Do the Scriptures Speak of this Day When Phones can be Monitored?

   This scripture, does it apply to our day, and to the fear we don't know if foreign or even our own American intelligence agents are listening in on our phone conversations, and tapping into us as we turn on our computers.

  "For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." (Luke 12:3)

  I speak of  the conversations of mine, and of yours, being recorded and monitored by the governments and forces of the world. There was a day when if I said what I just said, you would quickly dismiss me as a delusional, fanatical, conspiracy-believing nut case. 

  These days, surely, we know these things are happening. How much, and to what extent, we may be left to speculate, but we know they are, indeed, happening.

   Take the next two verses. "And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."

  I remember once meeting someone who had cause to fear for his life. He came from another country, where he had taught a topic requiring him to learn of social-issue beliefs of people -- both sides of them, which means he had to speak of dissident opinions. He fled to the U.S., yet remained fearful of his life that day I spoke to him.  

    So, the scripture speaks of the things you whisper in the closet being shouted on the housetops, and then follows with the next verse saying, Don't fear that someone should kill you. This scripture might not have been written to explain what would happen in our day, but it has likeness. It can be applied.

   I do note this scripture, Matthew 10:27, which says, "What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops." Here, Christ speaks of what he and his disciples learn in private later being preached by them on the housetops. The scripture I speak of above could be -- probably is -- saying nothing different. Read it again, "Whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." As for the verse that follows, about being killed, those who teach the gospel can be killed for what they teach.

  Could Luke 12:3 have two meanings? Could it yet be referring to both? I don't know. I know, though, that one way or the other, there remains a likeness to the interpretation I wonder about at the top of this column.  

The Story of Hawaii is a Wild One

   Wonder at Hawaii, at whether the kingdom there was overthrown justly by U.S. interests. Wonder at whether the U.S. not only claimed the land against the islanders' will, but forced them to become a state against their will. 

  To some of us, it appears that's what happened.

   Take the "constitution" the U.S. plantation owners forced the king to sign. Yes, there is dispute that the king was forced, but there is reason to believe it wasn't called the Bayonet Constitution without cause. At point of death, it is said, he was forced to give up much of his power, turning it over to those who pointed the guns and/or bayonets against him. 

   Being forced at point of weapon to sign a "constitution" giving away your right to govern is hardly just -- and hardly up to America standards. To call the document you are forced to sign a "constitution" is perhaps an abuse of that word.

  So, the armed militia (we as Americans often speak highly of militias, but look what this one did) forced the king to sign the document. And, what did the document do? It limited voting rights to those who held large sums of money or large amounts of property. It is said that two-thirds the islands' residents were too poor to qualify to vote. 

   In making them part of America, as we stripped them of the right to vote, did we bring them freedom, or take it away? Did we bring them self-governance, or take it from them? Did they now have self-rule, or were they now ruled by the rich landowners?

   Eventually, the American minister to the islands conspired with the American and foreign interests and landed a shipload of U.S. Marines in a show of force, and they deposed of the queen altogether (by that time the king's sister was the monarch) and we began working to make Hawaii a state. The queen was imprisoned. Somehow, the thought the U.S. would jail the leader of a peaceful and happy nation bothers me.  

   Hawaiian voters never were given opportunity to say whether they wanted to be a state. The U.S. Congress voted them in. Somehow, I wonder if after all these years, we still should give them the right to vote, the right to say whether they really do want to be part of the U.S., or would rather go back to being their own sovereign nation. Self determination requires that we finally give them a vote.

Is Trump Going Meekly by His Standards?

   If some eyes -- mine included -- weren't seeing the full blunt of President Trump's resistance, maybe now we are. 

   A fuller story of his anger with Fox News after Fox News called the Arizona tally for Biden is emerging, in a story from the Washington Post. The length he went to get Fox to change its call is now being told. "Get that result changed," he yelled at White House staffers. So, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows called the Fox News decision desk repeatedly. Holly Hicks worked her connections. Kellyanne Conway called Fox to complain. Jared Kushner had a line to the top, and reached out to Fox owner Rupert Murdoch. 

