Utah's Environmental Stewardship Caucus is Greenwashing Things

    The wheels of new energy are about to be knocked off by those who prefer covered wagons. Well, in Utah they are. As the legislative session ramps up, so do attempts to entrench the old transportation standards -- oil, gas and coal -- in our energy system.
   The old guard may have its day. Those who believe in fossil fuels are seizing power.
   They've organized the Environmental Stewardship Caucus. Now that's a name that would indicate they will be caretakers of earth and the skies above. 
   Not so. 
   They are armed by the fossil fuel industry. Check their campaign donor lists. Wonder who is behind them.
   Among legislation being proposed is a bill that would place fossil fuels at the top of the list when it comes to deciding which power sources we will use. As is now, the cost of the energy and the risks that that energy poses are the leading factors. Those with the Environmental Stewardship Caucus want to change that. They suggest the top priority should be whether the energy source is adequate, followed by, in order, whether the source is reliable, dispatchable, affordable, sustainable, secure, and clean.
   Notice how affordable (which solar and wind are) got moved down the pole. Right now, cost and risk are the top priorities. But on the list proposed by the Environmental Stewardship Caucus, cost/affordability drops to the middle of the equation -- and risk is dropped entirely. Risk being reference to the danger of greenhouse gases, the Environmental Stewardship is taking a stand against combating climate change.
   If you should say, No, that isn't true, clean is on the list, notice that clean is the very last item, the last priority. Clean is but an afterthought. 
   Risk? It could be argued that an energy source can be considered unclean without necessarily being considered a risk. If you don't believe in climate change, their is no risk posed by oil, gas, and coal; so why even have risk on the list?
   There is a word for what is going on in Utah. It's called "greenwashing." It's when an organization tries to fool the public into believing its aims and policies are environmentally friendly.
    Exhibit One: the Environmental Stewardship Caucus.  

(Index -- Climate change info)

May the Benefits of Jan. 6 Convictions Kick In

  Perhaps the benefits of the Jan. 6 convictions are kicking in. Three-hundred-seventy were convicted -- or have been so far. And, for every person convicted, that is one person who will be slower to be involved in an insurrection the next time.
  And, their friends who see them convicted will also be slower to insurrection.
Our Texas border is shaping up as possibly the next event. Texas is one of the most susceptible state's in the union. It has a large collection of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. It has leaders who rattle their sabers against the federal government. It even has a movement to secede from the union. 
  But, we can hope the memory of the convictions dampens their interest in rebellion. Punishments are meant to be a deterrent to crime.
  And we can hope.

 An easy past will reap but a hard future, but the scars of today will heal tomorrow.

Too Many are Siding with the Insurrectionists

 "Is the Constitution a suicide pact?" I believe that is the way Glenn Beck put it, arguing that the flood of migrants across the border is killing us. 
And so it is that Beck and the rest of the nation are considering the Supreme Court's temporary injunction prohibiting Texas from stopping federal agents when the federal agents attempt to cut through wire fences.
  And, of course, we read how Texas officials vow to continue controlling their borders, anyway, even if border control is a matter the Constitution allots to the federal government. And, of course, that is where Beck's quote comes in. "Is the Constitution a suicide pact."
  Make no mistake, I do not agree with Beck's suggestion. In fact, it frightens me. Roll it together with all else that is being said, and being done, and you have more than a constitutional crisis.
   You have the makings of a rebellion, an insurrection that will make Jan. 6 look like child's play.
  No, I do not guess it will come to that, but "guess" is the operative word. We didn't anticipate the insurrection at our nation's capital, either, did we.
  Words that foment an insurrection should concern us. When governors ban together, declaring solidarity with Texas, that should concern us. We can sit in our comfortable houses, supposing a literal civil war is not at all a possibility.
  But, look at yourself and ask, Do you believe Texas is within its rights in standing up to the federal government? Perhaps the good share of Americans do. With this many people justifying an uprising, hold on tight.
   I will only say I am not an insurrectionist. I would not have stood with those who attacked the Capitol, and I will not stand with those who would attack our nation's security forces. 

Words of the Constitution Suggest Nitrogen Gas Executions are Cruel

   Alabama executed convicted murderer Kenneth Eugene Smith using nitrogen gas -- and that was illegal.
   At least, it so seems to be after a quick check with the Constitution.
   Speak to us, Constitution; what do you have to say?
   Cruel and unusual punishments are taboo, comes the answer. If you take my word on it -- and I am the Constitution, so there's that -- cruel punishments are not allowed.
   Which brings up the question: Is execution by nitrogen gas cruel?
   Answer: You can execute someone without causing them undue pain. Causing them pain is not going to change them, not going to cause them to repent of their ways. It is not going to bring any more justice to the situation, not going to satisfy justice any more than a more humane form of execution.
   The only thing it is going to satisfy is your passion for cruelty. Causing pain is not necessary. If we cause pain just to be causing pain, that is cruelty.
   And the Constitution tells us we shouldn't do that. It's words are clear.
   

