Brainstorming for Gun Laws

It's not like I stay up nights trying to figure out new and creative gun laws. 

Or, do I?

I've got another one. No, actually I've got two.

1) Ban straw purchases. If you buy or obtain a gun for someone else, you go to jail. Actually, as I look this up, I find its already against the law. A Supreme Court ruling in 2014, in fact, upheld the law.

2) Send anyone to jail who is involved in the sale or transfer of a gun without a background check being done. Yes, gun dealers are required to perform background checks. This would go a step further. It amounts to universal background checks, which have been advocated by gun control folks for a long time. 

Ah, the night is young. Can I think of anything else? 

3) How about a law that sends you to jail if you lend your gun to someone else? Write the law so you can still take someone target shooting and allow them to use your gun. Allow guns to be rented out at shooting ranges, if that is the way it is done. But require the person lending the gun to be present when the other person is using the gun. If you just lend out the gun in any other fashion -- if you let someone borrow it overnight or whatever -- that becomes illegal.

4) How about a law that makes it illegal for parents to let children use or even hold guns unless the parent is present. If the parent knowingly lets an underage person possess the gun, that's one level of the crime. But, if the parent lets the gun fall into possession of the child just through neglect, that is a lesser level of the crime, but still serious. 

5) Hold it as a crime if your weapon is used in the commission of a crime. If you let it fall into possession of the criminal though any act of neglect and then that gun ends up being used in a crime, you are responsible.

6) Make it a misdemeanor to knowingly not turn someone in for possessing a weapon they are either restricted from having or which they purchased in an illegal fashion. This would be hard to enforce, and I would not go too hard after those who do not follow it. Still, I read one source saying 93 percent of the guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. If we could get guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, we go a long ways towards reducing gun violence. Usually, when someone has a gun illegally, there's someone who is aware of it. If we could encourage them to anonymously report the possession, it might make a difference. 

Gun control? Is it bad? The term can be used a lot of different ways. To some, it means outlawing guns. To others, it simply means regulating them to keep them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Yes, we should be staying awake nights thinking of ways to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't possess them.  

A Creature of Habit

A creature of habit
Is a creature of sin
He gets in so much trouble
He should never be in

He wades in and wallows
And never gets out
He's stuck in the ways
Of sin without doubt

(Index -- Poems)

 

The God-Given Right to Be Here

Do you suggest undocumented immigrants just don't have the same rights as Americans?  They don't belong here, and the don't have the right to be here.

You can't have the rights of a citizen if you are not even a citizen.

Well, are you right? 

Consider what the Declaration of Independence has to say on the matter. From that venerable old document, we learn there are some rights that are God's to give, but not for government to interfere with. These, says the great, old document, include the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

When he steps across that border into the United States, the immigrant is seeking nothing more than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You might not like him being here, but does he have the right to be here? -- make that the "unalienable" right to be here, "unalienable" meaning government or no one else take it from him.

Nope, neither you, nor former President Trump, nor Florida Gov. DeSantis, nor Texas Gov. Abbott. Hands off, those rights were given by a higher source.

The rights referred to in the Declaration are not bestowed by government, but endowed by the Creator. The document says as much. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then? The immigrant flees for his life, he seeks the liberty of America's shores, and he seeks the happiness of laboring in America and joining his family here. Would you deprive him of those rights?

Rather than depriving these rights, it is the duty of government to secure them. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men," says the document. Does government, then, have the right to snatch away these rights? To the contrary, governments are created to preserve those rights, to ensure them to everyone.

And, not just "citizens." The Declaration doesn't say you have to be a citizen. Remember, there is that part that says, "all men are created equal." How did were arrive at the conclusion immigrants should be left out? 

Now, if it is government's obligation and duty to assure these rights, how are we going to get around that? Can we swing wide around it? Can we close our eyes to the Declaration? Words are words and they mean something. And what the Declaration says, it says. God bestowed these rights. They are unalienable. They are God's to give, man's to have, and not the government's to take away.

So, next time an immigrant shows up at the border, all he's got to do is read his rights as they are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, right?

And they are going to have to let him in, right?

I wish it were that easy, but I know it isn't. I also know your thoughts on the matter might be entirely different than mine. You have the right to an opinion, as well. I will just say I look at what is written in the Declaration, and it seems clear. 

There is a part of the document that says, "Let facts be submitted to a candid world." The Declaration has submitted the facts. My thought is that we should be candid enough to admit the immigrant has the right to be here. I don't think I've missed anything, but you are free to a different opinion.

We Are so Quick to Judge Them, and Turn Them away as Scum

  

Must America turn its back on the refugee? We outlaw their escape from their home countries. We make it illegal for them to seek freedom in America. We hold them in contempt. We call them criminals.

They are pretty much a hiss and a byword.

Financially challenged. Can I call them that? Oh, there must be some rich enough to board a plane to come here, but those aren't the ones we hear about. The common immigrant is a commoner, and he crawls across the rocky desert terrain of northern Mexico to get here.

To get to America.

How is it that we, as Americans, have arrived at having such shallow feelings towards the immigrants -- or, as we are quick to correct each other, "illegal" immigrants. We justify our lack of charity by assuring ourselves that they are criminals of the worst ilk.

Murderers, rapists, we say. 

They stumble to our door crying for help. And, we shoo them away like dirty, filthy scum.

The Blood of Those Who Seek Freedom

 A patriot is but one who loves America. With the coming of this morning's sun, we honor those who gave their all, gave their lives defending freedom. Some of them died defending the freedom we enjoy right here in America; they died protecting the freedom you and I enjoy. Others died fighting to defend the freedom of those in foreign lands; they died for Vietnamese, and Iranians, and Afghans -- people they never even knew.

It sometimes takes a bullet, a tank, and a jet fighter to free those oppressed in foreign lands. Our soldiers have died for them as well as died for those on our own shores.

