Was It Legal for Obama and Biden to Enter the Paris Accords?

   That Paris Agreement President Biden signed us onto, was it legal he did that? You realize the Constitution says treaties need to have two-thirds approval from the Senate, don't you? Executive orders don't work, right?

   Well, not that this makes it right, but almost 90 percent of international agreements (say roughly 15,000 of them) that the U.S. has entered since World War II have been approved as executive agreements.

   More to the point, however. the U.S. entered into the Global Climate Protection Act with approval of Congress. That law directs the U.S. to “work toward multilateral agreements” on climate change, and empowers the U.S. to “identify technologies and activities to limit mankind’s adverse effect on the global climate.”

   The law acknowledges that the global nature of climate change “will require vigorous efforts to achieve international cooperation,” and states that “such international cooperation will be greatly enhanced by United States Leadership." It explicitly authorizes the secretary of state to take international action consistent with United States domestic law. By my quick count, it was approved by a 51-39 vote in the Senate.

   That is not a two-thirds majority, but there are other acts of Congress that are more explicit in giving the president authority to enter such agreements -- and they did pass with two-thirds of the senators approving them. There was the Clean Air Act, which directs the president to “undertake to enter into international agreements” to protect the stratosphere. And, there was the Endangered Species Act directs the Executive Branch to enter into “bilateral or multilateral agreements to foreign countries.” The Senate vote was 89-10 for the Clean Air Act. The Endangered Species Act? It passed the senate with a 92-0 vote.

  So, should the Paris Agreement go back to the Senate? Or, do the Senate's approval of these laws make it legal? It seems both arguments have value.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Giddyup, My Little Electric Vehicle

    Make no mistake, converting to electric vehicles would reduce our carbon footprint. That being said, however, it will not be enough to adequately reduce greenhouse emissions.

   In the simplistic world we live in -- where rumors are our greatest source of information -- there are those who believe solving the climate change problem is as simple as wiping gasoline cars off the road and replacing them with electric vehicles. Not so fast, good buddy; you're wrong.

   Alternately, there are those who believe electric cars are worse for the climate than gasoline vehicles because of the power plant emissions incurred in manufacturing and charging the batteries. Hold on, pilgrim, you, too, are wrong. That rumor isn't much on truth -- it's a myth.

   Any car you put on the road is probably going to be made of metal. So it will take 7 to 10 tons of CO2 emissions to build the car body whether it is gasoline or electric. But, then there is the battery in the electric car. You will need to mine the lithium and such, and manufacture it into a battery. So, tack on another 9 tons of CO2 emissions for the electric car. At this point, the EV is twice as expensive as the combustion-engine model.

   And, then there are the greenhouse gases expended in refining the gasoline for the gasoline car and creating the electricity to recharge the battery of the electric car. Believe it or not, the amount to recharge the battery is leaning towards being twice what it costs to produce the gasoline that powers the combustion-engine car.

   Now things are even looking worse for the EV.

   It is not until you finally factor in tailpipe emissions that the carbon footprint of the gasoline car sails way past that of the electric vehicle. Of all the greenhouse gases it takes for a gasoline car, 74 percent of them come in the form of tailpipe emissions -- and at this point the gas-guzzler has more than twice the carbon footprint of its electric counterpart.

   And, while the tailpipe emissions thing is not going to go away, the other things causing C02 emissions from the automobile can be reduced. If you replace coal-powered power plants with solar or wind, that part of the CO2 footprint is drastically reduced. The CO2 emissions needed to manufacture the car body, and to refine the oil into gasoline, and to recharge the batteries -- most of that will disappear.

   That leaves only the tailpipe emissions. And, obviously, the EV has no tailpipe emissions and the combustion-engine car has a lot.

   Plus, the batteries of the EV need not just be junked when they expire. The magnesium, lithium, etc., can be recycled.

   Just the same, sweeping all gasoline cars off the road and replacing them with EVs is not going to be enough to solve the greenhouse emissions problem. Such things as combating the deforestation of trees, and reducing methane production from farm animals need to be added to the equation. So while the plan is to have gasoline and diesel cars completely off the roads by 2050, that will not be enough.

   As we work to lessen the carbon footprint of cars, there are other efforts we should (and are) endeavoring to implement. Carpooling hasn't worked very well, but we should not give up on that. Using mass transit instead of everyone driving their own cars would be a big benefit.

   But, how about this: If it is cost of producing a car that is such a big concern, how about we drive our cars until they drop? Today's cars are in circulation for 15-20 years. It would seem most of those cars could simply be repaired instead of junked, and the life of a car might double. That would reduce by half the need for manufacturing new vehicles. And, that would have an impact on our greenhouse emissions.

(Index -- Climate change info)

The Rivers, and Oceans, and Wells, and Rainfall Are but a Blessing

  It is fortuitous that the earth holds on to all its water, not letting it drift into space. Human life (along with other life) would disappear without that water. Even if the seepage into outerspace were slow, across the many millennia of time, earth would no longer be inhabitable.

   And, it is fortuitous that that the earth filters and cleans its own water.  The earth is its own greatest water recycler; it is the ultimate water treatment plant long before water treatment plants were created by humans.

   Humankind (as well as other life) would have disappeared long ago if the earth did not have its own way of purifying drinking water.

   Water is on the earth in the form of rivers and oceans. It is in the earth. It is the skies. We drill wells to get it, and we are blessed with rainfall to have it. It is in living creatures upon the earth. Seventy percent of the earth's surface is water. Sixty percent of the human body is water.