It Depends on Who You Listen To

 

Comes a question  on Quora: Why was 2023 the hottest year on record.
Answer: Was it? It depends on who you listen to . . . kind of.
Let’s say you listen to NASA. Yeah, they say it was, based on average surface temperatures. An administrator there says this “confirms what billions of people around the world experienced last year; we are facing a climate crisis.”
I wish he wouldn’t use that word, “climate crisis.” It makes it sound like all the heat last year was brought about by climate change.
But, back to who says 2023 was the hottest year on record. NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information seems to think it was. Then, there’s the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service. Add them to the list. They, too, were fooled into believing 2023 was the hottest. And, the UN, of course, buys into the lie. But, what do you expect from them? They are such a liberal organization. They are the mother of all evil, the tower of misinformation. We need to get rid of them.
Ah, but here’s someone who’s a little more authoritive. Let’s listen to what he has to say. “Stop this nonsense of believing the press that lies to you,” says former research scientist Paul Noel, writing on Quora. “It is actually solidly verifiable that it was not a ‘hot year.’ “ Noel then argues that it is water temperatures that determine hot/cold years and the oceans experienced one of their 10 COLDEST years on record.
Is Noel right? Hmm; here’s an article in the Guardian that says “Record levels of heat were taken up by the oceans in 2023. . . . It is likely the oceans are now at their hottest in 1000 years.”
Still, 2023 is not to be all shifted off on climate change. A natural occurance, El Nino, was perhaps a bigger factor.

(Index -- Climate change info)

He Will not Make America Great; He will Only Make It his Own

   You can rationalize your support for Trump, but you cannot justify it. I wonder if I would ever tell someone that to their face. Perhaps not, but here comes the printed version. I'll try to be delicate. I'll try to be fair.
   But listen; please listen.
   Those 91 indictments, the sexual assault case by E. Jean Carroll, the insurrection at the White House, the two times he was impeached while in office, the threat of being a dictator, the time he said the Constitution should be set aside, the time he said immigrants are poisoning the blood of our nation.
   And, the time he suggested he could kill someone in broad daylight and you would still follow him.
   Please listen, please.
   How can you support such a person? Yes, I know your answer. They are lies concocted by the Democrats, by Biden -- and it is Biden we should fear. Biden has messed up the economy and saddled us  with inflation, and opened up the border to migrants. It is Biden who is corrupt, him and his son. 
   So goes the rebuttle. But, just concentrate on Trump, just account for him.
  Go back and read the list of reasons not to support Trump. Believe them. You only fool yourself if you don't. You can suppose there are reasons for going along with the crowd on this one. You can turn a blind eye in order to not be out of line with your family and friends. You can say you are a Republican and that's all there is to it. 
   But, truth is truth, and the only way to bury it is to cover it with lies. Okay, I said I'd try to be delicate, and that isn't too delicate. But, what is delicate is the preservation of our nation.
   Yes, I must beg. I beg you, I do. For the sake of America, don't believe Trump's lies. Look at his lack of character. Do not march behind this man. He will not make America great again, he will only make America his own. Don't let him own you, and don't let him own our country.  

Were Our Education Leaders Afraid to Speak Out?

 

It was quiet time in the state senate today. At least two higher-education presidents, one from Weber State and the other from Salt Lake Community College, kept their lips zipped in a meeting where diversity programs at Utah colleges were discussed. They were there, but they did not speak.

Utah's commissioner for higher education, Geoff Landward, was a little braver. He measured his words, hopeful he was not speaking out of turn, but worried that the proposed law "inhibits our mission of increasing access and increasing completion" rates for students.

Tuesday's meeting was not the first occasion in which our higher-education leaders have been silent. None of the leaders of the state's colleges and universities have publicly given their opinions on diversity, equity and inclusion since those policies have come under attack from Utah's leaders, including from and perhaps particularly from the governor. 

Why? Perhaps we should ask them. But there is this little matter of how the state frowns on teachers and education leaders expressing their opinions on what are considered political matters. Classrooms are not the place for politics, goes the argument.

Are our education leaders intimidated by the pressure to stay clear of political issues? Is freedom of  speech being muffled? Of all people who should have been offering comment and input on the proposed legislation, our education leaders should have been the first. These are the people on the front line. They own the most experience on the matter. They are your experts. Seeing the education leaders in the audience, those on the Senate Education Committee should have invited them to speak, telling them to speak freely.

Listen to your experts, instead of silencing them. Freedom of speech is not just for politicians, but for educators, as well. How can you teach freedom if you do not have it? 

The Convenience of a Lie

    Ah, the convenience of a lie. If you want to justify something, befriend the lie. Tell yourself -- persuade yourself -- that what you are doing is right. Convince yourself there is reason for your wrongdoing. That is easy. That is convenient.
   Crimes are sometimes committed by those who blatantly know they are doing wrong. Then, there are those who fool themselves, lie to themselves, and justify themselves. That is the convenience of a lie. Convince yourself you have reason to commit a crime, or to harm others, and your lie will see you through.

