Test Drives Were Never This Electric

   The trick to getting people into electric cars is to get them to try them. Electrics are superior. They are much better than gasoline vehicles. 
   So, if this is true, all we need to do is get everyone to try out an electric. Test drive, test drive.
   A national campaign stirring people up to get in and try out the electric? That sounds like a capital good idea. Flood the media and internet with a promo that exclaims, "Try it! You'll like it!" Nothing sells without good advertising, so promos, promos, promos.
   When you have the better product, proclaim it.
   How far the dealerships go with the test drives would be up to them, but encourage them to provide those coming in for the test drives with a list of charging stations in town, so they can run out and see that recharging doesn't have to be a problem. Maybe even let them take a home-charger home so they can take the car home and see how convenient it is to charge it.
   "Test drives were never this electric!" another promo could proclaim.
   You've got to sell your product if you are going to sell it, meaning you've got to make all the sales points if you are going to make the sale.
   And nothing would be so convincing as a test drive.

(Index -- Climate change info)

We Should Listen to Merriam-Webster, after All

    One senator -- that would be Mike Lee out of Utah -- suggests Donald Trump should not be excluded from the ballot due to insurrection because, well, none of the defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol were convicted of insurrection.
   Seditious conspiracy, yes, but not insurrection. We will wonder, though, but what they aren't basically the same thing.
   Those who do not like Trump being removed from the ballot also note that Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection. How can you remove him from the ballot until the legal system finds him guilty? Due process, you know. 
    The simple answer to that is that it is the courts who are disbarring him. It is the state supreme court that disbarred him in Colorado, and the disbarment in Maine will not take effect unless and until the state court determines he is guilty. That is due process. That is the courts determining guilt. 
   But wait, the U.S. Code spells the crime out this way: "Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
   Has Trump been convicted in that fashion? Does he have 10 years coming? No. Will he be convicted in that fashion in Maine or Colorado? No. But, perhaps he and the rioters should have been charged with insurrection or rebellion.  The reason they weren't probably is because it is hard to get a conviction for insurrection. You basically have to prove intent to try to frustrate or subvert the government. "Intent" can be a difficult word to prove. The defendants would say they were just protesting a farce election, that's all. 
   So, they were marched off to jail on lesser charges: entering a restricted area, impeding an official proceeding, etc.
    Dictionaries don't convict. At least not usually. Merriam-Webster defines insurrection as, "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." 
   If you are thinking this leaves Trump off the hook, you are wrong. The U.S. Constitution says anyone who has taken an oath of office to defend the U.S. and then engages in insurrection -- and it uses that word without defining it -- cannot be an officer of the United States. If the Constitution does not define what insurrection is, that leaves it to the dictionary to do so. Merriam-Webster gets a voice in the matter, after all.
   And, here's an additonal thought: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the defendants of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. There is no reason to bar them from holding office, and that is what the amendment is all about.
   But, Trump? Yes, it applies to him. And since the Fourteenth Amendment is a separate law from what is in the U.S. Code, it does not need to answer to the U.S. Code. It is a higher law and not subject to it. Trump does not need to be charged or convicted of a violation of the U.S. penal code. No, he can be guilty of violating the U.S. Constitution. That is quite enough.
    He needs to answer to the Constitution, and stop trying to shift the issue to the U.S. Code. Federal laws cannot shield you from the Constitution. 
 

The Constitition Keeps Coming Up

  Trump wants to run for president, but the Constitution keeps coming  up.
  It's pretty plain, clear and specific: "No person shall . . . hold any office . . . having previously taken an oath . . . (who has) engaged in insurrection or rebellion."
   Today, an election officer in Maine called out the president on this disqualifying matter. She said he will not be allowed to run in the state's primary unless the state's supreme court rules otherwise. That makes Colorado and Maine states that have said no to Trump and his insurrection, no to him being on the ballot.
   And, it's not over. There are another 48 states and the District of Columbia left. Yes, he just wants to run  for president, but how many times is this obstacle going to come up? How many times is this language in Constitution going to triffle with him?
    You can almost hear the election officials saying, "Mr. Trump, I know you want on our ballot, but we've got this little matter called the Constitution, Sorry, but it says no."