   In the United States, we use 355 billion gallons of water a day, a massive amount, but it touches but lightly on the total water on earth: 326 million trillion gallons. All this water is being recycled and used again and again and again. If it weren't, humans would die

   And, the water is not dribbling of into outerspace, or we, as humans, would have disappeared long ago.

  Whether you say there is a God who brought about this miracle, or you say it is just the way the heavens and a some of its planets evolved, it is fortuitous. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

Face Climate Change with a Smile, if You Will, but Face It

   When it comes to the fears of climate change, don't live in a world of gloom and doom. But, don't crawl under a rock, either. Face the facts; don't dismiss them. For if you dismiss the potential harms, you will only hasten them. Square your shoulders and face the world. Those who hide from the truth end up getting hurt by it. Those who run from the fight never win the fight. 

   Am I waxing thick in too many trite phrases? I have at least one more: It is better to look danger in the eye and stare it down, than to look away and suppose it doesn't exist.

   Greta Thunberg (or is it a ghost writer for her) notes how the media tries to accentuate the positive -- but perhaps goes too far. Read her words:

". . . since the media long for positive news as part of their policy of both-side reporting -- It can't be all gloom! -- the overall message that is conveyed, if any, is that action is being taken. It may not always go that well, but hey, they are actually trying real hard and there has definitely been a lot of progress made, so stop being so negative all the time!" 

  Greta is but typifying what she sees as the attitude of the media. But are we, as the public, also so anxious to look on the bright side that we are blinded from seeing the dark? You can't sugar coat a rotten plumb.

  Is climate change real? Courage comes with the belief you can slay an indomitable foe, but it does not come with laying down its sword and saying there is no foe. Facing the foe with a smile is good, but you still have to face him.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Climate Change: Bring It -- Woke and All -- Into Our Schools

    We signed on to do this, and we aren't doing it. The Paris Agreement calls for climate change to be taught in our schools.

   And, besides the fact we put our name on a document saying we would teach it, climate change should, should and should be a curriculum topic. What science today impacts society more? Are there many school topics, period, more crucial for mankind to understand?

   Yes, climate change is a polarizing topic. Despite the ever-increasing, irrefutable evidence that climate change is real -- despite the fact 99 percent of the scientists tell us it is -- many Americans are not convinced. Climate change, to them, is not a scientific study, but a woke lie. Politics are determining what is taught in our schools, not science. That is wrong. Some even point to climate change as proof science has gone astray and scientists are not to be trusted. 

   A few centuries ago, they believed the world was flat. And, there were those who kept on believing that even after someone sailed around the earth to prove it was not. 

   Perhaps this is why climate change needs to be taught. Knowledge is power, they say. But, knowledge cannot benefit a society if they refuse to believe it. It is important that people learn the truth as we slip closer and closer to the year when we reap the rewards of our disbelieve. It becomes urgent that people realize the danger.

   Politics? Do we simply say, Don't foist and your political beliefs on my children? Don't force your ideologies upon our kids?

   These are not political believes; they are scientific facts. This is not a political matter -- or should not be. It is not a matter for which one wing of the populace should be preventing the children from being taught. It is truth, and truth is being withheld from our children at the peril of their future. Don't let them live in the dark ages simply because some politician tells them it isn't true.

   When politicians become teachers, the truth gets left out.

(Index -- Climate change info)

All-Star Game Cheapens the NBA Brand

   Do fans ever go wild watching the warm-ups for a basketball game? Hey, I've got a great idea: Why not have the best players in the NBA get together and, rather than playing a game, just have the shootaround that traditionally comes before the game?

 That is what Sunday's NBA  All-Star game amounted to. We should change the name of the event to "the NBA Shootaround: Featuring the Best Players in the League Who Are Too Lazy to Play." We must wonder if any of the players even worked up a sweat. Lax defense? On many plays, there was no defense at all. 

   It was a sham, a charade and a travesty. It cheapened the whole NBA brand. It sullied the reputation of the league. After watching that, die-hard fans suddenly were considering abandoning their status as fans. It disrespected those who spent big money for their tickets. When players play like that, they have no honor. It doesn't matter what format you use -- East vs. West, Team Lebron vs. Team Giannis, International Stars vs. American Stars -- if they don't play defense, it becomes a farce nobody can stomach to endure.

   "The ratings are in for the 2023 NBA All-Star Game, and yikes. The news isn't great," read the beginning of one news story. Surprise, surprise.

   Of course the ratings were terrible. People were turning off their TVs in disgust five minutes into the game. The fans in the arena should have booed the players right off the court. 

   These days, the All-Star game is nothing more than the best players in the league playing like they are the worst players in the league. They should be demoted to the G-League for playing like that. 

  

Did McCarthy Violate a Trust, and Is This Really Transparency ?

    Is it "an egregious security breach," or a transparency-in-government move? U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has reportedly handed over to Fox News Host Tucker Carlson 44,000 hours of video footage from the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. 

   "When congressional leadership or congressional oversight committees ask for things like this, we just give it to them," Capitol Police Chief  Tom Manger said. That would account for how McCarthy gained access to the videos. The question is (one of the questions), did he have a public trust to protect the videos from going further, inasmuch as they contain insights into where cameras are and security protocols used to protect members of Congress and the Capitol Police, themselves? Did McCarthy prove to be someone who cannot be trusted with national secrets. He was trusted with sensitive material, only to turn around and release it to the public.

