If NFL Teams Had Integrity, They Team Would Take Kaep's Latest Offer

 When Aaron Rodgers went down, Colin Kaepernick notified the Jets he would be willing to join their practice squad.

  Get that? He didn't say, Bring me in to immediately replace Rogers, just give me a chance to prove myself on the practice squad. This guy believes in himself. He knows what he can do even if all the league's teams are blackballing him.

Kaepernick is a good enough talent that every team in the league should be jumping to add him to their practice squads. If not, they are sending a clear message that they are unwilling to treat him fairly.

Bring Prime Time Namath in to Sack Wilson

 

Let Joe Namath coach the New York Jets. He's pretty upset with quarterback Zach Wilson, who went down untouched for a sack in the Jets' 15-10 loss to the New England Patriots.

"You sit down?" Namath asked. "You sit down on a play? You go right down? What happened? I hought you're trying to win and make plays. You quit on a play? What is going on? It's disgusting."

Namath suggested coach Robert Saleh and general manager Joe Douglas should be fired. "These guys aren't picking the right players. They aren't doing a good job of coaching. . . . They need to fix it and that's getting rid of a lot of people and bringing new ones in."

Sounds like the way Deion Sanders went about fixing things at the University of Colorado. So, make Joe Namath the Deion Sanders of the New York Jets.

Here's guessing he wouldn't do well. The game has gone ahead of the 80-year-old Namath. Still, it would be fun to watch. New York City is the most prime-time city in America, and imagine the excitement that would be generated by bringing in a coach who would be just as fiery as Prime Time Sanders. 

Just How Do We Define 'Border Crisis'?

 The border crisis, is it a security crisis or a humanitarian crisis? Is it a crisis because we do not have enough immigration facilities and immigration courts to handle the number of people coming,or is it a crisis because we refuse to create enough immigration facilities and courts to handle the influx?

Is it a crisis because we don't have a good and length-of-the-border wall to prevent them from coming, or because we do have so many walls that it makes it difficult for them to come preventing?

Is it a crisis because we don't want these people and they are getting in, anyway, or is it a crisis because, while we want them, our policies hamper them from integrating into the U.S. timely and efficiently?

I know which side of the aisle most people are on. I know they say, if you don't have a border, you don't have a country. My reply is that if you don't allow freedom-seekers refuge in what is suppose to be a land of refuge, you are not the country our forefathers created.

The Hospital Bed Goes Completely Unnoticed

 

The hospital bed. Of all the world's issues and crises, it goes unnoticed, untouched. How many millions of patients enter our nursing centers only to be slapped into beds lacking adequate comfort? Worse, how many millions of the develop bed sores, sores that they take to their deaths? 

This is not a time to be cutting corners, saving a buck. Care centers should feel obligated to buy the best and most comfortable beds on the market for their patients.

'Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy'? How So?

 PragerU would tell you fossil fuels are wonderful, that they clean our water and lead us in the fight to overcome climate change. "Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Source of Energy." That's the title of one of their videos.

First off, a warning: PragerU has received much of its funding from the Wilks brothers (Dan and Farris), who made a lot of their money in the fracking business. There is a little conflict of interest in a company that has received so much money from the fossil fuel industry to be telling us that it is clean.

But, let's just listen to the video, and judge if it is correct. Let the video stand on its own. 

"Here's a graph you've probably never seen," says the PragerU host, as he unveils a graph showing the correlation of fossil fuel use and access to clean water. The graph takes us from 1990 to 2010, and shows that as the per person use of fossil fuels went up, so did access to clean water. "More fossil fuels, more clean water," says the narrator. 

Of course, he could just as easily made a graph showing that as fossil fuel use has increased, so has the world's population, and concluded that fossil fuel use is driving up the population. Correlation does not mean causation. Access to clean water is likely increasing because we are doing things to make it cleaner.

Or, he could have drawn up a graph showing that as we have used more fossil fuels, so has the percentage of the global population with clean sanitation also increased. Whoops, actually he did try that one. "More fossil fuels, better sanitation," he said. Somehow, it eludes him that the two might not be connected even though they are both increasing. Couldn't it be that we have greater sanitation because we are following better sanitation practices? Somehow, it seems those sanitation practices are going to factor in a lot greater than whether we have upped our use of fossil fuels.