Babes in the Learning Process When it Comes to Plastics

 The world has hardly begun to understand what to do with plastics. Since its invention in the 19th Century, plastic has spread like a disease, used in everything from water bottles to cigarette filters. Each year, 430 million tons of plastic are churned out. We bury it, we recycle it, and it escapes into the sea.
   And, some of it is buried in the cells of  your lungs. Nanoplastics, they call them, particles so small that human hair is about 80 times wider. Take a liter of bottled water: there will be about a quarter of a million particles of nanoplastic in it. Drink up, and let your lungs soak them up.
   We have hardly studied the damage they do to human organs.
   We do know that some plastics can decompose in as little as 450 years. Want to wait around? 
   But, perhaps the most shocking thing is that the recycling process might release nanoplastics. Whether you grind the plastic or decompose it with the use of chemicals, what do we know about how many nanoplastics particulates are released into the air? 
    One begins to wonder: Are we better off placing plastics in the regular garbage can than in recycler containers? Or is it half a dozen of one and six of another? Science, step in. Not enough studies have been done. We are babes in the learning process when it comes to plastics.

(Index -- Climate change info) 

Fools not to Look at the Rising Waters

    Speak of global warming and the rising sea level, if you will. Remind us that a UN projection suggests waters will rise but one foot by the end of this century.

   But, when you've managed to wrap your head around that, pause to wonder that if instead of it being outlandish, that estimate might be way too conservative. Consider two large glaciers in the Antarctica, Pine Island and Thwaites. If that glacial area were to collapse and melt -- as it is in danger of doing -- the world's sea level would rise by 4 feet.
   That is in the Antarctica. But, consider that it is in the Arctic where temperatures are rising faster -- four times faster -- than any place on earth.
   Then, turn to the other end of the globe. Consider that the Antarctic is roughly the size of the U.S. and Mexico combined. With all the ice piled up in the Antarctic -- it contains 90 percent of the world's ice -- if it were to melt, sea levels would rise . . .
   Two hundred feet.
   Okay, all the Antarctic ice is not likely to melt, so let's just stick with the 4-foot rise.
   But, add the two together -- the Arctic and the Antarctic ice melts -- up comes the sea, rushing the rising waves on the coastal cities of the world.
   One study of ice cores pulled out of the glaciers suggests that ages ago, when the earth's temperatures were just a couple degrees higher than they are today, the sea level was 20 feet higher.
   One wonders at 20 feet, if it could happen.
   I am guessing things will turn out okay. Either the water rise won't be as much as some suggest, or humankind will adapt, being displaced but moving to higher ground.
   Even so, we would be fools not to tread lightly, fools not to avoid it if we can, fools not to take global warming seriously.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Those Unaffiliated with Religion Care More about Climate Change

    This doesn't sit well with me: According to a study by the Public Religion Research Institute, those who are religiously unaffiliated are more concerned about climate change than any group of faith followers. And who is all but at the bottom? The Latter-day Saints.
    Being LDS, this is disheartening to me.

(Index -- Climate change info)
   

Is He Coherent? Or is He on the Road Toward Dementia?

 Read Trump's words yourself. Is he coherent? Will he continue to decline, and by the time he is elected, will we have elected an utter madman? Moments after he boasted that he had "aced" a test for dementia, he was saying:
   "We're going to place strong protections to stop banks and regulators from trying to debank you from your-- you know, your political beliefs, what they do. They want to debank you, and we're going to debank-- think of this: They want to take away your rights. They want to take away your country. The things they are doing -- all the electric cars. Give me a break. If you want an electric car, good, but they don't go very far; they are very expensive. They gotta be made in China."
   "Debank" is a word. It means to take away a person's right to have a bank account. Trump was likely referring to when JPMorgan Chase closed a few accounts or denied services to conservative organizations. In one of those instances, the bank said the reason it closed an account was because it needed more information about the account holder's donors. 
   But, it is Trump's bouncing from one thing to another without good connection that makes you wonder. JPMorgan might have closed the account of a conservative group for good reason or bad, we don't know, but are we really to believe that the average American -- or any other American at all -- is on the verge of having his or her bank account closed if their political beliefs don't match up with those of the bank? 
   Then he started to say that it was he who was going to debank someone, but stopped midsentence to say they want to take away your country, and he seemed to be suggesting the way they are going about that is by encouraging electric cars. What's he saying? If you don't believe in electric cars, the banks are going to close your account?
   Being tested for dementia isn't a normal thing. You don't normally get tested unless there is concern you are slipping towards it. And dementia can be reflected in ways other than just loss of memory. Impaired reasoning ability is also dementia. 

America is not just About the Americans Who are Here

    America is not just about Americans; it's about freedom -- for everyone. America is not just a country;
it's an ideal. America is the gold standard of nations. America is not just a democracy, it's the nation that defines democracy the best.
   So how does a migrant from Venezuela, or Honduras, or Mexico fit into such a nation? Are they free to come to the land of the free? Once they get here, are they equal to others who were already here? 
   The definition of America suggests that we allow them to be our equals. America is liberty for all -- and that includes immigrants. America is justice for all -- and that includes immigrants. It is not a country that turns its back on the destitute of nations, but a country that welcomes them. It is not a nation that slanders the immigrants -- telling them they are but a caste of thieves -- but a nation that does not stoop to slander.
   America is not just about the Americans who are here, but the Americans who come. 

If We Want Such a Leader, We have Found One

   "God give us Leaders!" The paraphrased words of the poet Josiah Gilbert Holland scream to us in this day of need. 
   Martin Luther King once quoted that poem. Dr. King also offered a blueprint for what to look for in our search for leaders. I'm going to quote the good doctor, then tell you who I think fits the mold.