   A second question would be why did McCarthy release it only to Tucker Carlson? If you suppose the videos should be released to the public, why just pick and choose one person to release them to -- and leave it to him to pick and choose which videos he will use and which he will release to the public? Transparency in government doesn't work that way. You don't filter the information through a biased source with a personal agenda. We are now dependant on Carlson as to what footage we will see. Will it be footage that shows the savage nature of the attacks and injuries? Or will Carlson just use the footage beneficial to his own take on what happened? 

   Michael Fanone, an officer who was injured in the riot, predicted the videos will be, "selectively edited to fit an extreme MAGA narrative without care for the safety of Capitol Police, Members of Congress, and Congressional staff."

   Carlson is the most-watched primetime cable news host in America, but he is not a strict journalist. Back in the day when news and opinion were more distinct from each other, he would be referred to as an opinion maker.  

   "If Speaker McCarthy has indeed granted Tucker Carlson -- a Fox host who routinely spreads misinformation and Putin’s poisonous propaganda -- and his producers access to this sensitive footage, he owes the American people an explanation of why he has done so," said the former chair of the Jan. 6 committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.

   House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called McCarthy's releasing the videos, “an egregious security breach that endangers the hardworking women and men of the United States Capitol Police.”

   But, some on the other side of the aisle argue it was right to release the videos.  “I think the public should see what happened,” McCarthy said a month ago.

   “There was never any legitimate reason for this footage to remain secret,” Carlson said.

   "Americans deserve to see the truth," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said.

    A final thought (or two): If the sensitive nature of the videos lies in the fact they reveal the positions of the cameras, then move the cameras and add new ones. If the footage reveals "security protocols," are those protocols obvious, anyway? If someone attacks, you defend; what's the secret?

   And, if the videos do contain information vital to protecting America, should not they have been classified? Though he would have access to classified information, McCarthy would then not be authorized to leak information that could impair America's security.

   A Facebook responder to my questions notes, "By having to move (the cameras), they may no longer be placed in the optimal positions." And, says Edward Kinnally, "Some of those videos revealed security stations that the public doesn't normally have access to because they have no business being in that area, and therefore they reveal what might be referred to as 'behind the scenes' security measures." 

   Whether the videos should be made public is hard for those of us in streets to know. We would have to see them to make that judgement. But one thing is clear: allowing Carlson to see them while holding them back from the rest of the public is not making them public. Carlson is not, "the public;" he is just one member of the public.

Dangerous Words from Treasonous Mouths Should not Go Unchecked

   I find it surreal that Marjorie Taylor Greene today (on President's Day, no less) called for succession of the Republican-dominated states from the United States. I find it surreal that so many people support the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. I find it surreal that extremist groups -- militant groups -- like the Proud Boys are showing they would like to rise up in rebellion against the United States.

   “We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government,” said U.S. Rep. Greene, R-Ga, in the tweet. “Everyone I talk to says this. From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are done."

   Traitorous? Usually I'd say it serves little benefit to call people names and box them into unsavory categories. But, this is a moment I beleive we should shout a warning as to what is going on. The Marjorie Taylor Greenes and Proud Boys might never pull off an overthrow of the U.S. government, but make no mistake, the signs and threats are visible and obvious.

   And, Marjorie, it is you and the Proud Boys who are traitorous.

   Rather than letting Marjorie's words go unchallenged, rather than letting support for the Proud Boys swell and become more popular, it becomes necessary to call a spade a spade, and name Marjorie and the Proud Boys for what they are: traitors.

   “This rhetoric is destructive and wrong and -- honestly -- evil," tweeted back Utah's Republican governor, Spencer Cox. "We don’t need a divorce, we need marriage counseling. And we need elected leaders that don’t profit by tearing us apart."

   “Our country is governed by the Constitution. You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution," former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney tweeted. "Secession is unconstitutional. No member of Congress should advocate secession."

"Did she just call for Civil War?" tweeted New York Times best-selling author Marianne Williamson.

"What are MAGA Republicans focused on? Dividing Americans." tweeted California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu.

Others simply called Greene's statement, "treasonous."

Perhaps every American, period, should be recoiling to what Greene said. But our leaders? They especially should be speaking out. Some -- as quoted above -- have. But, being a leader in America includes standing up for America. Our leaders should not be shrugging off what Greene said. I don't mean some of them; I mean all of them.

Dangerous words from treasonous mouths should not go unchecked.

   

Police Corruption Should Be Fought on Our Own Shores

    Perhaps America -- when it comes to its men in blue -- is often no better than Nicaragua, Brazil, or El Salvador. 

   As the list of police brutality incidents swells, should we consider that if there can be corrupt officers in the South and Central American countries, there can be such officers here? Do we think we are immune? 

   Corruption should be opposed on our own shores, not just those far away. We can do little about the police corruption in Mexico, Guatemala, and Venezuela. But, we can fight it here at home. 

'War on Crime' Can have its Overkill

    The war on crime. We should ask ourselves if the very term prompts us to take measures harmful to our society. Don't get me wrong; fighting crime is good. But, the "war on crime" decree can be wrongly interpreted.

   By both sides.

   The police? They see the need to arm up. They use terms borrowed from the military, such as tactical unit, special forces and strike forces. They show up in the middle of the night, often in large trucks that are the next thing down from tanks.

   If you live in the community, and know your neighbors, and like them.  Everybody in the community soon is emphathizing with their friends who are being hauled off. Sometimes, twenty armed officers show up in a mass raid just to haul away a person for not reporting to his probation officer. The neighbors hear of such injustices. They see the militarization of the police. And they become fearful of the police and start to regard of the police as the enemy, an entity that is just there to rub their noses in the ground.