Freedom isn't free, we say. It requires the blood of patriots, the blood of soldiers.

There is not a day to honor another group of patriots. These fallen heroes die not as they go to foreign lands, but as they come from those foreign countries.

You might be offended that I should rise to honor those we call "illegals" right along with the brave soldiers who die on foreign beaches. But I don't come to play the game of whose blood is more sacred. All lives are precious. All blood is sacred. And the blood of those who die for the cause of freedom is blood that deserves honor. Place the migrants at the end of the line, if you weigh their lives as less. But, give them a spot in line, the same.

Otherwise, we give no honor to those who fall in search of freedom, who try to reach freedom, only to reach death. Since 1998, more than 8,000 migrants have perished while crossing parched land and rocky terrain where summer temperatures sometimes reach 118 degrees. Some have lost their lives to the climate, others to the cartels, and yet others to transportation tragedies.

And, we call them criminals for seeking their freedom.

A patriot is someone who loves America. These migrants love America. You can play the game of saying they don't love it as much as you and I, but I'm not sure we should be playing games with people's lives -- word games and judging others when it is their lives, not ours that are at stake. Our contempt for them amounts to the smug judging the humble, we whose lives are safe, and freedoms assured, condemning those who risk their lives for freedom they don't have.

They give their all for freedom. Just like the soldier, they seek freedom for family, for friends and for loved ones. And they die for it. They die for the cause of freedom.

And, instead of honor, we spit on their graves.

 

Charity Group Warns Against Biden Policies

President Biden's new immigration rules qualify as among the most oppressive there have been in the "illegal immigrant" era. (I refer to the era in which it has become illegal for many to become immigrants.)

How bad are his policies? Listen to how Doctors Without Borders speaks of them. First the Doctors Without Borders statement speaks of the out-going Trump policies, then it turns its attention to the incoming Biden restrictions.

"Title 42 proved to be one of the US government' most sweeping -- and most cruel  -- anti-asylum policies. It used public health as a pretense to shut down asylum at the US border and purposely put people in harm's way. We should be celebrating the end of  Title 42 today. Instead, our medical teams are bracing for the human impact and suffering to come as the Biden administration rolls out sweeping new asylum restrictions."

As we read the Doctors Without Borders statement, we remember how public officials braced for a flood of immigrants pouring into the U.S. as soon as Title 42 was lifted -- only for it to turn out that the big surge came just before Title 42 expired, not after. At the time, we wondered what was going on. Then it dawned on us that immigrants realized things were only going to be worse under the new Biden rules. And, they rushed to get over the border before the new, dreaded and oppressive rules took effect. 

As Doctors Without Borders says, Title 42 ended and, "In its place, the US will use existing harsh immigration laws and newly announced asylum restrictions meant to deter people from crossing or seeking protection at the US southern border."

Doctors Without Borders warns that the new rules imposed by the Biden administration "harm the physical and mental health of migrants and deepen an already acute humanitarian crisis in the region." The statement warns that the new restrictions "will disqualify many of the most vulnerable refugees from from asylum protections."

"After promising a humane and dignified immigration system, the Biden administration is now focused on erecting new barriers to seeking asylum in the US. It has turned its back on asylum seekers."

We live in a day when it is popular to think stopping the immigrants is a good thing. It is good to hear from a charity group that says, Not so. 

  

 

Can I Have You Sign My Horses' Rights Petition?

   If I were to break a leg, I would hope you all wouldn't come along and euthanize me.

   Horses? Not so lucky. If a horse breaks a leg, they put it down. The horse is so large and its legs so fragile, the broken leg would never recover.

   Me? I'm an old man. I lost full use of my legs years ago. I once ran every day -- so much that you could say running was just who I was. It was me -- just like the horse. But now? Too much weight. My body is too heavy. If I take some of the weight off, I can walk much better. So I walk around on a walker all day.

  Oh, making a walker or a wheelchair for a horse might seem impractical, but I wonder if we should. I think of all the animals in our lives. How we literally love them. How we often refer to them as humans. Yes, we laughingly say they are just as human we are, and though its partly a joke, we kind of believe it.

   With the coming of social media, we see Facebook post after Instagram post after tweet of animals acting so much like humans that we swear they must be. We look at them in wonder and awe. And love.

  And, if you don't put a human down -- if we are thought to be too precious to ever be given a lethal injection every time we break a leg -- maybe we should treat the horse the same way.

  Where's that petition for animal rights? I want to sign it. A horse has the right to life when it breaks a leg. 

Brainstorming on Bank Fraud

 Letter (email) to my state legislators:

You both are my legislators. I have an area of concern that deserves legislative attention. We could stop much of the bank and online fraud if we just would legislate against it.

I have had three frauds on my bank accounts since January. Unable to get the police to decently pursue them, I have had to look into them myself. Today, I uncovered what I believe is a piece of evidence that should be enough to convict my suspect. I should not have had to investigate these frauds myself. We have police departments for that purpose. Still, I am glad that I have been able to go through the experience as I have been able to question what needs to be done to protect people. Bank fraud is not a small matter -- or shouldn't be. I don't think there is a doubt that the police receive case after case, daily. Yet, they say they cannot do anything. We have a whole segment of society that is not receiving the protection of the law (and of the legislators who make the laws) that they deserve. Protecting the citizenry from crime is the large part of why we even have governments. But I feel like I've more or less been told: "Bank fraud? Online fraud? Wire fraud? Oh, no, we don't do those things. We do just the more important things, you know: rape, murder, domestic violence, and break-ins We don't have time for bank fraud. That's out of our range. There's simply nothing we can do about that." Forgive me if I get a little sarcastic, but while law enforcement is well-meaning, I sincerely wonder if they give much thought to how wrong it is to let criminals operate without fear of repercussion when it comes to bank fraud. I do, indeed, wonder if law enforcement realizes they are leaving a whole segment of society unprotected. I do not doubt that legislators have little understanding that this is a situation they should be addressing. I'm sure legislators run across bank fraud in their own lives, but it never occurs to them that they are the ones who can do something about it. And, if law enforcement and legislators are failing us, so are the banks. They do not go after the criminals, either. They check to see if the victim's account should be refunded, and that's it. If you press them, they traditionally seem to not understand why you want more done. It's as if they are saying, "You've got your money back, we'll get ours (tax write off), and the criminal is going to remain free. It's a win-win-win. Is everybody happy?"