"Okay, what about air quality?" he asks. "Here's a graph of the air quality trends in the United States." And, up goes a graph showing the downward trend of emissions in the U.S. from 1970 to 2010, "even as we used more fossil fuels than ever."  

I find that at odds with a statement from the Environmental Protection Agency: "Since 1970, CO2 emissions have increased by about 90%, with emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributing about 78% of the total greenhouse gas emissions increase from 1970 to 2011"

"Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy"? How so?

(Index -- Climate change info)

If You Want Work in a Lawyer's Office, Hone Your Green Skills

 You realize, of course, that every college student should be taught how they can help their profession become greener. Colleges haven't shifted that direction, but they need to.

I'm serious, here. Companies are starting to hire those who can help them become greener. It seems that since we need to rid ourselves of 50 percent of our carbon emissions by 2030 and shed all of them by 2050, that means every company will need to drain carbon emissions from what they are doing. Therefore, the employee who can help them reach that goal becomes more valuable.

One LinkedIn report found that the number of job listings requiring at least one green-related skill increased 22.4 percent from 2022 to 2023. I guess we should hop down to the nearest Job Service and see if we find any such postings.

(Index -- Climate change info)

If Paul Revere Were Alive Today, and Spanking His Horse to it's Fastest, Would He Say, 'Climate Change is Coming! Climate Change is Coming!"

"The British are coming! The British are coming!" he yelled. But this time, nobody was listening. "Okay," he said, "it's not the British, but it is climate change, and we should be mounting our horses to fight it."

He scurried and found a large, 8,500-page book. Opening it and pointing his finger at a spot on one page, he read to them. "Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2000 years."

They gave him a look of annoyance and waved him off. 

"Hey, he said. "it says right here that we are not meeting the Paris Agreement goal of cutting emissions. You know that don't you?"

"Well, there's your problem right there," they said. "That Paris Agreement is nothing but communist junk. Those guys are tied in with the United Nations, and you can't trust the United Nations. They just want to control the world, and dumb crumbs like you listen to them. 'The sky is falling! the sky is falling!' Yeah, right."

"No, I didn't say that. I said the British are coming! The British are coming!" he said. "And I only said that because this is serious, just like that was. Back in that day, they heeded warnings. But, I have to  wonder if today, they would just greet Paul Revere with, 'Yeah, right."

And, so it is, warnings don't mean what they used to.

Back in Paul Revere's day, they didn't have communists. Good thing, because if they did, he would have been accused of being a communist.

(Index -- Climate change info)

The Farmer can be Front of the Line in Fighting Climate Change

 We can never survive as a planet by despoiling the Earth. And, those in rural communities respect the Earth as much as anyone. They look to the cities and see the belching fumes and feel fortunate to be living in their cleaner, rural air. They visit the mountains and streams so close to them, and are grateful for their beauty and serenity. The farmer is, by nature, a lover of nature.

But, these same farmers and ranchers often do not realize how much climate change is impacting them. Poor agriculture practices cause soil erosion, which leads to a loss of nutrients in the soil, the nutrients being swept away into the rivers. 

Also an impact: When crops are raised where there are high carbon dioxide concentrations, they have fewer nutrients. So, the farmer provides a better product when carbon dioxide levels are reduced. Not to mention that the whole world would be eating better, since the food is more nutritious. 

Does tilling affect the environment? This centuries-old practice loosens the soil, aerates the soil, and kills weeds. But, the practice also has  harmful effects, drying the soil, removing  nutrients, and killing earthworms and useful microbes.

And, causing dust storms. The loosened soil dries and is blown away when the next wind comes. Some dust storms have been so severe as to blind drivers and bring traffic pileups and accidents. Dust storms have claimed the lives of hundreds during the past decade. Surprisingly, they have a death rate similar to that of hurricanes and wildfires. 