   But, alas, no movement from Fox. They didn't back down on their call of Arizona for Biden

   "On election night, I'm telling you, the news side is running the show," The Post quoted an unnamed Fox official as saying. 

   In the next two days, notable Republicans -- including a few White House officials -- were calling for accepting the results. Trump, himself, didn't make an appearance, and his tweets were receiving so little attention that it almost seemed he was meekly submitting without much of a whimper. It seemed as if some of his aides might have made a little headway in trying to persuade him to accept his loss.

   Is he? Is he not? Is he going peacefully (by his standards)?  And, what of all his followers on social media? Are they as outraged as we would expect? Or, is their anger even dialed in a bit. With the courts throwing out the lawsuits one after another, has the whole uprising been mellowed?

   And, what of the firing of Defense Secretary Mark Esper? Just another firing in a long line of them? Or, might it signal more? coming on the heels of the election when all Trump's thoughts are surely on his loss and what he can do to stop it. Replacing Esper two months before Trump's own contract is up -- does it indicate he is lining up more officials to stand with him in resisting defeat?

   Where goes all this? It has yet to be played out. At this point, we cannot tell. It might have appeared he was going somewhat meekly, but maybe we haven't been seeing everything.

   Governor Herbert came out with a mask mandate. I support it. 

Natural Gas and Nuclear Energy are not Good Answers

   America seems to be going the direction of natural gas and nuclear energy as it tries to distance itself from carbon monoxide pollutants. Neither are good alternatives. Natural gas emits carbon monoxide, though a reduced amount. Plus, it emits methane, which greatly affects global warming. Nuclear energy comes fraught with the risk of nuclear accidents. Think the Three Mile Island accident in the U.S. in 1979, the Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union in 1986, and the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan in 2011. I suppose I am also wary of nuclear explosions due to what I read in scripture that sound like they might be references to nuclear harm.  

(Index -- Climate change info)

Utah has Done Little in the Fight Against Greenhouse Emissions

 However many years we're into this -- this attempt to switch to alternative energy -- we don't have much to show for it.  Who would say what year it was that we began -- that we should know if it has been 50 years or however many. Still look at where we are at: Fossil fuels still account for 62 percent of our energy creation.

   Sixty-two percent. After all these years. Nuclear energy is but at 20 percent. Wind at a meager 7 percent, and solar at an even meagerer 2 percent. Yes, solar, for all we hear about it, accounts for only 2 percent of our energy production.

  Utah? We are even worse. Much worse. Sixty-six percent is from coal, and, though I don't know the percentage, natural gas accounts for yet more fossil fuel usage.

  It is said power plants fired by fossil fuels account for 38 percent of the nation's total greenhouse gas emissions. That figure might be a little old, but I would wonder if we have progressed much from it. Utah, of all states, should be a leader in being a responsible global citizen. If we can cut 38 percent of the greenhouse gases from out of the skies over Utah, why would we not do it?

   And, what are we waiting for? Decades have passed since the urgency of fighting carbon monoxide emerged. Decades. We, as a state, don't have much to show in the way of progress.

We are not Going the Right Direction with Power Plants in Utah

    Poking my head into power creation in Utah, I learn most of Utah's power comes from coal-fired plants. There are three coal-fired plants producing more than 1,000 megawatts. The only other plant producing at least 1,000 megawatts is a natural gas plant. 

  I would have thought geothermal plants were a larger component than they are. I learned the Glen Canyon Dam, which is at Lake Powell (one of the largest man-made reservoirs in the U.S.) has capacity to produce 1,320 megawatts. I do not believe any of the power generated there is used in Utah. No geothermal plant in Utah produces so much as 250 megawatts, with Flaming Gorge being the largest at 152 MG. A plant is proposed for Echo Park, which would produce 200 MG. 

   I can see large geothermal plants might not be the answer. They disturb the land too much. Water seepage creates water loss. They disturb the geological balance, I believe, and thereby can cause earthquakes. 

   We have been moving towards natural gas. Nor do I believe it the answer. Though its carbon dioxide levels are less, they are still significant pollutants. Plus, these plants release methane into the air. 

   We do have solar and wind plants, and I wonder whether those sources could provide us enough power. We also have a nuclear plant projected to be completed near Green River in 2030. I do not know its capacity.