"The urgency of the hour calls for leaders of wise judgement and sound integrity -- leaders not in love with money but in love with justice; leaders not in love with publicity, but in love with humanity; leaders who can subject their particular egos to the greatness of the cause." As I reflected on King's comment and Holland's poem, I felt an urgency that we seek out leaders of character. "This is one of the pressing needs of the hour," King said. A little despair set over me. Where is a leader who loves liberty, who loves truth, who clings to all that is right in face of all that is wrong? Is there one person, one leader, who stands a little taller than most in fighting to save our democracy? Is there someone who has laid their political life in a casket that freedom can continue to live? Is there someone so bold in the cause of justice and truth as all this? Liz Cheney. As I was reflecting on King's call for unbridled leadership, I saw a story about the observance of MLK Day held in that church where the reverand once offered his wise sermons. The speaker was none other than Liz Cheney.

Liz Cheney has clung to the truth. She has been a firebrand against Trump's assault on our nation. She has stood a little taller than most. She has sacrificed her position to fight against the wiles of Washington politics. She is someone bold in the cause of justice and truth. Is that not enough for us? If we want such leaders, we have found one. Will we let her political career continue to decline? Or will we help save it, that she can help save the nation?

The Poem MLK Quoted Belongs on Our Leaders' Desks

 We should send all of our leaders two little mementos, telling them they are courtesy of Martin Luther King, Jr.
  Two little reminders that tell them how they should act.
  They are to keep them on their desk, right in front of them, where they will read them every day.
   One is a statement from MLK, himself. The other is a poem MLK quoted in one of his most famous speeches.
   Tell me, if these words of wisdom would not be good reminders for all our leaders. First, the quote:
    "Another thing that we must do in speeding up the coming of the new age is to develop intelligent, courageous and dedicated leadership. This is one of the pressing needs of the hour. In this period of transition and growing social change, there is a dire need fo rleaders who are calm and yet positive; leaders who avaoid the extremes of 'hot-headness' and 'Uncle Tomism.' The urgency of the hour calls for leaders of wise judgement and sound integrity -- leaders not in love with money but in love with justice; leaders not in love with publicity, but in love with humanity; leaders who can subject their particular egos to the greatness of the cause. To paraphrase Holland's word: God give us leaders!"
   And second, the poem MLK quoted. He substituted the word "Men" with "Leaders," and we will do the same:

Give us Leaders!
Leaders -- from every rank,
Fresh and free and frank;
Leaders of thought and reading,
Leaders of light and leading,
Leaders of loyal breeding,
The nation’s welfare speeding;
Leaders of faith and not of fiction,
Leaders of lofty aim in action;
Give us Leaders -- I say again,
Give us Leaders!

Give us Leaders!
Strong and stalwart ones;
Leaders whom highest hope inspires,
Leaders whom purest honor fires,
Leaders who trample self beneath them,
Leaders who make their country wreath them
As her noble sons,
Worthy of their sires;
Leaders who never shame their mothers,
Leaders who never fail their brothers,
True, however false are others:
Give us Leaders -- I say again,
Give us Leaders!

Give us Leaders!
Leaders who, when the tempest gathers,
Grasp the standard of their fathers
In the thickest fight;
Leaders who strike for home and altar,
(Let the coward cringe and falter),
God defend the right!
True as truth the lorn and lonely,
Tender, as the brave are only,
Leaders who tread where saints have trod,
Leaders for Country, Home and God:
Give us Leaders! I say again- again-
Give us Leaders!

It's Date Night Tonight

   Are you having your weekly date night right now? No, I don't mean with your spouse or any of your kids, I mean . . . with the Lord. You keep telling me he's your best friend, and I thought I would just point out that this is his day. You know, the day you are suppose to put aside all other things to concentrate on worshipping him. 
   Or was church enough for you? And, as soon as it was over, you ditched him? Hey, we are suppose to hang out with him all day long on Sundays, aren't we? If you just go to church service, I'm calling that lip service, and I want more from you.
   Anyway, about this date night thing, I'm thinking about asking him out. I've done it in  the past and he's never turned me down yet. You could just sit around reading scriptures or something; He seems to like that more than games. You could listen to music together, Tabernacle Choir or whatever. You could just sit around and talk; the Lord loves listening to your problems.
   Or, you could go out, maybe go to a fireside together, maybe even invite a friend who isn't active to join you. The Lord likes it when you bring others along. Or, you could visit a neighbor who is in need. Service projects are the best!
   I've tried this in the past, and it hasn't always worked out. My fault, of course. Sometimes I'll invite the Lord over, telling him we'll spend the whole day together, and then, bang, I get distracted. I find other things to do. I leave the Lord sitting there while I'm off and about. Not a very good way to treat your guest.
   Anyway, I hope you try this date thing out. If you missed this Sunday, I hope you'll try it next week.