One piece of legislation that would seem to work to me, is that middle men in all money transactions should be required to be able to trace those at both ends of the transaction. If you cannot verify who sent the money and who recieved it, you cannot make the transaction.  

In addition to the three bank frauds I've had, I've also had someone open a shopping account in my name with a catalog company that provides online purchases. I suggested to the officer today that maybe people shouldn't be allowed to create such accounts online. They should be required to go in to Walmart, or wherever, to open them. The officer suggested that is completely unreasonable, since today people use online shopping so much. Requiring them to go in to the store and show their I.D. is not practical, he suggested. He expressed surprise that I would even believe such a thing could be done. Still, I do -- I do believe it should be done if we cannot trace down the criminals any other way. If we make it so convenient to open an account that the criminal conveniently walks away untouched, of course we should require people to go in and show their I.D. to open an account. Yes, I'm sorry to inconvenience them, but when we make it convenient for criminals to get away with money, convenience has got to stop.

If law enforcement does not have enough time to chase down criminals, it should be banging on your (and city hall's) door to get more money to hire more investigators. And, if it would require such a large amount of money that it becomes impractical to hire enough officers, then laws should be created doing away with the loopholes in our financial system -- you simply have to come into an office and show your I.D. There might well be banks that would like to do this, but they know if they do, customers will abandon them for banks that are not so strict. Legislation would put the banks that want to do things right on equal footing with those that don't. 

I don't know, I suppose there are other things that could be done. Maybe a law that requires banks and others to cooperate with police in giving the information necessary to solve the crime. I understand that most of the time, search warrants will be needed, and I am not suggesting the banks should not get search warrants. And, I understand banks generally do cooperate. Still, I wonder if a law spelling out that cooperation would be helpful. And, inasmuch as the banks already have the personal information, they are in better position to investigate the crime than the police. Should a law require them to investigate? Should there be a law that, in order to open an account, you agree to let both the bank and the police have access to your personal information, so no search warrant is necessary? Should there be a law that when a citizen files a report, the police are required to explain what information they have the right to receive from the bank, such as the phone number, email address, etc. that were provided by the applicant? 

One law that seems would certainly be beneficial is to require references on all applications. And, that those references be checked before the account is opened. Having references gives the police and victims one more lead to look into if fraud occurs.

Should there be a law that online applicants must electronically transmit a copy of their driver's license? Having that I.D. online could be a great starting point for police when they investigate the crime. Those who are adept at being online are usually able to do such attatchments without difficulty. 

Lastly, in addition to laws, police should be trained in how to investigate bank, wire, and online fraud. There might be things I'm not thinking of and the ones I do think of might seem so obvious you shouldn't have to "train" them. Still, teaching the officers that if a phone number is put on the application, it becomes a lead, would be beneficial. Maybe you could "train" the officer in five minutes, but at least train her (or him).

I am thinking you might come up with many other ideas -- laws that would be beneficial. Cool! Please do something, though -- please.

Elon Took a Dime, and Made a Dollar

   This seems like a very solvable question: Was Elon Musk born into riches?

   We could just leave it to Sage, an AI bot. These AI bots know everything. So, what's the answer, Sage?

   "No, Elon Musk was not born into wealth. He was born in South Africa in 1971 to a Canadian mother and a South African father who owned an emerald mine. While his family was not poor, they were not considered wealthy either. Musk's entrepreneurial spirit and success came from his own hard work and vision."

  And, there you have it. We need go no further if that is what AI says.

  But, if enquiring minds still exist, we could search further. Elon's dad, Errol, is still alive. Go ask him. Ask him if he owned an emerald mine. Ask him how rich he was. Ask him if he gave any money to Elon. Errol is a retired politician, and property developer. That is indication he wasn't a poor dirt farmer, but nobody has suggested he was that poor.

   Ask his mom, May Musk, a model and dietitian. Models are usually not scraping for money, but they can be far from millionaires.

  Ask his brother, Kimbal. Kimbal seems a great person. He's a restaurateur and venture capitalist. 

  Ask his sister, Tosca. Tosca is a South African filmmaker.

  Then, check and see who invested in Musk's initial endeavors. Did his family put in a lot of money? 

   Whether Elon got a kickstart from family riches is something that should be able to be figured out. But, regardless what you find, Sage, the AI bot is certainly right on one thing: His success has come from his own hard work and vision. Regardless how much family money oiled his start, Elon's acumen oiled it more. He took a dime, and made a dollar. He turned a little money into a lot.  

Now Its As Easy As One-Two-Three

You've got to wonder if the No. 1, post-haste, urgent-urgent-urgent thing we need to do to overcome climate change is to just make a map -- and then follow it.

Map out the places where wind and solar farms are possible and practical, and then -- and this is where the following-the-map thing comes in -- create what they keep calling "infrastructure." In this case, that means cable lines to carry the energy from the wind and solar farms to all the places where the people are screaming and crying for electricity.

See, right now all those cables start at the power plants. You already figured that part out, right? So you don't just say replacing fossil-fuel plants is as easy as one-two-three: knock the coal plant down in one location, and built the wind farm in another.

When you switch to nuclear, and David Gates -- I mean Bill Gates -- is helping us do just that, you can simply replace the coal plant with a nuclear facility, right there at the very same spot. All your wiring -- all that cabling -- remains in place, ready to whisk away the energy to the valley people below. But, when you speak of wind farms and solar farms, they usually are not built at the same location as the coal plant you are getting rid of.

