You throw Everyone a Gun, and These will get them as Well

   Some suggest more people should carry guns and there would be less crime.
   Fewer mass murders.
   I disagree. If you throw everybody a gun, some of the guns will fall into hands that you don't want having them. Passing everybody a gun means not just the protectors and the good citizens and good guys get them.
   So do those who might be inclined to wrongly use them. They fall into their hands, as well. No, I'm not talking the hardened criminals who are going to have guns, regardless. I'm talking about those who are decent enough, but who might have a fit of anger, who would get through that fit well enough without a gun . . .
   But, who grab it and use it if it is there.
   When you throw everybody a gun, they get them, as well. And, therein lies the problem with encouraging everyone to own or pack a weapon.

The Gun Reaps Greater Death than the Knife

   Some point to the fact that guns weren't used in the London killings as evidence that if you take guns away, the criminal will simply find another weapon to use.
   I agree.
   But, would go a step further. If guns had not been effectively banned in England in 1996, perhaps they would be used in more mass killings today. By banning the gun, Britain took away a weapon that can kill a lot of people quickly.
   Knives are not as effective. The mass murderers are being relegated to a weapon that reaps fewer deaths. If the London thugs had had easier access to guns, would they have chosen to use them? And, would we be looking at more people having been killed?

Is Muscle Rejuvenation a key to Living Longer?

   I've though a lot about stiff muscles in recent weeks. I've noticed that old people, of course, have them. Sometimes, it seems the person gets stiffer and stiffer, more bed-ridden and more bed-ridden, and then he or she dies. Is the stiffness and inability to use the muscles associated with death? It certainly seems so. If we could figure out how to relieve the stiffness, how to make it go away, would we extend life? Perhaps.
  I've also noticed, of course, that athletes -- those who work out -- acquire stiffness. You break the muscles down, or whatever, and they become stiff. Are these two situations related? Is the stiffness an elderly person experiences the same that an athlete experiences? Or, are they related, but just a little different?
   If we want to live longer lives, we should want to know.
   Maybe the stiffness the old person experiences is the same thing: muscle breakdown. Only with old age, the muscle does not rejuvenate, does not rebuild. What is it that causes rebuild? Is it the exercise, itself? The old person does not exercise, yet becomes stiff, anyway. Why? Or, is it that the old person has a lesser capacity for exercise, and thus experiences the muscle breakdown while doing a minimum amount, even so little that you don't even suppose they are exercising?
   Sometimes, if an athlete does not stretch, but just breaks into a fast run without warming up, he or she pulls a muscle. Is it much the same with what happens to the elderly? Do they not have their muscles "warmed up" before they start to use them? Is this where we are going wrong? If we could just figure out how to keep their muscles prepped for the day's activities, would we extend their lives?
   I remember being at a care center, and noticing how therapy called for them to take walks down the hall, and I wondered at how they got them out of bed without first stretching their muscles. They just plopped them on their feet to start walking with no concern for whether the muscles were ready for the walk. My own experience is that sometimes -- not always, but sometimes -- the muscles will be jammed if you do not stretch a little first. If they are jammed, you will not get the full benefit of exercise and might even do harm, by further jamming them
   This "jamming" feeling might be different than stiffness brought on by muscle breakdown.
   Does exercise lead to regeneration? If we want to rejuvenate the muscles in older people, should we be applying the same principles used by athletes in rebuilding their muscles? Perhaps. And that would mean exercise -- proper exercise -- is the/an answer.
  I open a webpage that speaks of muscle growth, or what I am calling rejuvenation. It says, you must put a greater load on the muscles than what they are used to if you care going to have them develop. So, I wonder what level of exercise would spur growth in the elderly? Is walking up and down the halls going to be a great enough level of increase to spur muscle development? Or, will we need to do better than that?
   The website says you also need muscle damage in order to have muscle growth. Does walking up and down the hallway provide enough exercise that you damage muscles, or must we go beyond that?
   I think we must also consider that the elderly might not be capable of having these forms of muscle growth. Exercise might work for athletes, but it might not for the elderly. If so, is there anything we can change, so that they might, once again in their lives, be capable of muscle rejuvenation? Because, if there is, we might be finding a way to extend the life of the human body.

Could this be how Disinformation is Planted in Our News?

  "We'll know we are successful when everything the Americans believe is a lie." That's a rework of a quote attributed to former CIA Director William Casey.
   But, in light of news just months ago that the Russians tried to influence our election with disinformation and propaganda, I find myself wondering if they also try to mess with our news as a practice. Did they just do it that one time, or was that one time just a slice of the pie?
   I wonder how they would influence us? The commentators seem to be arriving at their opinions without any outside influence. But, perhaps they have minor media sites that they read. Or, they have audience members who write them regularly, whose thoughts they then parrot. If so, you would simply plug yourself in as someone responding to their program, and offer up the disinformation, and wait for the commentators to take up the bait.
   Who would you go after? Fox News? MSNBC? I'd say, you shoot at both sides.
   As I think about this, I would not be surprised at all if this is happening, and if this is a key way disinformation is being planted in our news world. And, if the Russians did establish plants like this is our media, would they pull them out just because the election was over? It makes sense, if you have plants in the media, you keep on using them.
   And, we'll know they're successful when everything we believe is a lie.

An Economy of One

   It could be argued the jobs you and I have would be available to someone else if we were deported. If one person works, he is always "taking" the job from someone else.   
  So, let's find reason for not liking you and I, and kick us out, and the economy will improve. . . . I'm sorry, I don't find this way of thinking to be sound logic.   
  Those who argue immigrants are taking jobs from others might be best suited in an economy of one. Then, no one could take their job from them.

For Truth to Win, it Must be Heard

   Perhaps the greatest good coming out of President Trump's Paris Accord decision is that it elevates the national discussion on climate change.
   That's good, for in order for truth to win, it must be heard. The more we discuss climate change, the more we will learn about it. And, the more we learn, the quicker people will realize it is real, and we do, indeed, need to be taking steps against it.

Don't Criminalize Work, nor Those Who Come to Work

  Work should not be illegal. The work ethic should not be criminalized, but encouraged. Let the working class come to America. If we really feel we must send someone packing back to the country they came from, let's not let it be these. Let's try to hold on to these, the ones who just want to work. Who would think America would criminalize such a thing? Often they are the poor, seeking no more than an honest-day's work. Instead of cutting these people off, wouldn't we be better served to screen out someone else? Maybe go after the dishonest, or those who come in with criminal records, or those who commit crimes when they get here, or those who come just seeking to get on our welfare programs?

   But, those who come in search of a better life, wanting no more than to work? Are these the people we would criminalize?