Enter no-till (or low-till) farming. Instead of tilling before planting, the farmer uses equipment to create a narrow channel where the seeds can be planted, thus minimizing how much the soil is disturbed. With lower erosion rates, no-till farming is a viable option for farmers. There will be situations where it is not practical, however, such as when the leaves of a crop are mowed, rendering it impossible to cut a small channel in which to plant the seeds. (Cover crop systems, though, do allow the channels to cut through the mulch, or whatever you want to call it.)

At a recent climate summit here in Utah, innovation was lauded as a key to fighting climate change. In addition to the things being done that are described above, another innovation is drip irrigation. As much as 40-50 percent of the water from a sprinkler system can be lost, some to wind, some to evaporation, and some to runoff. It will not always be that a farmer can use drip irrigation, as opposed to line sprinkling, but when it is possible, it can be a big benefit. As much as 70 percent of the world's fresh water is used to irrigate crops and water livestock. Why not try to save water, especially in a desert-type state such as Utah?

Drip systems, also called trickle irrigation, can use hoses with holes in them, or use tubing, or pipes. Sometimes the water drips directly above the root system, and other times the piping is underground. (Though underground systems would be rare in farming. They are more for lawns and gardening.) Thus, drip irrigation is more efficient than sprinkler or surface irrigation. Speaking again of innovation, finding ways to make drip irrigation more practical to farmers would be a great innovation to pursue.

Installing smart systems and rain sensors are other ways farmers can reduce their water usage. 

Agroforestry, cover crops, and permaculture, are among the many other agricultural practices that tie in with climate change. All we learn and all we do can make a difference. Since we have acknowledged that climate change is real, we should want to make our agricultural practices part of the solution. One of the world's greatest environmentalists, John D. Liu, at the climate summit in Utah, discussed how agriculture practices can bring huge change in ecosystems. Applying some of the practices described above would carry the spirit of what Liu has done around the world.

(Index -- Climate change info)

The Swarming Waters Will Swarm Their Homes

 You know those stories about how if the Arctic melts, the world's sea levels will rise? All wrong, all wrong. You can rest assured, it isn't going to happen.

See, when water freezes, it expands. So, when the Arctic melts, it is actually going to contract.

Okay, I'm lying. I'm deceiving you. Typical, typical. Yes, when ice melts, it does contract. True. But we have another couple things to consider. 

1.) Ice that floats above the level of the Arctic Sea is going to add volume to the sea when it melts. Some icebergs are very tall, say 75 meters. When that melts, that counts for a walloping increase in water. 

2.)  When water warms, it expands. So, its a matter of whether the warm and therefore expanded water will be greater than what the frozen and therefore expanded water was. 

Let's get back to the idea that when the icebergs come down, it means the world's sea levels will rise. Did you know that some people say, don't worry -- it's just the Earth passing through cycles it has endured before? Don't get your shirt sleeves twisted before you try slipping your arms in them.

Thing is -- even if that were true -- you've got to concede that people weren't living on the shores of Florida and New York back all those eons ago.  There weren't people, period. So, there wasn't anyone around to be impacted by the rising waters. 

Regardless whether you believe man-made emissions are causing icebergs to melt, they are melting. And, that means the water levels in Florida are going to rise by as much as six feet. Some house floors will be beneath the water level. Are you fine with that? No problemento? Somewhere between 250 million to 400 million people will be displaced. 

Right now, from the back of the crowd, I hear a guy yelling, "Do something! Do something!" He's right. See, if we increase our efforts to curb emissions, the sea might only rise two feet. That's a lot of difference, two feet versus six. Homes can be saved.

(Index -- Climate change info)

In a Distant Future -- Will the Arctic Sea Be Just Another Swimming Pool?

   Okay, the ice is melting in the Arctic Sea. How long will it take before it is all gone? Not in our lifetime, right?

   Actually, it could. In fact, the boys with their science hats on suggest it might even happen as early as the 2030s. You expect to be alive that long, don't you? Oh, the ice freezes in the winter and is lost in the summers, you understand. So, it would just be in the summers -- say each September -- that the waters would be snowless and iceless. 

  The amount of ice in the winter in the Arctic has deceased by a third over the past 20 years, and the rate of melting is accelerating. Greenland is projected to lose ice at a faster rate this century than it has in 12,000 years. 