New energy location, new set of cables, then. Its as easy as one-two-three. Building the solar farm is the two, and knocking down the coal plant is the three. but this time you don't skip over the one: You lay cables to the solar farm. First things first.

Now and only now is it as easy as one-two-three.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Babies and Cars Are not the Same

What do you think, is an unborn baby kind of an experimental model, a concept person, a trial human? Now, the difference between babies and cars is that when the car is in the concept mode, there's only one production model that follows. In automobile terms, every baby's a limited model -- limited to one.

See, the difference is that in cars, there can be thousands, maybe millions, of copies made of the concept car. You don't go through all that trouble of designing a car just to produce only one model.

Not so, babies. Each one is an original. Every model is exclusive. One rolls off the assembly line, and that's it. They shut the plant down until the mother and father decide to design and produce a different one. There won't be another model until what is called a brother or sister comes out.  

And, they don't improve on babies with each new model year. A 6,000 BC (or whatever year that was) Abel is just as good and fancy and modern as a 1924 Russell M. Nelson.

When you've designed something to perfection, you can't improve upon it. And, these models were all patterned after a perfect being.

If Your Gun Does the Killing, You Go to Jail

It's not like I stay up nights thinking of new and innovative gun laws, but I think I've got one.

Many of the suicides, murders, and mass murders are performed with guns that do not belong to the person committing the crime. Owning a gun is a responsibility. If you let it fall into the hands of someone who shouldn't have it, you are responsible.

So, make a law to that effect: If a gun owned by you is used in the commission of a crime, you can go to jail.

If, that is, the gun fell into the hands of the criminal because of your negligence. If they stole it by violence or by breaking in, you are not responsible. But, if you left it lying around not locked up when there were members of your household who could then access it, you are responsible.

Yes, I know that puts a chill in some of you, to think you could be held criminally liable for a shooting if someone were to simply see your gun lying on your nightstand, pick it up, and go shoot a neighbor. But, that is the point: you should feel scared that could happen.

The Gun that Can Defend Can also Destroy

I  continue my assault on guns. Today, we shall consider the case of a Layton, Utah, man who killed his wife and her parents, who were visiting from Arizona.

Shot 'em. Killed 'em. Now only the burying remains.

He turned most of his guns over to a friend shortly before the killing. Surrendered them. Knew he was thinking about killing his wife and her parents and wanted to get the temptation out of his sight. But, he forgot one gun, forgot to surrender it to his friend.

It was that gun, which belonged to one of the victims, which he used to slaughter the trio, as well as a family pet dog.

Of note, the man himself knew the presence of guns increased the chance he would kill.

And, of note, the gun he did end up using belonged to someone else. 

Both things point to the possibility that the proliferation of guns in society leads to a greater chance they will be used. You don't simply pass them out, saying, "Here, everybody have one," and expect there won't be consequences. The family member who owned the gun that ended up being used perhaps bought it for her or his own protection. 

But the gun that can defend can also destroy. That which can protect us can also be turned against us.  

That Colt .45 Has One too Many Friends

  Do not befriend the gun too quickly. 

  A 2022 study found that states with permitless carry laws saw a 22 percent increase in gun homicides for the three years following the law's passage.

  Guns don't kill, but laws that let people use them to kill do. We regulate everything from banks to pollution, but somehow think we can't regulate guns. We do not need to scream about Second Amendment rights being lost; those in the general public who want guns would still be able to get them if we required them to register them first. 

  Except those who have serious criminal backgrounds and such. Nope, we shouldn't allow them to get or carry guns. Do you really want them to carry weapons? Yes, there are some people who we should not allow to carry them. 

  That Colt .45 has one too many friends. Don't give it another. 

 

If War Camps Need Supplies, the Russians Will Oblige

 We should know it: Russian agents exist. And, they have a work to do. And, they are doing it. 

Those who do not believe Russia is involved in spreading disinformation and lies, and in working us up one against another, well, they don't know the history of Russia and propaganda. It's what Russia is all about.

And, when Twitter and Facebook and all the other social media forum came about, they pounced. These forums became their forums. Their propaganda went into overdrive. 

There was a day, all not so long ago, when a special FBI investigation spelled this all out, when it warned Americans about the ways and means the Russians were setting us against each, pitting neighbor against neighbor. Read the Mueller Report

You didn't listen, did you? You cannot even remember that the report said as much.

There was a day when we would have been shocked to think our own halls of Congress could be assaulted like they were on Jan. 6, 2021. Such things are for other countries, for third world countries, not for us.

But those who will not heed warnings will not survive them. 

They take the issues -- LBGTQ rights, abortion, guns and violence -- and they use them to stir up hatred, division, and contempt for each other. Republicans and Democrats are more than just political parties, they are war camps. 

And, if the war camps need supplies, it is the Russians who are all so happy to oblige.   

Not Kidding

    There it is: Nobody want's to come to the U.S. anymore because of our gun violence (just kidding). Seven nations -- New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the U.K., France, Venezuela, and Argentina -- have issued safety advisories against visiting the U.S.

   I know here in Utah it's been especially tough (just kidding). All the tourists who were flocking in to see Zions National Park have quit coming (just kidding). Too many guns, you know (just kidding). They were showing up at the national parks just to get mowed down by some crazy with an AR-15 (just kidding).

 That there are so many nations issuing travel advisories against coming to the U.S,, though, does speak to how we are viewed by other nations. And, it does speak to the fact that we have a greater gun problem than other nations (not kidding).

'No Taxation without Representation' Is for the Immigrants, Too

  Raise an eyebrow -- or both of them -- on this. But, then don't close those same eyes.

  California has a bill, -- they call it SB 227 -- which would allow those who are commonly called "illegal aliens" to receive  unemployment benefits.