 

The Butcher of the Amazon is None Other than Man Himself

    It is said that we don't need to worry about climate change because the earth takes care of itself. Mother Nature fixes all problems, or so the theory goes. 
   Well, back in March, a study from Ohio State University showed the forest-growing season has inceased by a month since the turn of the 20th Century. You got it: As global warming set in, the warming increased the time span from budburst to peak leaf. More trees are on the way, and that means more carbon dioxide being sucked out of the air.  
   But, no, this does not mean we do not need to worry about global warming. It does not mean we can just turn things over to Mother Nature and she will lift us out of our troubles. The harmful effects of global warming are not going to wait the thousands of years it would take for the additional trees to eat up the CO2 we have injected into the air. Plus, consider that with global warming has come more forest fires.
   Up with the trees, down with the trees.
   Man had better do all he can to get us out of this mess. He got us into it, and it is  he who must get us out. Man is clearing out so many trees to make room for development that the world's tree coverage is decreasing.
   If trees were humans, would this be the world's largest genocide. And the butcher of the Amazon Rainforest is none other than man himself.  

(Index -- Climate change info)

Add Another Year-End List: This One for Mothers Who Die Giving Birth

   There are a lot of year-end lists. I would propose one more: a list honoring all the mothers who died while giving birth to a child.  
   No less than 861 mothers died in 2020, which is the most-recent year I am finding. That is 17-18 per state, so it becomes workable to print short statements honoring each.
   Mothers are one of the greatest treasures society has. When we lose them, it is right to morn. When they give their lives attempting to give life to others,  it is a noble tragedy. Let us bless their memory.

AI Could Help Stop Retail Theft

    We could catch a lot of those store thieves who use our cards. A data system -- what we need is a data system.
    Many stores -- I know Walmart does -- have video cameras filming the cashier aisles. You tell the security officer the date and time, and he can produce a video of the transaction and give it to the police.
    The police could help us here, if they were just to use AI. Then, matches could be made with other fraudulent transactions in the state, whether at banks or at other stores. Even a list of possible matching driver's licenses could be generated.
    Currently, the police do little. If you are lucky, they will go pick up the video and put it in the case file, but it rarely goes further than that. The case is closed. This should not be. We could catch many of these criminals. 

This Christmas, Bless the Peacemakers

 Christmas is a tough time for peacekeepers. Like the line from the song says,  "'There is no peace on earth,' I said."
  From Ukraine to Israel, war rages. 
  But, If we cannot stop war, we should stop long enough this Christmas Day to thank those who are the peacekeepers, those who negotiate for peace, those who free the prisoners and hostages, and those who provide humanitarian assistance.
   Henry Wadsworth Longfellow concluded his poem with hope. 
     "Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
     "God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
      "The Wrong shall fail,
      "The Right prevail,
      "With peace on earth, good-will to men."

Place Gay History in the History Books

   Despite all the backlash against the discrimination of Blacks and Native Americans being in history books, we need to go one step further: Place the history of the LGBTQ community in American history books. Give it a chapter.
   You do not need to approve of the lifestyle to appreciate that gays have been persecuted. The history of America is much an account of a search for human rights, and a search for equality. LGBTQ rights are part of that. 
   Include in the history books an account of how this affected religions. Religions should not be forced to accept gay marriages. They should be allowed to believe as they choose to believe, and if they believe gay relations are wrong, that should be there right. Put the story of their struggling for this right also in the history books.
   The efforts of female athletes to compete just against those of their birth gender also belongs in the history books. 