   Have we reached the tipping point? Are the emissions packing our skyways already so great and do they linger so long that the melting is inevitable and irreversible. Apparently so. 

  Hey, I was beginning to look forward to vacationing on a beach somewhere in the Arctic. But then somebody reminded me there's no land mass under all that snow and ice, so I guess the party is off.  Oh well, maybe I will be able to go deep sea diving.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Float the Solar Panels, Especially Behind Hydro Dams

 Cover the lake with solar panels. Mandate that there not be a lake in all of the land that isn't topped with solar panels from shore to shore.

Okay, that's a little much. In truth, who knows how many lakes and reservoirs would be suitable for floating solar panels, certainly not many. And, in most every case, only a portion of the surface could be covered, due to such things as a desire to not kill algae.

But, put up floatingsolar panels wherever we can, especially behind existing hydro power plants, since the distribution system would not even need to be expanded. Projects on most lakes and reservoirs, though, would not be viable due to too little energy being generated to justify laying new distribution lines.

One wonders how much electricity could be generated if just one percent of the Great Salt Lake was covered with floating solar panels. Probably not much, but perhaps it would still be worth it if only a thousand homes were served.

We are told we are facing an energy crisis. If so, we should be scrambling to get every component of energy in place that makes sense. Floating solar makes sense, and it can make a little bit of a difference.

(Index -- Climate change info)

If Batteries Aren't the Answer, how about Pumped Storage?

If you relied solely on wind turbines, you'd be in trouble when the wind wasn't blowing. And, if you relied solely on solar energy, there would be no power at night.

My answer has always been: Haven't you heard? They've invented batteries. Store the energy in batteries for when the wind isn't blowing, and store the energy for when the sun is up, and everything will be all right.

Today, I found out I was wrong. The large-project batteries can only store energy for a limited amount of time, say, four hours. I did read of one grid battery operation in New York that is to store for up to eight hours, but that still isn't enough to meet our needs.

Enter what is called pumped storage. You pump water from a lower level to a higher level. The water stays there as long as you don't need more energy, and, when you do, you release it through the hydro power station, and, viola, you have the energy you need when solar power is lost to the night and wind power is lost to no wind.

I don't believe a single pumped storage plant has been built in more than 30 years. Why not? It may be that so many hydro power plants are facing decommission that it doesn't make sense to put new pumped storage facilities behind them.

We should save more hydro stations, and then build the pumped storage stations behind them. True, hydro cannot be the only thing in our energy mix, as in times of drought, you lose it. But it should remain a large component. 

And, what is called "floating solar," should also be placed behind the dams. But, that is a story for tomorrow.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Speaking of Climate Change, We Can Easily Turn This into a Cakewalk

Would you think we are doing better, or does this sound about right? About 84 percent of the world's energy comes from oil, natural gas, and coal. And, about 77 percent of the U.S.'s energy comes those three sources.

After all these years of screaming, "Climate change is coming! Climate change is coming! We must shed ourselves of coal, natural gas and oil!"

Now, go ahead and be amazed that we aren't doing better than this. Go ahead and point out the whole world could be powered by solar and wind, alone, if we were only to do it. But, the good part is, if we are doing that bad and can do that good, then, if we want, we should easily conquer climate change.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Oh, for a Party of Two

When a party of one throws a party
For a party of one
And no one else bothers to come
It's a party for a party of one

Dancing with myself
Passing rounds (of Kool-aid) around
From the right hand to the left
I party till the coming of the sun

When a party of one throws a party
For a party of one
And sets out all the hors d'oerves
And stands in line to get them

The line takes too long
And the party of one grows lonely
And he looks around for the woman
He wishes would have joined him 

(Index -- Poems for Amber, poetry)

We Make the Landlord Pay for the Criminal's Crime?

 My house was raided for drugs. The swat team came in, and said they had enough evidence that it was a meth house. The son of the renter downstairs was patted down and a pipe or somesuch was found in his groin area. He was caught red-handed -- and yet not arrested. The purpose of the raid was to find drugs, and they found them, but then they chose not to do anything about it? I do not understand

I know our prisons are full of drug addicts. I know the system just sets them free. But, if you are not going to arrest someone, what is the purpose of the raid?