  "What?" you say. "We are going to give them unemployment even though they aren't even suppose to be here, even though they don't belong in this country to begin with?"

  Yes, and it just might be the only fair and honest thing to do. Don't close your eyes to that possibility until you've heard me out.

  Or, hear out Shaman Walton, that is. He's the San Francisco Supervisor who knows the facts. So, I invited him here to set you straight.

  "We cannot take people's money, take people's taxes, take people's labor, and then deny them the very benefits and rights that they deserve and that they have earned," Walton explains.

  Yes, go ahead and argue that the immigrants shouldn't even be here. But, once you've let them in, and once you've given them employment for which they aren't working under the table, that means they are paying taxes. And, when you pay into something, you deserve to get something out of it.

  It's the old no taxation without representation argument, and its rooted in the very things this country stood for in the Revolutionary War.

 

It Isn't Nice to Spill Fuel on Mother Nature

President Biden laid out his long-awaited rules for fossil-fuel power plants this past week. And, for Mother Nature, they weren't too nice. 

Yes, he did say the industry must cut its emissions by 90 percent. That's a whopping lot, right? Who can complain that Biden isn't doing enough when he's saying reduce your emissions by 90 percent or get out of my house?

Ninety percent is 90 percent. You can spell it out or use numbers; either way its a whopping lot. 

But, I'm not sure Mother Nature sees it that way. She looks down from her spot in the mountains and sees all the smokestacks billowing and belching their carbon at her. Then she sees a copy of Biden's plan. She picks it up and reads it, and a tear swells up in her eye. No fossil-fuel plant will have to start moving its feet until 2030. And, the large natural gas plants until 2035 or 2038 to clean up their act. That means they don't have to install the equipment until a dozen years from now.  And, the smaller fossil-fuel plants are going to be let off the hook completely. 

Nothing like taking swift, decisive action, Mr. President.

Mother Nature's tears are rolling down the mountain, but she keeps reading, learning that Biden wants to toss extreme amounts of money at something called "carbon capture." That's when you capture all those billowing fumes from the power plant and pump them deep into the earth instead of letting them free into the sky. 

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? "Precisely," says one executive. "Brilliant!," adds another from the opposite side of the room. Mother Nature wasn't invited to the meeting. She never did fit well into executive suites. So, we don't hear from her.

But, somewhere up in the mountains, she's muttering under her breath. Her whispering voice questions whether this "carbon capture" even works. She notes that in the days after President Biden released his plans, some of the fossil-fuel barons cried foul on President Biden, complaining that technology just has not yet advanced far enough that they will be able to cut their emissions by 90 percent.

But, Biden shoots back at them: "We'll give you the money. We've got this thing called 'subsidies,' you know, and I can't think of anyone more deserving that you. We'll help you with the carbon capture by taking the taxpayers money and using it to build these carbon-capture plants. Deal?"

Even as the president speaks, he perhaps knows of a proud developer of carbon capture in La Porte, Texas. That would be the NET Power Test Facility. It's been testing and testing for years. Now it appears up and read to pounce on Biden's money.  A couple weeks ago, the La Porte plant even brought in one of the more influential Congress members, John Curtis (R-Utah), to show him how just how wonderful their now up-and-running plant is. They are successfully removing carbon and piping it away where it can be pumped underground.

Don't the fracking-is-bad folk love that? And, Mother Nature is standing right beside them.

The problem with carbon capture, is that it takes a lot of energy to make it work -- a lot. In fact, it can take the equivalent of another factory just to draw the smoke and fumes away. Okay, the La Porte facility might be more efficient. We don't know. Perhaps they've advanced this "carbon capture" technology to where the expense and energy required isn't so great. 

But, here's betting it will take a federal grant to make it work. And, Mother Nature is sitting up in the mountains, wondering why we don't just turn to renewable sources, green sources, sources that can help our planet stop coughing.

Yes, and speaking of coughing, Mother Nature is coughing at President Biden's plan. And, she's going to choke if somebody doesn't help her.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Dr. Marahasy Is Cooking the Books

The story is quickly making its rounds on Facebook. Prominent climate skeptic Jennifer Marohasy (who holds a PhD in biology from the University of Queensland) says that using a Freedom of Information request, she discovered that Australia's Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) was doctoring its temperature readings to favor the belief in global warming. Marohasy said the Freedom of Information request showed BOM's electronic probes returned readings up to 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer than its older mercury thermometers. 

Ahh, but when Monash University emeritus environmental professor Neville Nicholls investigated Marohasy's claim, he found the difference between most of the old electronic probes and the new ones was much less -- between zero and 0.1C over the past century. "This difference is very small compared to the strong warming trend in average temperature over Australia" -- about 1.4C over the past century, Nicholls said.

The World Meteorological Organization also looked into Marohasy's allegations, and found that BOM's measurements were in line with its standards, contrary to what Marohasy was saying.

Dr. Marohasy is cooking the books. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

Perhaps It Should be Illegal to Take Solar Panels to the City Dump

   It's called infrastructure, and the solar and wind industries need more of it -- infrastructure to handle their waste, that is. 

  Ninety percent of used solar panels get tossed away. If they keep filling up the landfills at the rate that is predicted, by 2030 they will cover an area the size of 3,000 football fields. 

  And, used wind turbines? By 2050, they are expected to amount to 47 million ton of waste annually.

  There are companies popping up to recycle the used panels and turbine blades. Perhaps we need more. Perhaps the renewable energy companies need to be put in touch with them. Perhaps the national trade associations for solar and wind need to step up and help the solar and wind providers connect with recyclers.

  Perhaps, even, a law is necessary, forbidding the solar and wind companies from carrying the waste off to the city dump.

(Index -- Climate change info)

CNN Was Right in Hosting Trump; Now, Bring on McCabe and Cheney

Democracy gives people a voice; it doesn't take it away. Free press is not in shutting voices down, but in raising them up.