In not Allowing Diversity, We Play to Socialism

   "California town proposes ban on Pride, Black and women's history celebrations," says a headline.
If I'm reading them right, this is their logic: We are all Americans. We are not Blacks and Jews and Mexicans, but Americans. Separating us out only leads to division; If you allow Pride, Black, and women's celebrations, it will will be divisive. We are not Jews, and Blacks, and Mexicans; we are Americans. There is no room for individuality; you are only part of the whole. 
   My view is different. I would suggest when you celebrate the part, you celebrate the whole. The individual parts impart flavor and richness and make the whole more of a treasure.
   I think of a dance troupe, and how the group stops dancing to watch just a single dancer step forward and perform. Or, of a choir, which allows one of its members to sing a solo part. 
   What are we seeking? A homogenized society? I cannot help but notice the likeness to a socialistic society, where it is suggested the individual must not have his or her own possessions, but everything must be had in common. The individual must serve for the greater good of the whole. He or she must give up personal rights for the benefit of the greater society. 
   In opposing celebrations of women's rights, and African-American rights, are we suggesting women and African-Americans have no right to tell their stories? We would deny them those rights? This is an error, for the rights of humankind include the right to speak of the wrongs that have been committed.
   Or, are we just saying that to point out how they have been discriminated against only creates animosity? Is that what we are suggesting is divisive? Are we saying it only makes White males look bad, and that will only stir up divisions and hatred? Not allowing someone to recount their history is a form of discrimination, in and of itself. If history books can speak of how England violated the rights of the colonists, they can also speak of how the rights of the American Natives were violated.
   What is meant only to be inclusive, need not be seen as divisive. We would but to celebrate the different members of our society -- welcome them and let them tell their stories -- but there are those that reply that those stories are not welcome here.
   "Here" being America, they should be.

Climate Change: Do We Toot Our Own Horn too Loudly?

 The U.S. leads the world in reducing pollution. We are doing our share. It's the other countries that are dropping the ball. We produce the cleanest gasoline on earth. We cause the least pollution when we mine. We lead the world, we lead the world, we lead the world . . .

That is what many of our leaders are telling us. But is it so. Are we really so perfect as that? Or do we toot our own horn a little too loudly? Maybe even much too loudly?

Yes, it is true that we don't even produce half the pollution that China does, but China has a billion more people. If you break it down per capita, our CO2 emissions are twice those of China -- twice, 15.32 tons per capita to 7.44 for China. 

How good are we doing now?

Which country has banned the sale of new ICE vehicles for 2025? That would be Norway. In the U.S., the sale of ICE vehicles is still on an upward climb.

Which country ia most nearly converted to nuclear energy? The U.S. is respectable, getting 18.2 percent of its energy from nuclear. But a number of countries are way, way ahed, the list topped by Ukraine at 55 percent, Slovakia at 59.2 percent, and France at 62.6 percent.

Wind power? It accounts for 56 percent of Denmark's energy, 40 percent of Uruguay's, and 36 percent of Lithuania's. The U.S.? A comparatively feable 10 percent. 

Only 3.9 percent of the U.S. energy portfolio comes from solar; a whopping 40 percent comes from natural gas.

The U.S. always tries to be number 1. When it comes to producing green energy, however, we are failing. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

What the Constitution Says, It Says

Our governor, Spencer Cox, says he believes Trump should be allowed on the Colorado ballot. His reasoning is that when it is a close call -- things to be said on both sides of the issue -- you should let the voters decide. 

That's a nice sentiment, but I wonder if there is not a more thoughtful criteria.

The Constitution says, "No person . . .  having previously taken an oath . . .  shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion." That's it, then. We either follow the Constitution or we don't. 

The analysts are saying the Colorado court's ruling will popularize Trump, vindicating his claim that he is being persecuted. True, true. It stirs up his supporters. It becomes a rallying point for further rebellion. Still, what the Constitution says, it says.

Some congressional leaders are suggesting passing a law to reinstate him on the ballot. Congressional laws cannot override the Constitution. 

In the end, Trump will be on the ballot. The Supreme Court, being mostly Republican, will step in and change the lower court's decision. 