   Overkill. And it becomes the face of the police in the communities. 

   The officers get heady. Their job is to wage war on these people, and, in war, the rules are  reduced. They begin in think they are like James Bond -- licensed to kill. Don't laugh, they do. The police violence in America is witness to that. 

   No, we don't want to be soft on crime, if the definition of that is to let criminals lose. But, in our anger of not wanting to be soft on crime, we should be able to realize treating a probation violator the same as a murderer is not just, nor does it help things. Nor should we come to believe that not being soft on crime means putting a choke hold on a suspect when he is already subdued.

   'War on crime' seem innoculous enough. No, I am not suggesting it we ban it. You cannot ban an innoculous term. Still, consider the subtle, deceiving way the term works against us. Yes, some officers take the term as their license to commit police violence. War is violence, and they are not only willing, but proud to administer it. It is almost a patriotic thing. Not all police, but some.

   We can do better than this. If we let the terminology, "war on crime" mean the police can treat people with impunity, it will be to our shame. It would not be wrong to have a campaign helping the police understand what things 'war on crime' should not be carried to mean.

Charity Takes an Enemy, and Calls Him a Friend

     Charity is never judgemental. It does not say, you deserved it. You will have to pay the price. I have no pity for you.

    No, charity is all mercy and no judgement. Leave it to governments to punish for crimes committed. Leave it to God to be the administrator of vengence. Vengence is mine, it says in the Bible. One Christian church has a scripture which says the Lord will forgive whom he will forgive, but of us it is required to forgive all men.

   The scripture in Romans -- how much of today's problems does it give us direction on? "Vengence is mine. . . . Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on this head." In other words, if he is guilty of a wrongdoing, and you bless him anyway, it will prove to be his undoing without you needing to be the administrator of punishment. "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Recompense to no man evil for evil."

   You tell me then, does this scripture apply to the homeless? Do we suggest they brought upon themselves their own misfortune? Do we speak of "tough love," and discharge them into the street until they can figure it out? Does the scripture apply to the drug addict, and we tell him he does not qualify for any assistance unless he comes clean of the drugs? 

   Does it apply to the immigrants, who we say are criminals for coming to America without permission? Instead of seeing how they fail to live our laws of America by crossing the border, perhaps we should see we have failed to keep the laws of charity. If they come with a criminal record -- if they have committed murder or rape, or it they do when they get here, let government punish them for such crimes. But, let us not judge that they are all criminals just because one of them is a criminal.

   Charity is never laced with judgement, with punishment, or with scorn. It takes an enemy, and counts him as friend. It dismisses the ill that someone has done to you, and says you bear no ill will in return. Charity is all love and forgiveness, with no room for hate and grudges.

   So, what of home invaders? If we shoot just to stop them, that is just; but if we shoot to kill, because the @#%^$ deserved it, that is wrong. 

   Charity is not an eye for an eye. The question is, in this day and age in which we live, do we fail to apply the laws of charity.

Gun Lovers and Weed Users Have One Thing in Common

    You would enrage the gun advocate by doing so, but compare the gun to marijuana. Both are harmful -- or are they? The gun advocate will swear by the gun. He will argue it saves more lives than it takes. He will argue that without it, our nation would lose its freedom. And, the Mary Jane user? He, too, will swear by what he uses. No one ever died from a weed overdose, he will say. It's harmless. It's medicinal. It releases creative juices and has helped some of the best musicians craft some amazing music.

   In that, they are the same. Gun lovers justify their guns, and Mary Jane users justify their Mary Jane. 

Body Cams can Be Turned off, but Video Cams on Street Poles Cannot

    From the advent of a video camera capturing Rodney King being beaten by the Los Angeles Police, it has been the cellphones and video cameras and body cams that have brought justice where justice once did not exist. 

   The idea of video cameras attached high up on street lamps might seem an invasion of privacy to some, but they could serve as a big check on our police -- and a tremendous deterrent to crime --as the future rolls toward us. 

   Keep the cameras from staring into people's back yards, but by the nature of being on a public street, you are out in public. You should expect that others will see you.

   An eye in the sky -- a video camera attached to a street light -- contributed to the video footage of the beating of Tyre Nichols. It contributed to exposing police violence. And, when signage is displayed announcing the eye in the sky is watching you, criminal activity is deterred. 

   Body cams can conveniently be turned off, but the street pole camera cannot. We need more videos staring down from our street lamps.

Coming to a City Near You (in 2201): Magnetic Vacuum Transportation

   Now, if I were a super-rich scientist, with all the resources to experiment with, here's what I'd try. It would be my attempt to skip the Year 2023 past the rest of the 21st Century and straight into the 22nd Century.

   I'd put a person (OK, let's start with a monkey or dog) in a metal capsule. Then, I'd put the metal capsule in a vacuum tube -- that's right, one with all the air sucked out. Then, I'd place a strong magnet at the other end of the tunnel . . . and, voom, the capsule would shoot toward the magnet.

   And, who knows how fast? If there is no resistence, does that mean there would be no limit on how fast something could go if placed in a tube where there's no resistence?

   Magnetic vacuum transportation: who knows if that is how we will be transported in the 22nd Century.

Put a Pair of Auditors on Recycling Programs

  But, you realize, don't you, that anytime you make a law, or even a rule, you need provide a process for it to be enforced -- or at least monitored. That's where police come in, right?

   But who observes when recycling rules are not kept? Who monitors them?