I do not condemn CNN for giving Trump a stage, but I am concerned we've reached a point where we think it right to suppress some in the name of truth. Lies are not allowed, we say, and you will not be allowed to spread them on our forum, in our medium. We will not give falsehood and insurrection a stage. 

But, free press is free only if everyone has access to it. When you say you will only disseminate one side of public opinion, you, in effect, say it is only your freedom that is precious, not the freedom of those who disagree with you. 

Okay, I believe Trump foments insurrection. I believe he sells his lies for truth. I believe there has never been a more wicked person in the White House.

But, I also believe in free speech. Instead of condemning CNN for giving Trump a stage, ask the network to give a second stage to those concerned he is becoming the ruination of our nation. Bring in the Andrew McCabes, and the Liz Cheneys, and give them a town hall.

Free press is not in suppressing one voice, it is in giving voice to everyone. If the day comes -- and perhaps it is already here -- that the public listens to the pied piper of lies, then it is to their destruction. But, they should have that choice. Freedom is the right to be foolish as much as it is the right to be wise. 

Take Bitcoin and Bankers and Toss Them in Jail

   It's time to get serious about these phishermen and reel them in. The scams are a $2.7 billion industry in the United States, and it's time to wash them out to sea.

   Could we not make it a law that Bitcoin and others -- including banks -- cannot transfer money unless both the source and the destination of the money are traceable? If you transfer money illegally, you go straight to jail.

   It is the scammers we think to go after when someone gets away with $10,000. Natural enough. But, they wouldn't be getting away with it time after time after time if someone wasn't making it so dang easy for them.

  They wouldn't get away if the system weren't so accommodating. Firms that move the money for them could almost be considered accomplices. Aiding and abetting does not fall far from what they are doing. 

  If we send the middlemen to jail for being so helpful to criminals, wouldn't that bring the fraud to a screeching halt? Make it the law that if you, as the company carrying out the transaction and moving the money, cannot identify the person sending the money and the person receiving the money (yes, the person, as well as the entity) by name, address and phone number, then you are guilty of a felony. You move the money, you do the time. Welcome to a not-so-luxurious jail cell, bankers. 

  May these scammers never see landfall again. 

Fires that Reach the Skies

After the fire the fire still burns
The heart grows older but never ever learns
The memories smolder and the soul always yearns

After the fire the fire still burns 

The fire still burns, raging through the pain
Blackening the promises the tears and the rain
The fire will burn
'Til the wind begins to turn
And it all begins again

-- Roger Daltry

All the fires you could want are lighting up the skies these days. And, when one is put out, another starts. And it all begins again.

"Alberta Burns Due To Climate Change Fueled Wildfires, Yet Provincial Government & Media Refuse to Mention It," screams one headline. Oh, the media are mentioning the fires, but not mentioning the cause: Climate change, the news article's author says.

 

   He mentioned it only because he writes for an environmental news source, CleanTechnica. You ever heard of that? Or is it not quite as big as CNN or Fox News?

 

   The Alberta fire is not insignificant. Almost 30,000 have been evacuated. A state of emergency has been declared. "I don't know that I ever recall seeing multiple communities evacuated all at once in a fire season," Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said.

   Did she say, "fire season"? For most of the world, that is yet ahead.

(Index 

This Won't Be Your Mom and Pop's Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear reactors, indeed. Just maybe they are the answer, after all. Now, we've already got them scattered across our land -- 96 of them, if you want to count them.

And now, a new one -- a new and much improved one -- this one brought to you courtesy of Bill Gates and his company, TerraPower. This one has been in the works 15 years -- ever since Gates retired from Microsoft. You thought he retired-retired. But maybe this is his next big thing.

He's building it in Kemmerer, Wyoming, and it isn't your mom and pop's nuke plant. This one enters the modern age, the Twenty-first Century. Mom and pop used to always use water to cool their systems. Tht was their generation. Now, along comes Gates and TerraPower, and they say, Let's try a change up. Let's use liquid sodium to cool our plant. 

Liquid sodium absorbs a lot more heat. It's boiling point is eight times that of water. And, you don't need to pump it and recycle it back into the reactor like you do water.

Safer. Better. Nicer. 

Gates' Kemmerer reactor won't come online until 2030, but is that so far away? And, who knows how quickly he will follow Kemmerer with reactors in such places as Huntington and Hunter, Utah. 

As we move toward nuclear energy, we should not drop all our concerns about safety, nor about health. One check might be to talk to hospitals in the areas where the existing 96 plants are. How many of their cancer patients are nuclear plant workers?

Just a check. Just check everyway and everywhere you can.

Another even smaller check, but one I wonder about: If coal plants and nuclear plants lose two-thirds of their heat into the air, does that affect global warming? I would guess not, but if you are heating the air, there might be a little effect. Check that along with the other checks.

And, when you've gone check-check-check, power up.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Put Some Face Powder on Those Exit Stops

   We sure could use some freeway-friendly zoning laws for electric vehicles. I would guess no such zoning exists in all of America. I mean, there are residential zones, commercial zones, bullhead zones, and party zones. (Okay, I'm just kidding about those last two, although there are entertainment and recreational zones, which are kinda like party zones.)

   But, where is the electric car zone? Where is the zoning that enables electric vehicle owners to obtain the services they need as they fly down the highway?

   It just makes sense in a world moving toward electric vehicles that you should accommodate their usage in your zoning laws. Update the world of zoning. Pass ordinances in which exit areas are required to provide charging stations, and must provide services to accommodate EV drivers who might need to wait a reasonable amount of time while their cars are charging.

   Remember the day when there were more Denny's at the exit stops? Bring that back. There are some sit-down diners, but there could be more. Yes, there are truck stops, and Maveriks, and Burger Kings, and hotels. Just require them all to have charging stations. It's true that our current zoning provides services catering to the traveler. But, is there a zoning law in all of America that says you must have charging stations?