 

An Inglorious Moment

    More oil is being produced by the United States than by any country at any time in history.
   Congratulations to the Biden administration. The 13.3 billion barrels a day for the final quarter of the year is just better than the previous record of 13.1 billion barrels produced during the Trump administration.
   I say congratulations, but I do not mean it. The Biden administration has done much to lay claim as the Green administration. But, now this.
  An inglorious moment.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Our Nation's Leader Calls Out Trump on His Un-American Comment

   Ah, we've got a responder. Just a couple days after Donald Trump said immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country," one of our nation's leaders has called him out for it.
   Fascist, white supremist rhetoric, the White House called it.
  "Echoing the grotesque rhetoric of fascists and violent white supremacists and threatening to oppress those who disagree with the government are dangerous attacks on the dignity and rights of all Americans, on our democracy, and on public safety," White House spokesman Andrew Bates said.
   The White House could have expressed itself with a greater gift of outrage. For as awful of a comment as Trump made, pure outrage was and is warranted.
   No matter, at least one of our nation's leaders has finally stood up against the Trump comment. When a leading candidate for president calls for ethnic cleansing, and our leaders give it no notice, shrug it off, we should be concerned. 

We Wait for the Backlash

    Lost in a sea of other comments is Trump's comment that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country." While we wait to see if America's leaders will take umbrage to the new and distastful comment, we wonder if they are just so used to him saying disgusting things that they are beyond shock. They see no need to call him out on this because they've already called him out on everything else.
   Not so. His new comment is so egregious that it deserves its own backlash, and it should be a massive backlash. 
   Ethnic cleansing -- that is when you call for the removal of an ethnic group. 
   Governors, senators, representatives, and the current president should all be recoiling. The calls should be coming from both sides of the aisle. Being a patriot demands it. When the fabric and freedom and future of your nation are at risk, you have a patriot's obligation to call out such a comment. Trump's comment is so set against all that America stands for that, yes, the shock should reverberate. You stand up for America's values when you are an American. Are we doing that?

Unfathonable that Trump Would Say Such a Thing

   When a candidate speaks like this, how can voters not abandon him? 
   Undocumented immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country," Donald Trump proclaimed Saturday. He's not talking of them being terrorists or rapists. No, he is suggesting that they will intermingle with the rest of us, and their blood will poison the blood of our nation.
   Almost unfathonable that he would say such a thing. And, it should be unfathonable that voters would not rush to drop him like a hot coal. But his followers will continue to follow. We will wait and see, but his campaign will probably not experience so much as hiccup.
   

For the Good of Your Health, Tax Plastics

   There was a day, you know, when everything was packaged in paper or bottles, not plastic. Bring back that day -- or try to bring it back -- by taxing producers who package their items in plastic.
    Plastic: It clogs our oceans, and sea life chokes on it. As plastic degrades, small particles are released -- some in the water and some in the air. The effects on human life have not been fully studied, but we know they can get into the organs, damaging them.
   So tax them. Tax plastics. If a bottle of milk or a bottle of Coke was once the way it was done, make it so again. Can you imagine how much plastic would be eliminated if everything from syrup to hot sauce was packaged in bottles?
   The harms of plastic are clear. Why we do not legislate against it, I do not understand. 

(

The Spirit of Christmas is This

   If you believe in what Christmas is all about, don't get upset when someone says, "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Don't lecture them on how we need to put Christ back in Christmas.
  No, let Christmas be a time that unites humanity, not divides.
  Peace on Earth? Goodwill to men? A love of all? There is little of those things in scolding others for not believing as you do. If you choose to bicker, you don't choose the spirit of Christmas, for the spirit of Christmas is not the insistence that others believe as you do, it is the allowance that they may believe differently.  

i

If News Stories Can't Find Them as Terrorists, Why Insist They Are?