I also know the swat teams are federally funded. I don't know if they have a quota on how many raids they need to justify maintaining their funding, but I wonder. At any rate, they come in and raid the place -- not sending anyone to jail -- but are able to count it as a raid. They can mark it up as another meth house being closed, and walk away saying they are tough on crime.

Or, are they tough just on the landlords? The drug addict skips nonchalantly down the street and into a new apartment, leaving the landlord to pay for all his damages. Is this fair? In America we do things this way? We call this justice? Our law enforcement should target the criminals, not their landlords.

In the end, it is I who have been convicted of being a criminal. And, I am not even allowed due process. I do not get my day in court. I am not allowed to argue my case. There is no trial before my place is closed for being a health hazard. I am evicted from my own home before test results even show it is infected.

And, is it infected? Is it a health hazard? I believe there has been some scientific studies indicating links to meth residue on the walls, but I don't believe any study has shown that meth residue on the walls is definitively a health hazard. None. Get on it if you are going to justify shutting my home down because it is a health hazard. You seize my belongings and evict me from my own home and demand that I pay exorbitant fees. I have my doubts that the danger is very serious at all. If you really believed it was a health hazard, wouldn't you advise all the occupants to head straight down to the hospital or at least have them make appointments with their doctors to determine how it might have affected their health? They say the threat is so immediate that they must have you leave the premises at once, and yet they don't require any one of those living there to get a medical evaluation.

I know we want to be tough on crime, but this is not the way to go about it. Penalize the law-abiding citizen and set the criminal free?

Regardless what rules and procedures have been put in place, and regardless whether it was the legislature or health department that created these rules, they do not supercede the Constitution. The Bill of Rights gives the right to be secure in your home. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It makes it illegal for a warrant to be issued without probable cause. A subsequent amendment promises due process. I have been denied each of those rights. I have a copy of the search warrant, and it does not say why they believe drugs were in my home. If there was probable cause, it is not cited, and the judge should have required it before shutting down my home. That's the Constitution telling the judge how to do it.

A copy of the evidence that was found is in poor handwriting and is vague. It does not specify which rooms the items were found in (It says, Rm 1, Rm, 2, and so forth, but I am left to guess which room is Rm 1, Rm2.) In about three cases, it simply says "Para," meaning paraphernalia, but it doesn't say what the paraphernalia was. The search warrant says cotton balls, razor blades, short straws, baggies, balloons, and twisties all count as "paraphernalia." Those are items found in any household and usually are not used for drugs. Yes, take them as evidence, but do not shut down my home on the pretense you found drug paraphernalia just because you found some cotton balls or balloons. And, if those balloons do not have traces of drugs on them, they should be ruled out as paraphernalia. Lidocaine is listed as one of the items found. There must be some tie-in there to illegal drugs, but I do wonder what. You are shutting my home down because you found some lidocaine?

I had to pay about $1,600 to have my place tested -- and more is yet ahead. Every room that was tested came back under the threshold except the HVAC system, and it was barely over. Requiring me to have the testing done and then using those results against me violates the Fifth Amendment. I have been compelled to testify against myself -- and to pay $1,600 in order to have that done. I am required to finance the collection of evidence used against me.

Let Us not Listen to the Deniers and Defeatists

"Renewable energy cannot save us," says a subhead in an article. I let it reverberate in my mind: "Renewable energy cannot save us. Renewable energy cannot save us. Renewable energy cannot save us."

Stop, I say! Are we a doomed society? Renewable energy cannot save us? Nothing can save us? Climate change will win and global warming is inevitable?

Throw-in-the-towel politics. "Renewable energy cannot save us," is the cry of the defeated.

Renewables can save us. There is no valid reason we cannot make the switch. The price is right. The technology is there. If we fail, it will because we wasted the opportunity, we blinked when climate deniers shouted, "Renewables cannot save us."

Let us not be defeatists. Let us not listen to the voices of defeat.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Those Who Go to War Should be Taught the Morals They Must Maintain

Those who go to war should be taught the morals of war.