The Morals of Texas Officials Washed Away in that River

    Right on the heels of Gov. Greg Abbott's boasting that Texas is doing everything in its power to stop the flow of migrants into the country -- only stopping short of killing them because the Biden administration would charge it with murder -- murder has been committed.
   Allegedly.
   Six migrants were attempting to cross a river when the waters became troublesome. They were not making it across. A call for help went out. Border officials tried to respond, but Texas officials stood in the way, physically blocking them from rescueing the migrants. One woman and two children drowned.
   Murder? But, then again, who's counting? Who would count this as murder? You cannot fault the Texas officials, they were just doing their job. The migrants shouldn't have been crossing. We told them no and they came anyway. They killed themselves.
   You say it's not murder? Actually, ee have juries for things like this. We have a court system. We have laws. When this kind of thing happens, we hold people accountable.
   Or do we? Does it even cross our minds? Do we even think to arrest someone and to hold a trial? That is the furthest thing from our minds. All we can think of, is how foolish they were to try to come in to our country, dang invaders. We've got caskets for people like you. If you were seeking freedom, you came to the wrong place.
   Freedom? What about so much as justice? They lose their lives at our border while we look on, saying, It's your own fault. Their bodies rot seeking freedom, and we do not even offer them justice.
   Wrong country for that.
   Where are the morals of our nation? What has become of them?
   Texas officials are saying they found no bodies. Did they let them die? Prove it. There are no bodies. Where's the evidence?
   And, if the three people did die, what really became of their bodies? Who knows but what Texas officials didn't throw them back into the river.
   To rot.

 

If You are a Patriot, Join the Resistance

   Call the opposition to Trump's plan to take over America the Resistance. Call the opposition to an assault that would end Democracy the Resistance. And call those who join the Resistance patriots.
   "Patriots" is a term arch-conservatives have tried to commandeer, but it belongs not to them. They swim in the same waters invested by the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, sharks who are terrorizing America.
   Abraham Lincoln said it best, "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher." Lincoln never knew Trump. He never knew that a president would someday come along who would boast that he was the best president America has ever had, even better than he, Lincoln.
   The lot of a patriot lies not in bringing guns to the table if you are to sit with a Democrat, but in opposing those who would bring guns to the table to eat with a Democrat. America has two strong parties, and if you destroy one, you will be left with just one. And a one-party system does not define freedom; it does not define democracy. Let the two parties sit at the table together.
   Trump is but a faction of the Republican Party. If you want to give the subparty a name, call them the Loyalists, for Trump demands loyalty of his followers. If the Loyalists finish taking over the Republican Party, however, it will bring the death of Democracy. Trump will consume one party and destroy the other.
   That is why we must remember the words of our forefathers and practice eternal vigilance. That is why we must remember the words of Lincoln and be wary of losing our freedom from within. Suicide, he called it, and yielding to Trump would be suicide.
   Patriots side not with dictators. Those who would be Americans should realize the danger and not side with Trump. It is the Resistance that can stop him, and if you would be a patriot, join the Resistance. 

 

Direct Them to the 4-Letter Word so They don't have to Live by the 3

    Get this: We are stacking migrants up in shelters, saying we don't have enough resources to care for them . . . at the very time the hospitality industry, the food-services industry, the farm-worker industry, and other such industries have hordes of open jobs.
   Hordes. There must be at least a million. 
   Ahem, aren't these migrants coming for just such jobs -- at least the good part of them? So, let's see, they arrive and we can't process them in fast enough, so we stack them up in homeless shelters and strand them on the streets and say we don't have the resources to take care of them.
   Good thinking, dude.
   Am I missing something here, or does this just not make sense? It simply doesn't add up. Don't we have enough common sense to see what the solution is?
   Give them jobs -- immediately. Yes, as quick as they arrive, have them in a job the next day. Give them a work card on the spot and point them down the street to the nearest hotel needing workers, and say, "You're here, you might as well earn your keep."
    Work is a four-letter word only to those who prefer a three-letter word, bed. And these immigrants, for the most part, are not lazy and bed-ridden.
   Why we complain about not having enough resources to take care of them is beyond me. If we lack the services to help them, let them serve themselves. 
    They are here. They are already on our soil. You might not like it, but they are here. You might say, Slap them right back on a plane and send them back to where they came from, but they have the right to pass through the immigration courts, first. And since they are here, they might as well be working while they are waiting.
   Work never hurt anyone, and it certainly isn't going to hurt an immigrant.
   Restaurants are discontinuing patio service because they lack enough employees. Large stores that were open all night have closed for those hours because they don't have enough workers. Employers are screaming for workers. Jobs are being wasted.
   Common sense doesn't have an uncle. Everyone is direct family. And everyone in the family should be able to see how to handle the immigration crisis. 

How Do We Measure This Crisis?

   You, like me, are outraged . . . except for the opposite reason.
   Outraged that a record 302,000 migrants were encountered at our southern border in December. Outraged that entry stations have had to close to normal back-and-forth border crossings in order to deal with the onslaught of migrants. Outraged that Chicago, Denver, New York and other cities have so many migrants they don't know what to do with them and lack the resources to care for them. Outraged that 40 counties in Texas have had to declare states of emergency.
   And comes my answer: Measure the tragedy as much as you measure the crisis. That is 302,000 migrants who left their own countries due destitute conditions. That is hordes of people stranded on the streets of Chicago, Denver, New York and other cities without proper care. That is the homeless souls from other countries crying for help in the 40 counties in Texas.
   How do we measure the crisis? Do we measure it in terms of how much the migrants are suffering? Or do we measure it by how much of an inconvenience their suffering is causing us? 
   Do we think of others, or do we think only of self when others come calling for help?