   As a reader, I wonder, why do not the news stories of the migrants pouring across our borders tell of the drugs that are found on them? 
   There are a lot of reasons that people oppose allowing the migrants into the United States: They are drug traffickers, they are terrorists, they are rapists, etc. Let's stop and think: Most of them cross into America with the border guards watching, allowing the guards to take them in so they can apply for asylum. I just wonder why story-after-story-after doesn't say: Of the migrants who arrived today, this much fentanyl and this much methamphetamine, and this much cocaine was found on them.
   Why? 
   You know that if the drugs are found on them, the border agents will not go without reporting it. It isn't going to happen. So why don't we hear of these reports? Why? Could it be because the drugs coming into the United States are finding entrance in other ways and not on the backs of the asylum seekers?
   Terrorists and rapists? Yes, the good number of the immigrants are allowed to continue into America to await full trial. Yes, but before they are, they are checked in by the border agents. There is a process. Do they simply take names and that's it -- they are allowed in with no more checking than that? I am a news reader. The stories are not so clear. But I do wonder why, if more checking is not done at that point, why it isn't. Why can't you vet them right at that point, screening out the terrorists and rapists right at the border? It doesn't make sense to me to just let them pass and say, We'll do that later.
    And once they get to those immigrant courts in Chicago, Atlanta, Salt Lake City, and so many other cities -- if there are the places they are vetted -- why don't we read stories of how many were revealed to be possible terrorists? Why don't we read about how many of them had criminal records in the countries they were coming from?
   Well, why?
   You don't like these people flowing freely into America. You've made that very clear. You suggest they are drug traffickers, terrorists and rapists. I'm not so sure they are. To me it seems a ruse, an excuse for not letting them in. If these are just people coming to work, coming to join family, and coming to be part of the American dream, why refuse them?
   Read the news stories. If the news stories are unable to report they are drug traffickers, terrorists and rapists, shouldn't you be a little wary of whether those accusations are true?

For all the Study We've Done, We've not Done Study Enough

    Diets, we haven't studied them enough -- weight loss, that is. For all the myriad of programs, devices and studies, study has not been study enough. 
   Here's one angle I want further searched: Is hunger the product of not eating enough to maintain the weight you have? That might seem an easy enough question to answer, but let's have further study, the same. Let's research how holding back on eating creates a need to splurge on eating -- on how it creates an insatiability.
   And how do you overcome such a hungering? If hunger is eating less food than what you need to maintain your weight, how are you ever supposed to lose weight? It has been said time and again that a starvation diet sooner or later ends with the person putting the weight right back on. Can we study that -- more? What percentage of time does it happen, and -- if there are times when it doesn't -- what makes the difference? Study attitudes. Study what the person tells themselves and whether they feel they are putting themselves through the wringer or whether there are some who teach themselves it is fun to go without food.
   Yes, a good study of losing weight is going to take a deep look at all the actors and factors: too much starch, not getting enough fiber, what and how much is eaten when you first get up and whether you eat just before going to bed, genetics, exercise, sleep, whether you abandon sugar or how much sugar you allow yourself, peer pressure, weight-shaming, etc.  
These are questions you say have already been answered. I say they need more study. For all the study we've done, we've not done study enough. And with all the study we do, study the attitudes and persistence of those who have overcome.

 

Biden is Dramatically Upping Our Game

    The things the Biden administration just did to address climate change are of no small significance. Look at the commitments at the recent international meeting on climate conference, the COP28 meeting held in Dubai.
   1.) No more new coal plants. We are done building them. And the existing ones? We are going to put a nice set of new restrictions on them.
  Coal plants spew billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, accounting for an estimate 26 percent of global emissions. If we can end the coal-plant reign, it will go a long way toward freeing the world from greenhouse emissions. 
   2.) We will impose sharp new restrictions on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
   These moves by the Biden administration are drawing an angered response from many. "Eliminating methane is a de facto ban on natural-gas power plants," says a New York Post article. The article goes on to note that 40 percent of the nation's energy comes from natural gas. It says another 20 percent comes from coal-powered plants. Together, that is 60 percent of America's energy that is being swept away. The Post warns the Biden administration mandates "might just destroy the 21st-century American industrial economy as we know it."
   "Eradicating coal and natural gas plants will ravage America's electric-power capacity," the Post warns "These regulations will cause rolling blackouts and brownouts across the country."
   While the Post might be joining Chicken Little in a the-sky-is-falling mentality, things are not so dire. Although the Post suggests that wind and solar are not as dependable, a mix of wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear (and perhaps some others) can reliably replace fossil fuels. Why does the Post say otherwise? Well, for one thing, the author of the article is an official at the Heritage Foundation, which has been funded by ExxonMobil. What do we expect the oil industry to say?
   These moves by the Biden administration are significant, and they come at a time experts on climate change are warning that we must dramatically up our game if we are to avoid severe climate-change damages. But the Biden administration efforts will be swept away with the stroke of a pen if Trump gets back in the White House. And other Republican candidates are sure to do the same if they are elected. It becomes imperative that Biden is reelected. His line-in-the-sand approach to climate change is vital. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