   Don't make it a large agency, but perhaps we should at least put a couple hands on it, a set of auditors who travel the state, visiting recycling facilities, to ensure the recycables are, indeed, being recycled. Perhaps everything is getting recycled, but how do you know if you don't even check on it. Nobody's looking. What if a garbage company  decided to just bury the recyclables? The auditors could also witness what separation is necessary after the supposedly-already separated recyclables arrive, determine what problems exist in the system, and recommend changes to improve our recycling program.

   If recycling is important, it seems we should do this to strengthen it. Utah could be a leader in this.

It Would Take a Humble Nation to Follow the Constitution on this One

   The Electoral College just isn't working. Not at all. Oh, I'm not saying throw it away. Not at all. I'm saying, it isn't what it was meant to be, could be, and ought to be. 

   And, I'm saying it would take a pretty humble nation for it work the way it was intended.

   Let's just say, we are imperfect as voters. Most of the time, we do one of two things: (1) step into the voting booth not even knowing all the candidates who are running, much less knowing anything about them. (2) vote D or R, with no regard for who the candidate is.

   Oh, we have come up with a way so that our criteria for deciding who to vote for will be workable. We put the party affiliation for each candidate on the ballot next to their name. Voting made simple, then. Now you don't need to sort out who to vote for. Check all the Ds or check all the Rs. How hard can that be?

   But, the idea of having the Electoral College is to select people who don't operate like that. The idea is to look among your citizens and find a wise person, one who is studious about issues and candidates, one who has the time and desire to study all the candidates . . . and one who isn't so caught up in the Ds and Rs of the matter.

   Bottom line is, we have to admit we aren't great shakes as voters. Often we step into the voting booth knowing so little we basically resort to an eenie-meenie-miney-mo technique. Most voters would not admit it, but our nation would be better served if someone was doing the voting who actually based his or her votes on solid reasoning. No more voting blindly, and no more one-size-fits-all D or R voting.

  We all have some idea of who we think are good, honest, integrity-oriented people. And, often we can see which of our neighbors are taking time to study the news and issues. 

   But we aren't humble enough to say, "You know what? You'll do a better job at this than I will. Would you be so kind as to help me out?"

  Pride cometh before the fall, they say. Hopefully, our nation won't fall, but it would be a lot stronger if we went about electing people the way the Constitution outlined.

   How should we go about electing people to the House of Representatives? The original consitution says, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

   So, that legislative body does get elected by direct vote.

   But, how should we decide who will serve in the Senate? Says the original Constitution. "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof."

   And, the president, as most of us realize, is to be elected by the Electoral College, not by direct vote.

   I'm not too sure we should have any problem with doing it the way the Founding Fathers originally set it up. 

 

The Skinny on Skinny Joe

   It didn't last long. Joe drank his last cup of joe, then got up and left through the door on the left. I looked at my watch to see if the night watch was due to come in. Beings he wasn't (he was still at home talking to other human beings), I rose from my chair, a rose in my hand. I gave it to the girl at the next table who was very fair -- someone I'd met at the fair, it's fair to say. Then I went after Joe after he left. I had a case against him in case he didn't come back and pay Bill the bill. I also knew he hadn't paid the tip -- hadn't left it on the tip of the counter -- because both I and the counter of the money witnessed him tip over and fall from his chair, get back up, tip his hat, then tip toe out the door.

  Well, he did return, saying he wanted a return on his money, and saying he was going to tear the place up without a tear in his eye. He strolled over to the band stand, and I could tell the singer was willing to stand up to him. The singer was wearing a band around his head and told his band mates the concert was over and they better band together in concert and knock Joe over or there would be a knock on the band, because everyone would know they didn't cast him out, nor hit him with a cast iron skillet. So the lead singer, who had been singing his biggest hit, hit Joe on the head with the skillet, then dropped it on his toe, and told him he better toe the line. That's when the police came in to see if everything was fine. They told Joe he would have to pay a fine. Joe tried to raise back up as he promised the police he would raise the money. Joe then fell back down and asked for a down pillow. I told him, "Things go way better when you do things the right way."

  The girl then came up and tried to be kind to him, and I was kind of like, do you like him? She said she did and said when he had left, she had tried to get up and run after him, but had a run in her stockings. I told her that when he was leaving, he had put on a mink stole and tried to toss a bag of money he had stole over his shoulder. "Bag it, bag it, bag it," he said, saying he just wanted to find a way to get away. He said he didn't mean to be mean. I said, "Don't lie there and lie. Rest there on the floor if you will, but rest assured I'm not going to believe the rest of what you say." The police then told him to find his own way out if he wasn't going to own up to taking money he didn't own.

  So, skinny Joe left, and that's the end of this skinny.

(Index -- My stories, story)

Vote for Both Trump and Biden, if You Want

   Supposing Donald Trump bolts the party, and runs as an independent, the election process would be well served if we had what is  called "approval voting."

  Now, you've never heard of approval voting, but it's a great idea. You get to vote for as many candidates as you want. Go wild and vote for all of them, if you want. Spread your love everywhere.

  So, if by some chance Trump does fail to be nominated as a Republican, and spins off as an independent, approval voting would keep the Republican vote from being split. You wouldn't have to choose between him and the Republican nominee. You could vote for them both.

  If you like two candidates, why shouldn't you be allowed to vote for both? Why be forced into either/or voting? Why not have the freedom to say, "I like this one, and this one . . . and, oh, this one." Why not thumb your nose at the powers that be and say, "Don't you tell me who I can vote for! I like both of them, so if you don't mind, I'm going to vote for both of them."

   It's your vote . . . I mean, your votes.