   As a bonus -- just to make the zoning perhaps even better for the traveler than it already is -- maybe add a few more tourist attractions: museums, exhibits, comedy houses, and such. People who are traveling are looking for places like that. Maybe coordinate zoning between cities so every fifty miles or so, the exit is not just jam-packed with fast-food restaurants and gas stations, but has to include a tourist attraction. Maybe even have tourism visitors centers at each of those 50-mile exits -- little tourist information centers that direct the traveler to every tourist site that is accessable from that freeway exit.

   Put a little face powder and makeup on our interstate exits. Make them attractive places where the traveler knows he will enjoy his or her time. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

From Serbia, with Love: Get Rid of Unregistered Guns

   From Serbia, with love, comes a message for America: Get rid of all illegal guns.

   In America, we've always had the idea that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. But, perhaps that isn't the case.

   In Serbia, despite having more registered guns than any other country in Europe, they had not had a mass murder in 10 years, when a war veteran had killed 13 people. Then, this past week, they had back-to-back shootings -- one on Wednesday claiming 9 lives, and then another on Thursday claiming 8 more lives.

   The hammer of justice was quick to come down. Authorities ordered all unregistered guns to be turned in. No one will be prosecuted for having the gun if they turn it in now. But if they don't, and if they are found later to have a gun? Yes, they will be prosecuted, and prosecuted hard.

   Here is something that perhaps has been overlooked in the If-guns-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-guns discussion: If a criminal has an unregistered gun, you can arrest him and toss him in jail. Yes, they might have ways of getting guns even if they are illegal, but now they can be tossed in jail if they do.

 If you are fearful of a criminal living next door with a gun, you can tip off the police, and they can come take it away.  

 The only-criminals-will-have-guns argument is beginning to sink. We are taking the guns away from criminals and leaving them with the law-abiders.

Eight Thoughts on Guns

 There are supporting actors -- anger and mental illness included -- but the star of the show is always the gun.

Mass murders are the horror shows of America's streets. And they are always playing and there is always a sequel.

A criminal's best friend is a gun. 

The greatest wickedness is always performed with a gun.

The deeds of the criminal are performed with a gun.

You shouldn't mix oil with fire, and you shouldn't mix guns with anger.

The gun and the wicked are partners in crime.

This one might be a little over-the-top, still, finally, the root of all evil is a gun.

It's Called 'Greenwashing," and It Tries to Make the Gas Car Look Good

    It's the dominant argument of those who don't believe in climate change. When someone tries to tell them we need to move toward electric vehicles, they reply that more greenhouse gases are caused by the creation of electric cars than are caused by gasoline cars. As the argument goes, it takes so much emission of carbon fuels to mine for the lithium, and so much emission of carbon fuels to create the electric car, and so much emission of carbon fuels to recharge the electric car . . .

   That, in the end, the electric car causes more pollution than it saves.

   There's a word for this. It's called "greenwashing." It's when you make things look eco-friendly when they are not. It's when you spread false information.

   Some guy whose name is too hard to ever pronounce, Auke Hoekstra, is among those who have debunked the theory gas cars cause less pollution. Hoekstra read how a study claimed EVs need to go 48,000 miles before emitting less CO2 than fossil fuel vehicles. 

   The study was called, Decarbonising Road Transport: There Is No Silver Bullet, and it was cited in a story in The Times called, "Electric Cars Only Greener Than Petrol After 50,000 miles."

   First off, Hoekstra discovered the list of organizations behind the study read like a who's who of anti-EV organizations. Then, Hoekstra, who specializes in comparing CO2 emissions those of EVs for Eindhoven University of Technology in Eindenhoven, the Netherlands, was able to show the study underestimated gasoline emissions by just less than 50 percent and failed to account for fuel production. 

   "New 'study' claims it takes 48k miles for electric vehicles to emit less CO2 than gasoline cars," Hoekstra tweeted. "But it's just a misleading brochure. Reality is closer 16k miles."

   ICE vehicles are not eco-friendly. Those who would paint them as being eco-friendly are engaging in what is called "greenwashing." Be thankful if you are one who has never fallen for the false information.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Bless the Dear Company for Being True to It's Colors

If it runs like a Deere, looks like a Deere, and smells like a Deere, it's a Deere. But without the smell of gasoline in upcoming lawn equipment what is that? It's just more dear than ever. Thanks, John Deere, for going green.

The company is running to develop lithium-ion battery lawn and utilities vehicles, expecting to have a line of them by 2026.

"We're running for a world where people and planet prosper," says their website. "Our work spans the globe. Whether we’re helping farmers put food on tables or construction crews build roads that connect communities, John Deere is working for every person on the planet. For us, that means 8 billion opportunities to make an impact. Together with our customers, we’re stewarding a more sustainable world, and we’re not wasting any time."

A month or so ago, John Deere advertising would come across my Facebook newsfeed, hailing its efforts to go green. Of course, the good number of readers hit the like button, but I was shocked at how many hit the laugh button, laughing at what John Deere was doing. It was as if they were laughing at climate change and John Deere's efforts to do something about it. Bless the dear company for taking the abuse and forging ahead.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Mom's Skirt Can't Protect You From a Semi

   Is it just a line from us environmentalists, or must we really sweep semis right off the road? And, how possible is that? Measly electric motors will never pull the loads like diesel engines do. And, what, you want to replace construction equipment as well? Somehow you think an electric is powerful enough for a gravel truck hauling 13 ton of rocks?

   Hooh-boy.

   About 7 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. come from those big rigs . . . well, delivery trucks and tractor-trailers. Take them off the road, and you're making a difference.

   Trouble is, while a diesel semi will cost you $130k to $160k -- which is already a lot -- a semi from Lion, BYD, or Nikola is going to set you back $300k to $400k. You've never heard of Lion, BYD, or Nikola? Well, I'm just trying to save you a little money. Go with an electric from a name-brand -- Freightliner, Kenworth, Peterbilt, or Volvo -- and the cash gets even more serious: $400k to $500k.

