toxins? Can there be body fluid -- edema or whatever -- associated with inflammation, and does this herb remove it from the body? Is the herb dormant unless used in tandem with exercise?
   Such a study, with so many herbs being out there, would take much. How many participants would we need? Is such a broad and demanding study even possible?
  I say we start. We might not be able to fund everything we'd like to, but however much we can afford and however much we can do, we should do. And, if we continue to fund the project long enough, eventually we'll reach our goal.

He who thinks he's perfect 

has but another flaw.

What an Outrage! Lock Them Up!

  I think on how we say the immigrants do not show up for their court hearings. Is it good, then, to throw them in detention centers, as we call them (for we fear calling them prisons)? The nerve of them. If they are not going to show up, we'll show them; We'll haul them all off to jail.
  I don't know, it almost seems better to put them on monitors, or some such, in order to keep track of them. Would monitors be too expensive? I don't know.
   Whatever else should be done, I do know this: We should speed up the process. They are brought in for their initial hearings, and dates are then set months in the future. Why? Why not hold the hearings as soon as possible?
   And, I think of us, and wonder if we think there is some kind of injustice that they are free while awaiting their hearings. They are going about life in America as if they have done no wrong. They are enjoying all the fruits of what they came for. They are living free and easy and getting away with it even though they came illegally and shouldn't be here. Is that our attitude? Is that the real reason we lock them up? They came illegally and we are just letting them run around free! We won't have any more of this! What an outrage! Lock them up! Don't let them get away with this!
  Forbid that the poor of other nations, if they seek refuge here, should be allowed to run around free.
 

Herbal Medicine Should be Part of Modern Medicine

     Herbal medicine: Why is it considered alternative medicine? Are not herbs woven into drugs sold by the pharmaceutical industry. If so, should these drugs -- these herbs -- be considered part of mainstream medicine?
     Doctors are not quick to prescribe herbs. They order the pills polished by the pharmaceutical companies, but seldom touch the herb. Those same pills might contain components extracted from herbs, but the doctor is not so quick to prescribe the natural medicine.
   I wonder if our doctors should not study the natural medicines more, and know their benefits and properties, and be willing to prescribe them, when they will benefit. Who knows, such practice might help reduce the high price of medicine.

President Trump is Answerable for Baltimore

   The Baltimore problem is Donald Trump's to solve, as much as it anyone's. As President, he is the most powerful man in America. One leader can't point to another and say, "Why aren't you doing anything?" when he isn't doing anything himself.
   A fair question is, since he took office, what has President Trump done to improve our Baltimores and Chicagos and New Orleanses and other cities that suffer heavy crime and unfortunate living conditions such as Baltimore has?
   He is president. Conditions in these cities are perhaps something he should be expected to improve.

President Trump Should Provide Constructive Criticism

   Just because you are elected in an area, doesn't make you responsible for all the problems that exist there.
  It is easy for President Trump to sit back and criticize, but just what would he have Rep. Cummings do?
  What can be done? By saying Cummings should do something, is he suggesting more welfare for these people? Is he saying Cummings should find a way for more jobs to be created? Just what would he have the representative do?
    Whatever it is, provide constructive criticism, instead of just finding fault..

Comes a Story about 11 Muslims and a Canceled Flight

  Comes a story about a canceled flight, disrupted by 11 Muslim men, and how two brave men subdued two of the Muslims, only to have the TSA tell them they would handle it from there, and how the 11 Muslims were escorted off, only to be allowed to return, and how the flight crew then refused to fly, only to be replaced, and of how the passengers then disembarked in protest and perhaps fear of the Muslims.
   Accompanying the story is a meme, saying: "You foolish American infidels! Obama isn't coming for OUR guns! Only YOURS! He is arming us for the Jihad! See you soon!"
   If you allow a lie to linger, it will kill the truth.
   I think of how we have been warned that the Russians and others are posting misinformation (back in my day, we called it propaganda) to influence us. You think this only goes on at election time, and they turn it off in the off season? If we know the Russians are doing this, we should wonder about posts such as this. Some might be accurate. Some might be true. But, we know there are plants in our social media that are lies and we should be watching for them. The funny thing is, Republicans were once the enemies of communism. Now they are the dupes.
 

If you allow a lie to linger, it will kill the truth.