Make the Border a Point of Friendship

   The rights of those seeking freedom should not begin with a jail sentence. Yet we put them in "immigrant detention camps," not allowing them to leave, as we process them into the United States.
   "Immigration detention camps'? Now, is that just a sanitized name for jail?
   Have we always done it this way? I mean, back those first days of our country, how many immigration detention camps were there? Anybody got a count? Or did they have a more neighborly way of letting people into our country?
   Shoot, they didn't even send them before a judge back in that day. No such thing as immigration court. Nobody even greeted them at the border, saying, "Papers, please. I need to see your papers." They didn't have papers back then. They had what was called freedom of movement.
   Borders were there not to keep out those seeking freedom, but were lines in the sand marking where freedom began.
   If you suppose I'm calling for anarchy, no, I'm not. If you think I'm suggesting we let every Tom, Dick and Harry who might be a terrorist into our country, no, that's not what I'm saying either. I'm just saying we shouldn't let our bureaucracy smother our freedom. Greet them at the border, maybe throw some kind of party with singers and entertainers, feed them a festive meal, maybe have some fireworks . . .
   And then welcome them in. 
   Okay, I'm just joking (although I don't think such a party is such a bad idea). Yes, you have to have some kind of security at the border. Being too willy nilly is just going to lead to a lot of bad Willies and Nellys skipping in.
   Can't have that. Shouldn't. Believe me, I don't want it.
   But, yes, I do believe things can be done in a more timely fashion. To me, it's why not? Yes, we might have to keep those detention camps, but let them become -- whenever possible -- overnight facilities. Take a couple of days. Run background checks, call the police in their hometowns, call their references, and then say, "Welcome, welcome." Issue them a green card and tell them it won't become a pink card unless they get into trouble. 

  

This is not a Social Club, but a Nation -- Let's Run it that Way

Forgive me, but is citizenship just a matter of entitlement -- we being entitled and the immigrant not? Just asking. Just wondering. 

I have a friend who was not born here, coming instead from (I believe) a Scandinavian country. He has worked, same as you and I, paid income and sales taxes, same as you and I, owned a home and paid property taxes, same as you and I. He is honest, civic minded, law abiding, and legally here.

Paid his dues, so to speak. Earned his keep.

But he wasn't born here. We view that as reason to make him jump through hoops before granting him citizenship. No such requirement for us -- no citizenship test -- but since he wasn't born here, dang as heck if we are going to let him vote and be a citizen unless he passes through our little test.

We who were born here claim entitlement. We don't have to take the naturalization test. We don't have to do anything, but we quite expect it of others. It does not matter that they pay their taxes, and that someone once said, "Taxation without representation is tyranny." See, that was an old Revolutionary War slogan and it doesn't apply today.

Fair enough?

This is not a social club, but a nation. Ours is not a club for the privileged, but a nation for everyone who lives on our shores. The basic rights of man, including the right to vote, should be extended to all who live here. 

Sending people through processes just to be processing them is better known as bureaucracy. Well, what of this? If we have rules and laws that are unnecessary then those rules and laws should be done away with. Haven't we often said that that government which governs least, governs best?

We're cool with us not having to stop by the naturalization office on our way to the polls, but we think it is even cooler that we can require it of them. Why? They were born in a different land, but that does not make them lesser members of society. What are they? Second-class people?

I admire my friend for standing up for what I feel is right by refusing to go through all the hoops just because government wants to keep a thumb on him. He could make the effort and become a citizen. To us, it is his choice and his own fault if he doesn't apply for citizenship. But I do not see it that way. The details of why he doesn't are his to know, not mine. Maybe it's rebellion against a government that sends him through a wringer, so to speak, when that is entirely unnecessary. Maybe it is because he, like all of us, becomes intimidated by tasks at times. Small things become big. But the truth might be, it isn't as easy as we believe it is. It isn't as easy as just going down and saying, "I want to be a citizen," and we say, "Okay, here you go. You're a citizen." Instead, we say, "You've got to pass this test, first. Have you studied?" So, a few immigrants (perhaps only a few) say, "Oh, for Heaven's sake; you keep your citizenship. I don't need it that bad." Then, while they want to vote, they never get around to registering. They have a mental block keeping them from doing something that we think should be easy.

What is easy is to judge another person when we shouldn't.  What is easy is to make someone else do something when you are not willing to do it yourself.

Yes, He is an American

   You've caught me in my anger, this moment, I just learned a friend of mine can't vote. 
   He's been in America for decades (maybe even centuries considering how old he is). He pays his taxes. He is civic-minded. He is here legally. He keeps the law. He is an asset to society. 
   But he's not allowed to vote because he came from another country and is not a U.S. "citizen." I do not know why he has not applied for or is not allowed citizenship. But I know it is wrong that he is not allowed to vote. He is as American as anyone of us. 
   Denying all Americans the right to vote is wrong. And, yes, he is an American.

 In America, they don't elect people; they elect parties and factions. They don't elect character and integrity; they elect pledges and promises. Win their votes with words, not with silly good deeds.