Free the Gazans

    How is this happening? The Gazans, desperate for some place to escape to, have no where to go. They are surrounded by Arab nations, yet none of those nations are offering to take them in. Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (and others)  should be saying, Hey, come live with us. We like you. We're your friends.
   There is no good reason the Gazans cannot be taken in by one of these countries. 
   Maybe the West Bank could even take them in, if Israel would leave the West Bank alone.
   International pressure should be raining down on Egypt and other countries, clamoring nonstop for the neighboring Arab nations to accept their own. International pressure is vital. We should shame these nations for not accepting their own. Shame them into taking in the Gazans.
   And, if Israel is concerned about Hamas soldiers sneaking in among the Gazan citizens, let them interview and vet them. Fair enough?

Cheney Personifies the Patriot

    When history sweeps its eyes backward to our day, considering who our greatest patriots were, perhaps no name shall so illuminate as that of Liz Cheney. In a day when our freedom was challenged, when the forces of dictatorship had somehow crept up in the very land of liberty, it has been Cheney, as much as any, who has boldly called them out, sacrificing her political career for the ideal that was -- and hopefully will remain -- America.

Cheney-Hutchinson Could be a Sizzling-Hot Ticket

 They are both women. They both have memoirs out blasting Donald Trump.  And, with Liz Cheney already indicating she might make a presidential run, Cassidy Hutchinson should join her on the ticket.
Cheney-Hutchinson. 
 Has there ever been a presidential ticket featuring two women? Obviously there hasn't been from the two major parties, but how about any such ticket at all?
  OK, it is not such a rarity in spite of what you might think; it has happened at least 20 times since Belva Ann Lockwood and Marietta Stow joined up on the Equal Rights Party in 1884. 
  But Cheney-Hutchinson would probably have more firepower than any such ticket yet -- by far. It would have the potential of almost being a viable ticket, capable of actually winning the White House. A long stretch, but still possible.
   So, let former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson join former Congresswoman Liz Cheney on what just might be a sizzling-hot ticket. 

Hold Mike Johnson Responsible for Obstruction of Justice

Isn't this obstruction of justice? House Speaker Mike Johnson says footage from the Jan. 6 attack will be blurred to protect the rioters from being charged with crimes. 

You will say, Wait, wait, wait. It isn't that Republicans want to protect the participants from legal action -- the DOJ already has access to the unblurred images -- it just wants to protect the participants from retaliation from the radical liberal left.

Really? we must ask. Online sleuths have already been extremely helpful in identifying Jan. 6 participants, using footage they have been able to access to identify the rioters. That information has been turned over to the DOJ to help with the prosecution. Don't throw a ruse at us by supposing you only want to protect the rioters from return violence. Your deceit as to what you are trying to protect is clear.

Obstruction of justice includes influencing, impeding, and interfering with the wheels of justice. Mike Johnson might want to throw a wrench into the justice system, but he is legally and morally wrong for doing so.