There is a power that comes with going to war, the power to kill. And, it has long been said, with power, comes responsibility. Every parent that gives a match to a youngster, teaches the dangers of fire. Every teenager wanting to drive is first taught how to drive. We don't just let them hop in the car and tell them, "Go have an accident." Things of danger require training in how to handle them.

And, so should war.

It's a little like all the warning labels we place on everything from insecticides to cigarettes. Where there is danger something can be used wrongly, we post a warning.

Hey, shouldn't being issued a weapon and being told to go kill people come with similar warning?

Permission to kill someone, doesn't mean permission to kill anyone. There is a danger the soldier might take his right to kill so far as to kill the innocent. Scandal lies in this. Does anyone remember the My Lai Massacre? Does anyone remember the embarrassment of how we treated some prisoners during the Iraq War? That is not too far removed, is it? That may not have been murder, but, in addition to teaching not to kill  indiscriminately, soldiers should also be taught how to treat prisoners.

Nothing taught, nothing learned. So, teach them in boot camp, teach them in the National Guard, and teach them in the Naval Academy and in the Army Academy. Teach them when they are returning from leave, and teach them when they are deployed. Drive morality into their heads. In a world where death becomes common, teach them that it must never be common.

I once watched a video of American soldiers in a helicopters hovering over New Baghdad. They spotted some people on the streets, and thought they were carrying weapons. So, they shot 'em. They shot 'em dead. When they saw a van pull up minutes later to haul off the dead, they shot at the van, too. They shot what amounted to hearse drivers.

Yes, it should be part of the training of a soldier to learn that even though he has great power to harm, he or she should not use that power but within the limits given.

It's an Embarrassing Little Amount of Offshore Wind Power

"Offshore wind power is in the early stages of development in the United States" says an entry in Wikipedia.

Wait a minute, the first offshore wind farm powered up in 1991 in Denmark. That's more than 30 years ago. What do you mean offshore wind is in the early stages of development here in the U.S. The U.S. leads the world in everything, first man on the moon, first to use a nuclear weapon (whoops, that's not a good one), etc. 

But, no, we are not the world leader in wind power. Hardly. Not even. Denmark has run away with that title. 

And, what has happened in the U.S.? After all, it is said the nation has the capacity to produce - gulp - 10,800 gigawatts. Denmark would never hang with us if we were to produce that much. President Biden has set a goal of having a fraction of that -- just 30 gigawatts -- by 2030.

And, how much wind power to we have at the moment? An embarrassing - well and ahem - just 0.042 gigawatts of offshore wind power.  Aren't you ashamed of us? I am.

(Index -- Climate change info)

We Need to Build on Progress Started at Block Island, RI

 Offshore wind. It can be an important component in our 21st Century energy portfolio. Already, the Block Island wind farm has made Block Island, Rhode Island, the only U.S. community served solely by wind power.  Prior to the Block Island Wind Farm, the community relied on a diesel-powered plant to supply their energy.

They were accustomed to wiping soot off their windows, and enduring the annoying noise of the diesel generators until Block Island Wind Farm came along.

It became the first offshore wind farm in America.

Our nation needs to step up its efforts for offshore wind projects. "Offshore wind energy generation stands to be one of the best tools in the clean energy transition, moving the United States away from carbon-intensive energy generation and toward a cleaner, safer future," says an article from American Progress. 

(index -- Climate change info)

The Thumper Rule Doesn't Apply to Donald Trump

 I once had the attitude that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. Thumper's parents taught him that. The Thumper Rule, then. Oh, I realized that there are times when critizing is justified -- even necessary.

So, I took my next tip from marriage counselors. I've never seen one -- never got married -- but, I understand they ask the partners to list some nice things about their spouses.

Did I tell you that this is all leading to Donald Trump. Yes, a long time ago, I castigated him in many of my posts, so figured the only decent thing to do was to try to match the negatives with positives. So, I wrote a few posts lauding him for some of the things he was doing.

Well, enough of that. 

Donald is one of the greatest threats to America. I do not want to say one word that might give someone justification for voting for him. Yes, everyone has a good side, even Donald Trump. But, he's got enough fans without me giving anyone the impression I might think he's okay. His fan base needs to be diminished, not increased. Never has a person run for president who was more dangerous to our nation.