In America, they play a game, taking it so seriously, it soon is a game no more. They divide into two teams and start yelling and screaming at each other -- and the one spewing the most hatred and profanity wins.

In America, they fight over patriotism, both sides professing to be more patriotic than the other. But, they see the other side as anything but patriotic; one side sees the other as commies and socialists, and the other side sees them as Nazis and fascists.

In America, both sides swear they are truthful and honest, while the other side is a pack of liars.

In America, they even fight over who is the Christian. And, do they consider their opponents Christians? No, the other side is nothing but a cult of devils and demons. The two sides point at each other, crying, "Evil, evil."

In America, the one side treats the other as a pariah, and the other side treats them as a pariah.

In America, there are no adult voters; they're all a bunch of children.

In America, they tell you we need to return to the good ol' days. And maybe that's the one thing they get right. Supposing there was once a day when we didn't fight like this, then, yes, it would be great to return to the good ol' days.

Trump, His Emoluments, and What the Constitution Says about Them

    So you want to know what "emoluments" are? That's when you receive a fee of some kind, or when you profit from your office. 
   And, the Constitution has something to say about them, suggesting they are a definite no-no. Thursday, an article in Esquire suggested Donald Trump violated the Emoluments Clause, and thereby should be disqualified from being president. "Everybody from Washington to Riyadh to Beijing knew the former president and his family were coining the presidency into cash, which was completely in conflict with the provision in Article I of the Constitution," wrote the Esquire's Charles P. Pierce. 
  Which clause says, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
   The article notes that Thursday, the Democratic portion of the House Oversight Committee released a report spelling out how Trump put his office "up for sale." It then turned to an article from The New York Times that said documents produced through a court fight describe how foreign governments and their controlled entities . . . paid millions to the Trump International Hotel . . . China made the largest total payment -- $5.5 million."
   Altogether, it is estimated that Trump, while in office, took at least $7.8 million from foreign entities.

Let's Figure Out Why EVs are More Expensive

   Let's sit down right now, you and me, and try to determine just why electric vehicles are so much more expensive than vehicles with internal combustion engines. Hey, some day you might want to buy an EV, but the price might stand in your way, right?
   If you are going to bawl about not being able to afford an EV, I just think we need to know the whys and the wherefores, so you'll know if you are being gypped or if it is just the way it is and you need to get over it.
   1.) Advertising. Everyone knows you have to market a product. That takes money, doesn't it? And which do you see more of in the TV ads -- internal combustion engines or electric cars? Ahem, maybe we better skip this one and get on to the next. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking we still see more ads for the ICE models.
   2.) Production labor costs. What? Turns out it takes more factory laborers to produce the ICE car than the EV! What's up with that? No clutches or gears, or mufflers or manifolds in the EV. There are a maybe a measly 20 moving parts in an EV, compared to about 2,000 in the ICE vehicle. Guess that one doesn't stack up on the side of the ICE, either. 
   3.) Shipping. Now we are getting somewhere -- but not far. With the battery packs weighing so much, the freight costs for oversea deliveries might be higher. And even just transporting across a continent, a semi pulling a shipment of EVs is going to burn more diesel than one pulling ICEVs. Here's guessing, though, the difference is not overly excessive. So don't use this one as your excuse, either. 4.) Increasing demand. It's called a market economy, isn't it? Supply and demand? With the crush of customers seeking EVs, and with such few of them on the lots at the dealerships, car makers are able to fetch more money for EVs. Trouble with this theory is that there are not an overabundance of EVs. Fact be told, EVs are piling up on car lots across the nation as the green revolution hits a speed bump. Maybe, with hope and luck, this will drop EV prices. We'll wait and see. But, as it stands, add this to the list of reasons EVs should be less expensive, not more. 5.) Extra technology. The typical EV carries a lot more gadgetry, a lot more bells and whistles. If so, perhaps a greater share of our EVs should not be so fancy. 6.) Factory amortization. EVs have been around for more than a decade now, so while we must concede it takes money to tool a plant for EVs, I'm not buying that this is a root cause for EVs being so expensive. A host of new factories have been built for ICE cars, as well. The amortization factor is in play for the new ICE factories, as well. 7.) R&D. This factor certainly seems in play. I'm not denying it. It does require more research and development before introducing a new EV model. But, while many new models are being introduced, consider how many have been on the market for years now. Even ICE models get updated. If the updates for existing EV models are so expensive, shouldn't this be true for ICE vehicles as well? 8.) The battery pack is expensive. Lithium is expensive. Come 2030 (prices are falling and I couldn't find current figures), it is said the battery pack will account for about 19 percent of the cost of the EV. We could compare that to the percentage of car cost for internal combustion engines cars, if we could find such a figure. I am guessing, however, that the engine is much more than 19 percent of the cost for an ICE vehicle. So, I'm not sure even this argument holds up. 9.) Economies of scale. This, too, is a definite one. But it, too, is probably milder than assumed. If you buy more product -- parts to make a car -- you might get a discount. But, the car manufacturers we are talking about are large companies and are already buying in large quantities. So, it seems likely car seats for their electrics are no more expensive than car seats for their gasoline counterparts. And, to boot, some items can be shared -- car seats being one -- and thus your savings are shared. Economies of scale is also evident in the number of vehicles sold vs. the total cost of employees. Some jobs pay more than others, and although there are fewer factory workers for EVs (as discussed above), there could be more executives and more R&D workers, which are higher-paying jobs. Once again, though, these expenses can be shared. If you are a wise businessperson, you will use some of the same personnel in the portion of the company that produces electrics as you do in the gasoline vehicle side of your show. Parts buyers can be common, for example. Even the marketing team can often be shared. If the car companies are not doing this, it is to their own fault. Send them back to business college and teach them how to run a company.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Two Power Systems are Less Expensive than One?