If Biden Over Trump is the Choice, We Must Choose Biden

    Joe Biden is not as dire of a prospect as many would have you believe. But those who favor Trump -- realizing how dark of a person he is -- try to paint Biden as even darker. 
   Painters who only use black paint cannot paint a bright America, especially if they are painting over the truth with their charcoal coating. Biden is not as flawed and worthless as all that -- he is not so dark -- and he certainly is not so bad that Trump should be considered as a viable option.
  "(Donald Trump) is an acceptable alternative. He is not the lesser of two evils; he is completely unfit for office," Liz Cheney says.
   And she is right. 
   If Trump is the only other stallion in the stable, don't make the mistake of trotting him out. If he wins the race, the race is lost. America has always been a winning entry, but will collapse down the stretch if Trump is elected.

All Someone Looking for a Program Needs is a Little Help from Friends

   Promises, promises. There must be hundreds of weight-loss programs in the U.S., and they all promise to melt the flab right off your waistline. Now, you can put down $120 a shot on them to see if any of them work. We are desperate to lose our guts. We'll try everything and take a chance on just about anything.
   $59 here -- but, no, that one didn't work. $149 here -- but, no, that one didn't work, either. But, how about this one? It's only $99.95 and, like the others, it comes with a money-back guarantee. 

   Would someone please step in and help the guy who just wants to drop a little weight? He just needs someone to help him wind his way through the maze of programs. Which ones work and which ones don't?
   There are two ways of going about this:
   One, Create a federal agency to go in and evaluate the programs, reporting on which ones are effective and which ones aren't.
   Two, Create a website where consumers can report their experiences and discuss the products. To prevent the companies from overloading the results, list one testimonial for the program, and then one against it. When it gets to the point where just positive testimonials are left, print them all. By that time, the consumer will have already decided whether he or she is going to trust that program.

The Colors of Our Leaders are Showing at Our Southern Border

   Eagle Pass, Texas: Customs and Border Protection suspends traffic coming into the U.S. to free up agents to handle the high volume of migrants crossing the border.
   San Antonio, Texas: The Migrant Resource Center is flooded beyond capacity, with hundreds left to sleep in the parking lot. 
   Lukeville, Arizona: The surge of immigrants across a stretch of the border is so heavy that about 4,000 agents are required to deal with it.
   Incidents such as these highlight the failure of our processing of immigrants all across our southern border. There are so many seeking entry, the system cannot handle them. So, what should we do? Construct a steel barricade to prevent entry? Throw up barb wire fences in the middle of the Rio Grande? Those efforts do not address the humanitarian need to process the immigrants in an orderly fashion, to help them, to improve their living conditions as they arrive.
   Yes, there is a crisis at our border, but it is not the crisis of terrorists entering America. This is no invasion. Nor is it a crisis of drugs entering the U.S. That is a separate issue being carried out by a separate group of people. These are people coming with few drugs. These immigrants just want to live in the U.S., work in the U.S., and join family members in the U.S.  
   No, this is a humanitarian crisis. It is a test of America's resolve to care for a people. It is a test of whether America desires to help immigrants who are in need. I'd say we are failing the test. As they pour in, we heap upon them our contempt. Are these our true colors? Is this who America really is? Or is the showing of colors just a display of the colors of those who are running our nation?

Rich Homeowners Could Make a Real Difference in Climate Change

 A new and very meaningful form of philanthropy: The rich give up their expansive and expensive homes in the hills to live in small, simple homes next to the companies they own. They walk to work instead of driving.
A very Spartan existence, to them.
One of the causes of climate change is the amount of household goods in the homes of the rich. If you want all the niceties, you must manufacture them -- and that takes energy, which means more climate-changing emissions being poured into the atmosphere.
   Just so the rich can live a lavish lifestyle.
   Large homes also require more heating and air conditioning. Tell me that doesn't run up the energy bill and require greenhouse emissions. 
   If the rich were humble, if only they could live like commoners.
   If they could move into the cities, right next to their offices, if they could walk to work like commoners. 
   No drive, no pollution. Fancy cars left in their garages mean less pollution in the skies above.
   The rich could become philanthropists. They could make life easier for everyone else by making it harder for themselves. They could slice a nice-sized chunk out of the world of climate-changing emissions.   

(Index -- Climate change info)