Congress, Do Something about Police Violence

   The whole nation is talking about police reform. Do something, do something, do something, they say. The polls are coming back saying 59 percent of Americans want reforms.

   1.) A stunning 74 percent of them favor requiring police nationwide to wear body cameras. 

   2.) A whopping 71 percent say we should create a national police misconduct registry.

   3.) A surprising 63 percent want to make it easier to prosecute officers accused of wrong doing.

   4.) A wide majority, 57 percent, suggest potentially dangerous techniques such as chokeholds should be banned.

   Oh, there are other things being proposed, but those are four of the more popular ones. The question is, why doesn't Congress do something? At least pass into law the most-popular proposals.

Behind Your Love for Guns, Is There a Quote?

    Aren't there a lot of cute sayings that drive us to buy guns? 

   Perhaps you've heard this one, "If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns." Kind of makes you want to go out and buy one, doesn't it?

   How about, "Never bring a knife to a gunfight"? That ups the ante for weapons. If you don't already have a gun, perhaps you better go out and buy one; that kitchen knife won't do you much good. 

   "Go ahead, make my day." Now you're just itching to use a gun.

   "To stop a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun."

   "All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife." Even Daniel Boone got into indoctrinating us with that quip.

When Concerts Should End and Lives Be Saved

   What? you say. We don't need a law requiring artists and police to shut concerts down when they are getting out of hand?

   Ahh, but we do. 

   Oh, I  hear you when you argue that the pit rushes and body crushes are not something we should be regulating with laws. First off, dancing and squeezing your body with others in the pit is all a lot of fun. We call it moshing, and it's such a rush to be in the middle of a good, good mosh. Second, it's not the fault of the artists or producers; don't blame them for the deaths and violence. And, third, these things don't happen near often enough that we need a law so we can crack down on them.

   Ahh, but yes we do. 

   Let's hold both the performers and police more accountable. Make it law that when artists and show producers should be able to tell that people's lives are in danger, they must cut the party short. And, if they don't? Then it falls on the police to step in and end the festivities.

   The stampede at the Who concert in 1979? Not their fault. Nor was it Pearl Jam's fault in 2000 when eight people died from asphyxiation, and a ninth person from chest injuries.

   But, how about jumping up to 2021 when eight to 10 people were killed at a Travis Scott concert in Houston? Bodies were being hauled off. Fans were crying for the concert to be stopped. A couple fans even tried to get the attention of a cameraman by stepping beside or in front of the camera to plead for the event to be ended.

   Not to mention that a call went out declaring the conditions unsafe maybe as much as a half hour before the performers called it a night.

   It's not like a concerned fan could have jumped on stage, and pulled out all the speaker wires to end the event. No, fans really would have busted into a riot had that happened. Simply put, it is only the performers who can end the show, least you invite only more trouble in the form of a riot. 

   With bodies being carted off and fans screaming to stop the concert, it seems Scott should have realized it was time to end the show. He didn't. Perhaps he didn't see the people being carried away. Perhaps he did, but didn't think they were too serious. Perhaps he didn't hear the cries from the crowd to stop, stop, stop. Perhaps his cameraman just didn't see the two people who stood in front of him, pleading for the concert to end. Scott said he didn't realize people were dying until he was in a restaurant later that night and received word. Then, he was quick to express his horror and concern.

  So, write the law to say if the promoter and artist don't immediately stop the show, then the police will step in and end it themselves. No, go one better: Say there must be a police officer right on stage at all times. If someone is being carted off to the hospital and the performer isn't noticing it, then the officer will, for it is his (or hers) responsibility to be scanning the audience, not just for bodies being taken away, but to observe if the crowd surges are becoming dangerous. And, he's got radio contact with security elsewhere and with paramedics who might be getting involved.

   These tragedies might only happen once in a blue moon. No matter. If we can get a law in place before the next one breaks out, we should. If we human life means anything to us, we should at least do this much.

There's a Word for This, but We Don't Use It Often Enough

   If you dislike gay people, you are a homophobic. If you deny women equal opportunity, you are a sexist. If you mistreat Black people or Hispanics or Chinese, you are a racist.

   So what if you discriminate against or have ill feelings for those who are crossing our southern border, or those who are homeless on the streets of our cities? These don't even get a name. Perhaps society does not recognize the bias against them. You don't give a name to a bigot unless he is a bigot; if you can't clean the cloud from your eyes enough to see that you are being unfair to the immigrants, you won't give the condition a name.

   Immigrants arrive under the stigma of being criminals, and of coming just to take advantage of our welfare, and of overcrowding our society, and of lowering the wages and of taking jobs away from us. They do not deserve equality, according to those who hold ill feelings toward them. Why would you reward someone who is breaking the law by coming here? No, they are not to receive equality. Would we give equality to a criminal who belongs in a tight prison cell? 

   And, the homeless are all a bunch of panhandlers and drug addicts, right?

   One of the marks of discriminating, is the assigning of faults to all the people in the group, classing them altogether, faulting them all. The immigrants certainly suffer that treatment. The one who crosses the border is judged by the one who came before him. If one of them came and ended up killing someone in America, then everyone who crosses the border is also a criminal. If one of them is a drug smuggler, they all should be punished by preventing them from coming. 

   And, how about those in poverty? Are they falsely treated and lumped together? Actually, there is a word for the discrimination against them: povertyism. And, if  you hold disgust towards poor people, that is aporophobia. But you never hear either of those terms used. Aporophobia is a big word and we are too small to use it. When we write our laws saying who shall not be discriminated against, we say no one shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or national orgin. Discriminating against the poor is not against the law like it is against the law for other things.