   What's the phrase? Something is wrong with this picture? Yeah, something is out of kilter, and since you've never noticed it, I'll point it out to you.
  Fully electric vehicles cost more than hybrids. Here's what's wrong with that: You have to put both an electric motor (plus the battery pack) and an internal combustion engine into a hybrid. But it only takes an electric motor (plus said battery pack) for an electric vehicle.
  What's up with that? How are two systems less expensive than one?
  Yes, one does wonder if the car manufacturers go out of their way to make EVs more expensive. Let's not forget that in the 1990s, they removed EVs from the market (literally junking them) and introduced hybrids in their place.

(Index -- Climate change info)

How Many Other Leaders will Follow Trump off the Ballot?

   If the Constitution says what it says, we're in trouble. If it says no one who has taken an oath to defend the republic can hold federal office if he or she participates in an insurrection, then we are in big-big trouble.
   And that is what it says.
   And that is what it means.
   See, this isn't just about Trump. The 14th Amendment says whoever it may be, they cannot hold office. We've a number of Congress members who tried to overturn the election. By rights, they should be disqualified just as quickly as Trump. And if that happens, whoa is there ever going to be a backlash and rebellion. You think things are rumbling now, with many outraged that Trump could be left off the ballot. Try making a list of people who need to be taken off the ballot and see what happens.
   It is worthy to read that whole section in the 14th Amendment. Give attention to where it says, "gives aid or comfort. Go ahead and read it for yourself. This is getting critical enough that you surely want to know exactly what it says.

  "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."

   It doesn't mention Trump. This wasn't written just for him. It doesn't say the former president is the only person who is disqualified.
   No, it uses the word, "whoever."

   Translation: Anyone.
   How about Utah Senator Mike Lee? Documents have been uncovered showing he sought to get alternate sets of electors in place so the real ones could be set aside. And how about Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania? Already a lawsuit has been filed against him, noting he was, "a leading proponent of using the January 6, 2021 Congressional presidential election certification process to disrupt the transfer of presidential administrations."
   Just to make us sweat a little more, consider where it says, "gives aid or comfort thereto." What does that mean? Probably half (or more) of the Republican Congress members have spoken in a way that gives comfort to those who participated in the Jan. 6 rebellion. It would be a dire thing if we disqualified just those -- Lee and Perry and others -- who participated in acts attempting to overturn the election. But if you go after half the Republicans sitting on Capitol Hill?
   This could get more than ugly. It could become a Constitutional crisis. It could cast our nation into the throes of rebellion and descent like it has never experienced since the Civil War.

   

  

The EV1 Came Roaring in in the '90s; but the Auto Industry Scraped It

    Have you heard about the '90s, when the modern electric car burst upon the scene -- only to be quietly disposed of?
   No, I'm not talking about the arrival of Tesla. That came later. In the 1990s, there was this newfangled machine called EV1. GM introduced it. It was all the rage among its new owners, who became very faithful to it.
   Other companies, such as Toyota and Honda, Ford and Chevrolet (the EV1 was under the GM nameplate, but Chev came out with an electric S10 pickup), jumped on board with their own electrics. A burgeoning new industry awaited America.
   Until it got shut down. The oil companies didn't like the EV. You can't make much money off a car that doesn't use oil or gasoline. And, the car companies, themselves, saw a down-side, financially. They make a good share of money off repairs and servicing, and the EV doesn't require that.
   So, they shut them down. Despite at outcry from their EV customers, GM recalled all its cars (which were all on lease agreements), and destroyed them. The EV customers raised enough money to buy every one of the EV1s, but GM wouldn't allow it. There were protests throughout California, but GM paid them no heed. GM took all the EV1s, transported them out of state, and shredded them. The other companies followed suit, destroying as many of their EVs as they could.
   You have to wonder. It does seem the car manufacturers of today are also resistive to manufacturing EVs, but they have little choice, what with the mandates calling for a certain share of their sales to come from EVs.

(Index -- Climate change info)

If the Nations of the Earth Made New Year's Resolutions

    Individuals make New Year's Resolutions; why can't nations? How interesting it would be if they did. Certain Arab nations would set the goal of running the Jews off the face of the earth. Israel would set its goal as doing away with every last Hamas. China would say it is going to bring Taiwan into tighter subjection. Russia would seek to obliterate Ukraine. 
   Reading through the list of New Year's resolutions the nations would make, we see they do not have the noblest of aspirations. There's so much goodwill, and here we are just a week removed from Christmas.
   If the nations of the world did write New Year's resolutions, they would write them not with pens and pencils, but with guns and missiles. They would not be in ink, but in blood.