   That'll make for a trip down to the bank. Split it between two banks; you'll have a better chance.

   But, hold on. Help is on the way. Buy your semi in California, and a tax incentive will pay off $120k. New York is even better: $160k back in your pocket.

   Are tax incentives the way to go? I have my doubts. But I consider how serious a problem we have with all the carbon drifting around in the air, all the nitrogen oxides, all the fine particulate emissions. Some greenhouse gases drop out of the air soon enough, but others can hang in the air for centuries. You don't just get scared at the last minute and say, Okay, we'll stop. The damage is already done. Even if every last truck and car is swept off the road, some of the greenhouse gases will haunt you seemingly forever.

   Repentance is for those who repent on time, not for those who procrastinate, not for those who say, "I don't believe in climate change," only to wake up and find out it is true. 

   So, yes, I begin to think tax incentives might be in order. No, I do not know for sure, but I do know if we don't address the climate change problem, we won't have a skirt to hide behind. Mom would protect us if she could, but she can't. She can't protect us from a large semi bearing down on us. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

Back to the Days of Christopher Robin, When He Came and Went as He Pleased

     If you would, read the Constitution -- thoughtfully and carefully. If you do, you just might question whether it grants any authority to restrict immigration. Now, shouldn't it -- the Constitution -- be our authority on immigration?

    Shouldn't it be our guide in defining who gets to stay and who doesn't?

    It does talk about naturalization. In Article I, Section 8, in enumerating the powers of Congress, it spells out that the federal government has authority, "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

     So, we should ask: Is "naturalization" the very same thing as "immigration"? Are the two terms identical? Are they interchangeable? Or, do they have two different meanings because they are two different words? Are they complete synonyms? Are they? Or, does "naturalization" refer only to the process of granting citizenship once people arrive -- with no restriction on whether they arrive? 

   

    And -- this is key -- does the fact the Constitution uses the word "naturalization" instead of "immigration" or "migration" suggest the founding fathers were well aware people were coming of their own free will, without government restriction?

  
   This has got to be interesting.

   Simply said, naturalization is the process by which those born abroad are granted equal status with those born here. Naturalization does not mean you need authority to come, it means here is how you earn the honor of being titled a citizen once you do get here.

  

   Two things to cement what I'm saying. One) The Declaration of Independence lists refusal of the king to allow free immigration as one of the reasons we went to war in the first place. Read it. It's in there. Two) The first Congress of the United States quickly spelled out what needed to be done to become a U.S. Citizen. The Constitution had said they hadthe authority to "establish a Rule of Naturalization," and so they did exactly that.

   You needed to be a free white person with good character and you needed to have established yourself by being here two years. While we certainly don't like the part allowing for slavery, the bottom line is that they said one of the requisites for citizenship is that, after arriving, you needed to stay here two years in order to earn your citizenship.

   It said nothing at all about deportation. It didn't suggest it, and it didn't infer it.

   Maybe we should go back to doing things the way the founding fathers set them up. Would that be asking too much?

The Skies Are Filled with Pollution when Filled with Fighter Jets

  There's always a cloud in the sky when there's a war jet in it. War jets bring clouds of darkness to the earth, right?

   Yes, but not just figuratively, but in all actuality. On a single typical trip up in the wild blue yonder, an F-35A fighter will spill 28 metric ton of emissions into the atmosphere. That ought to cloud things up.

   And, while fighter jets are just part of the problem, consider that the Department of Defense accounts for more than half of the federal government's carbon footprint. Consider that the Department of Defense emits more greenhouse gas into the air than do many small, industrialized nations.

  Let's find one more way to emphasize it: The U.S. military is arguably the world's single-worst polluter; it is the largest industrial consumer of petroleum.

  Even that said, though, this next tidbit of news is going to surprise you: Joe Biden is coming after all gasoline vehicles the military has. He wants them gone. He wants them off the battlefield. Come 2030, he wants the U.S. Military to implement an all-electric vehicle fleet.

  Of course, an all-electric vehicle fleet doesn't equate to knocking all the fuel-spewing fighter jets out of the sky. Fighter jets aren't vehicles (I wouldn't guess). But, more on jet pollution, just the same. "Aircraft are the largest greenhouse gas emitters within the operational emissions of the US military," says my Mother Jones magazine. (Yes, I got that from Mother Jones, a publication you all have warned me time and again not to use because it is too, too liberal.) We can't get it done by 2030, but we need to be looking to electrify the skies. Every fighter jet, and every bomber ought to come equipped with a battery pack at some point. How long it will be before we can do that? I don't know.  

  But, back to those land-hugging, not tree-hugging military vehicles, like the Humvee. Did you know the  Humvee gets but 4-8 miles per gallon? If you are suggesting an electric tactical vehicle wouldn't be able to stay close enough to a charging station, how about how often the Humvee has to head back to base for a tank of gas?

  Not that there aren't obstacles to converting the military to electric vehicles. China is the world's primary supplier of lithium. How does that work out for us. I mean, it a war, how does getting your lithium for your batteries work when it comes from one of your enemies? Guess we better either use domestic lithium, or be ready to switch to it. 

  There are advantages the Pentagon sees in hybrids. When the vehicle is running low on fuel, you can turn to the grid as a backup. When your fuel convoys are attacked, you can say, No problem, we'll just plug our little (or big, massive) eHumvee into the Internet. 

  And if -- supposing we do figure out how to electrify our fighter jets -- someone tries to tell you those eJets lack the thrust of their jet-fuel counterparts, tell them of all the 4.0 second (and faster) 0-60 electric cars there are in the business. Electric vehicles can be powerhouse vehicles.

  I don't know that we can do it by 2030, but I know a little effort towards the greening of the military could benefit Mother Earth.

(Index -- Climate change info)