   And, actually there is a word which sometimes is used for discrimination against those who are immigrants. It is called xenophobia. Xenophobia is the rejection of foreigners. It doesn't clearly take in those who arrive without permission (did I just sidestep calling them illegals?) but, the same: those who are averse to undocumented border crossers are sometimes placed in the category of being xenophobiacs (I just made up a word there; xenophobia is a word, but xenophobiac isn't).

   Well, I'm just saying it is just as wrong to marginalize the immigrants and poor as it is to marginalize someone based on their race. Equality for all means what it says, equality for all. It is a principle America was founded upon and should be precious to our hearts, and we should be loath to think that we would ever discriminate against the immigrants and poor. 

Thomas Jefferson Suggested Rewriting the Constitution Every 19 Years

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right. " -- Thomas Jefferson

That's quite a quote. Going by that, the Constitution should have been replaced a dozen times by now. 

Why did Jefferson believe the Constitution (and all other laws) should only be good for 19 years? In his thought, one generation should not be bound by the past. Each generation has the right to create its own rules, to govern itself. One generation should not dictate to the next. You set your own rules and should not be subject to laws that others might try to impose upon you.

I will repeat, though, it is quite a statement. This is one of the most respected figures of all time. He is one of the founding fathers of this nation -- and he said that?

I will confess, I do not think it wise to rewrite the Constitition every 20 years . . . but Jefferson's quote makes me wonder. My thought is, there will be charlatans, and the more doors you leave open for them to walk through, the more of them who will seek to rule your house. I wonder if we could trust some of the politicians of our day. I think of the current generation of insurrectionists against America, and shiver to think they might be the writers of our Constitition.

One of them has called for, as recent as a few months ago, "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," as they apply to elections. He would rip the elections out of our hands and take control of them to ensure his own election -- all the while crying how he is just trying to make elections fair. This is a man I do not trust. If I have high regard for Jefferson -- and I do -- I have little respect for Trump. 

If the Constitution were to be rewritten every 20 years, could we find a way to avoid the danger of it being written by charlatans and would-be dictators such as Trump? I cannot imagine any way to do that. 

Can Guns Save Us from a Tyrannical Goverment Taking Over?

  So, now that we've had this debate on whether guns save lives -- meaning, do they stop criminals -- can we get back to the question of whether guns save countries in this age and time? I mean, is it true that private ownership of guns is a protection against one's government? If government starts to get tyrannical, can the private citizens of the 21st Century pull their guns out of the closet and save the nation?

   Do guns save nations?

   I think if we are going to say they do, we should be able to cite a few examples. Googling, I found none. But, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Help me. Tell me about them.

   The gun enthusiast is quick to point out any instance in which he believes government took away guns, and that nation then sank into tyranny and lost its freedoms. But, if there are examples of where the lack of privately owned guns preceded the death of a free nation, are there also examples of when privately-owned guns were used to ward off a dictatorship?

   Like I say, I'm not saying they don't exist; I'm just saying I'm not finding any. Yes, I did find one report, but a study of it suggests it probably is incorrect. Says a PBS article, "SS Oberst Hermann Bohme's 1943 memorandum warned that an invasion of Switzerland would be too costly because every man was armed and trained to shoot."

   So, I looked up the text to Bohme's 1943 memorandum and word searched it (it is about 200 pages long), typing in the word "Swiss." I didn't find anything of the sort about the German SS backing down because "every man was armed and trained to shoot." It might be in there, but I couldn't find it. 

  In fact, the opposite appears to be true. Instead of Hitler fearing the Swiss were too well armed, the German SS apparently felt the Swiss would not present an armed challenge. Says an entry in Wikipedia: "Menges (Captain Otto-Wilhelm Kurt von Menges) noted in his plan that Swiss resistance was unlikely and that a nonviolent Anshluss (union with Switzerland) was the most likely result. With 'the current political situation in Switzerland,' he wrote, 'it might accede to ultimatum demands in a peaceful manner, so that after a warlike border crossing a rapid transition to a peaceful invasion must be assured.' "

  This is not 1776. Back then, there was no standing army. When a war broke out, soldiers would gather, bringing their own guns because the government didn't have an arsenal of guns. This is now 2023. Personal rifles are no match for the tanks and missiles of our day.

   Not only am I not aware of any example of citizens with their guns saving a nation from losing its freedom, I wonder if it is even possible.   

Tax Plan II: Voluntary Taxes

    We need a new way of exacting taxes, and that would be to not exact them at all. Make the tax voluntary; if the citizen wants to pay it, let him; if he doesn't, that too is fine.

    You tax them, but you don't exact the tax. Exacting a tax is not a voluntary contribution, but an enforced payment.

   Oh, you've got me wrong if you think I think we should replace our current tax system with voluntary taxes. That's not what I mean. In fact, we probably can't do away with the as-we-have-it, IRS-will-chase-you-down-if-you-don't-pay taxes, at all.

   But, what about for special projects -- not for  essential services, but for (in the language of a person's own finances) discretionary spending -- just for things we can survive without, if necessary. Let the voluntary tax pay for education enhancements, certain research projects, extra police officers, or whatever.

   Yes, it's true that if the voluntary tax doesn't raise enough money, the project will not even get off the ground. So, arrange it so the taxpayer gets refunded if a private donor doesn't come along to make up the difference.

Travis Scott is a Repeat Offender

   Travis Scott is a repeat offender. Oh, it is that Nov. 5, 2021, concert for which he is famous. Ten people were killed. They rushed the gates to get in and rushed the mosh pit once they were in. But, Scott had a history long before that.

  Crowd crush. So tight was the crowd, that they crushed each other. In addition to those killed, more than 300 were injured at that concert in Houston.

   Yes, this is same Travis Scott the Utah Jazz have contracted with to bring in his friends, Don Toliver and Sheck Wes, for a concert for this year's NBA All-Star festivities.

   "Make some noise for my boy right there hanging in the tree," he would yell during the concert. 

   Make the ground shake, he would ask of those in the tightly-packed audience.

   "Y'all know what you came to do, Chase B, let's go," he would scream. And, what did they come to do? Don't let it get passed you that many of them were "ragers" and they came to pack so tight that crushing each other was inevitable.

   Get wild, go crazy, he would ask of them. 

   Fans dying at a concert is not new. You can cite a concert by the Who, or another by Pearl Jam. But, make no mistake, whatever other bands have or have not done, Scott has a record for inciting his fans. Unfortunate deaths can happen -- accidental deaths. Perhaps that was the case with the Who and Pearl Jam.

    And, hopefully, Travis Scott had no intention of bringing death upon his fans either. But, he certainly has a long scorecard of inciting riotous behavior.   

   So many times that he qualifies as a repeat offender. 

    In 2015 at a Lollapalooza concert, Scott was charged with disorderly conduct after inciting concertgoers to ignore security and rush the stage. In 2017 after a concert in Arkansas, he took a plea deal after being arrested on suspicion of inciting a riot. That same year, at a concert in New York City, he urged fans to jump off the balconies, suggesting the crowd below would catch them.

   Music exucutive Irving Azoff once dropped Scott as a client, saying he was too unmanageable. 

  Has he encouraged dangerous conduct? "I Tried Not to Die at Travi$ Scott and Young Thug's Show Last Night," read a headline in 2015.

   Say what you want about the deaths not being Scott's fault, the bottom line is he egged those in the mosh pit on to do what they did. Yes, he was very apologetic after the fact, and said he didn't realize people were dying. Still, when you incite someone to violent behavior, you are guilty of criminal neglect. 

Speak to Them with a Baton, for They Will Understand Nothing Else.

   We need a smaller shadow size for our law enforcement. As it is now, when someone is arrested, it is as if a 40-foot shadow is towering over them, just daring them to "make my day."

   No, you don't' get off easy when the law catches up with you. Sometimes, you don't even survive. Don't expect love and understanding; all the shadow understands is that you broke the law, and now you are going to pay for it.

   Sometimes, its not even that you broke the law, it's just that you did something the ominous Darth Vader in the sky didn't like. You offended him, and for that you must not go unpunished. Will you bring a rebuke from the officer? "Rebuke" is not a strong enough of a word. "Tongue lashing" might not even do. Growling is not enough. No, words are not enough; it will take a little physical violence to straighten you out. 

   Oh, not all officers are this way. Most of them -- perhaps far and far and away most of them -- are kind and gentle, polite and respectable. (Well, maybe, maybe not, but sufficient to say they try to be nice.) 

   But, it only takes one mean officer -- one officer who thinks he is a law unto himself -- to really mess things up. "One bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch, baby"? Well, in this case, it does.

   Yes, it just takes one officer who believes he is not only there to enforce the law, he is the law. You will be compliant and obey his every whim; you will be utterly submissive, or the walls will come crashing down on you long before you ever reach the walls of a prison. 

   These shadows are not what we need. We don't need officers who instill such fright and fear into their arrestee that the arrestee panics and looks for the first chance and any chance to bolt and get away. 

   You will argue that sometimes the arrestee doesn't know any other language. You must speak to them with the hardened end of a baton because they will understand nothing else. 

   But, no, you don't have to lower yourself to a criminal's level to arrest a criminal. There are those of us in the public who believe that instead of casting a shadow over the arrestee, we should cast an arm of love around them. 

   Heavy, isn't it? 

It's Kidnapping, You Know

   It's kidnapping, you know, if you put someone on a plane to Martha's Vineyard against their will; and it's kidnapping if you put them on a bus to Washington, D.C., or Chicago against their will.

  It's dang near human trafficking.

  The governors of Florida, Texas, and Arizona have all employed the stunt. Law enforcement officials should be interviewing the migrants to see if any were coerced against their will. And, kidnapping charges should be filed.

  In Florida, the minimum time in prison for kidnapping is four years. In Texas, it is two to 10 years. Arizona? A minimum of 10 years. Governors Ron DeSantis, Greg Abbott, and Doug Ducey should be facing some pretty heavy time. 

  They won't, of course. When it's immigrants, somehow that's different. They were clogging up your city, so getting rid of them is hardly viewed as kidnapping. It should be, though. Just because someone is a poor and destitute immigrant -- an unwanted part of society -- doesn't mean you can or should be able to kidnap them.

   Unlawful restraint? It seems those involved possibly should also be charged with that.

   Oh, and human trafficking? Do we say what was done was human trafficking? Human trafficking, says the dictionary, is "the unlawful act of transporting or coercing people to benefit from their work or service, typically in the form of forced labor or sexual expoitation." What DeSantis, Abbott, and Ducey did falls short of that, but is close enough to give cause to wonder. The governors aren't transporting them so they can benefit from working them, but they are transporting them for their (the governors') own benefit.

   It is ironic that we call them "illegal aliens," and all the flying saucer movies are about being abducted by aliens. Funny -- this time around it's the aliens being abducted.