The Law of the Land

        It's no secret that the U.S. Constitution has been subject to much (mis?)interpretation over the years. Maybe it's too long, too complicated, not complicated enough, who knows? If I were rewriting it, I'd try,

                                           United States Constitution

                                                   We the people.

                                                         The end.

                                                            ***

"What?! What is that supposed to be?"

       "It's the constitution. Why, you don't like it? Did you read the whole thing?"

"But, but, but...there's nothing there. Everything's missing."

       "Well, it's a little short but easy to read."     

"But, it doesn't say anything, doesn't answer any questions."

        "Give me a question that my constitution won't answer for you."

"Ok. What if two gay people want to get married. Can they?"

        "You sure you read the whole thing? Look, right after the 'e' in 'we', you see where it says

         that the constitution guarantees the right to marriage? And if the constitution guarantees

          the right to marriage, gay people also have the right to marry. Simple."

"Wait a minute! I don't see any of that stuff in there. Where are you reading?"

        "Hmm, do you see the stuff about the right to privacy, the right to an abortion, the right

         to make everyone buy health insurance or pay a penalty?"

"No, I don't see any of that stuff."

        "Just as I suspected. You're an originalist."

"Doc, no! Am I going to die?"

        "An 'originalist' is someone who reads the constitution and interprets it the way it was

         written. They are often referred to as The Sensible Ones. Others claim that the

         constitution is a 'living document' and has to be interpreted differently, no matter what  

         it says or how clearly it's written, because it was written for 'a different time.' They are 

         often referred to as New York Times Editorial Writers."   

"But that's crazy! Something can mean one thing today and something completely

  different tomorrow. Depends on who's on the Court. What a way to run a country."

        "So, who's perfect?"

"And if The Constitution is a 'living document' and can mean different things on different

  days, then what about the Penal Code, the Commercial Code, the..."

        "Sh-h-h, don't give them any ideas."

50 Million Climate Scientists Can't Be Wrong

        Try casually mentioning that you think 'climate change' or 'global warming' is no big deal and you will be informed that 97% of climate scientists think it's a very big deal, is dangerous, and is going to destroy the planet if we don't do something about it right away and that you are a fool and should just go away and stick your head in the troposphere.

        Whew! Scary stuff but is that really what all those scientists believe? Really?

        Well, climate scientists do overwhelmingly agree that the planet has been in a warming trend for about the last 150 years but, so what? The Little Ice Age was a time of unusually cold temperatures which ended in 1850. Since then, the planet has been warming. Warm, cold, warm, cold...It's the way climate has naturally fluctuated since the Earth was formed billions of years ago. 

         The important question is whether this warming is dangerous and there is nowhere near 97% agreement on that, with scientific opinion being all over the map, unless, of course, you survey only the 'scientists' in Hollywood,
                                                                            ***

         "Now, when you hear the loud crack, let's see those brows furrow. A glacier is coming apart because of global warming and climate change. We're talking the end of the world here, people. Furrow, furrow!"

         "You mean like they taught us in Actor's Studio?"

         "Exactly!"
                                                                         ***

        Remember, movies are make believe. Playing a brilliant scientist isn't the same as actually being one although it pays a lot better.  

        Anyone remember the Galveston Hurricane of 1900? Category 4 hurricane, winds of 145 miles per hour. What was that all about? Pre-global warming? Pre-climate change. Pre-Al Gore are you listening?!

Well, this one was armed...

       An 'Unarmed' Young Man Was Shot,,,

       Was that the important thing? that he was unarmed? 

       Is the cop really supposed to fight back with his bare hands, even if he feels his life is in danger, because, if he uses his gun and if the guy he's trying to arrest is unarmed, then it wasn't a 'fair' fight? (By the way, what if the 'policeman' is a policewoman? Still not allowed to shoot? SHE also has to 'fight fair?')

        Well, if the cop is the only one with a gun, then it might not be a fair fight but....IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A 'FAIR' FIGHT. An arrest is not a duel. It's not Man from La Mancha.  The cop is supposed to win. You're supposed to give up. You're being arrested. Tomorrow, you'll have a lawyer and then there'll be the judge.

        Too often we see what happens when the other guy is armed. That's the way it will always be if the bad guy has a gun. Nobody reads a cop his Miranda rights. It's just, BANG!

       

I Love Paris (Chinese version)

        In return for the United States' agreeing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions below 2005 levels by 2025, the Paris Climate Accords allowed the Chinese to continue to increase their burning of fossil fuels, remaining the planet's largest emitter of carbon dioxide until 2030 when, they agreed, their carbon dioxide emissions would...'peak.' 

        Huh?!

        What does that mean? How much is a 'peak?' In case you were sick on the day  they taught counting, 'peak' is not a number. Nobody counts, "one, two, three, peak, four, five, si..." 

         And don't let anyone tell you that you can save money by switching from fossil fuels. If it would save money, we wouldn't need laws and fines and whatnot to get people to do it. 
                                                                   *** 

        "So, Xi, how did you get the Americans to agree to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 28%? The price of everything they make will go thru the roof."

        "I told them that if they did that, we would agree to peak in 2030."

        "Peak? What does that mean, to peak?"

        "I don't know. We'll worry about it in 2030."

Global Warming 'Pollution?'

        "Hey, Nee, want to go for a swim?"

        "Ander, are you crazy? It's freezing outside. That's why they call this the Ice Age. Ask Thal. He's also nuts. Maybe he'll go with you."  [Ne-ander-thal, a joke. Cave humor. Ha ha. Get it?] 

        "No, bro'. Take a look outside. The ice is melting. It's getting nice and...toasty."

                                                                  ***

        About 15,000 years ago much of North America, Northern Europe, and lots of other places were covered with ice. And it wasn't just that crunchy stuff that all those folks in Massachusetts and Vermont walk thru on the way to their Social Justice meetings. This was real ICE, a mile or two thick and covering the continent from coast to coast. And then, gradually, it all melted, except for a little that was left on the poles, North and South.

        But how could that be? With no industry to burn 'fossil fuels' (most of the 'fossils' were actually still walking around), where did all that 'climate change' come from?

        Well, Earth's climate has been changing since it was formed  4.5 billion years ago due to what scientists call, 'natural causes.' i.e., changes in earth's orbit, changes in the way the earth's axis tilts, changes in the sun's output of heat, etc. It's only been during the past 200 years or so, i.e. since the start of the industrial revolution, that we've had a little extra warming (0.8 degree C.) from burning fossil fuels and, during the last 17 years in fact, there's been no additional surface warming at all. Go know!

        And, as far as it being a pollutant is concerned, global warming is no more a 'pollutant' than is global cooling or global lukewarming. Pollutants are pollutants and warming is warming. Calling a change in temperature a 'pollutant' just to get everyone's juices going is dumb and dishonest and you shouldn't do it even if it gets people to vote for you or to come and see your movie.
                                                                            ***

Summary of latest U.N. IPCC Report on climate change:

1: We made a lot of mistakes last time but we got better computers and we're smarter than

     we used to be.

2. Things are much worse than we thought.

3. Send money.

Here today, gone tomorrow?

             "Who was that Neanderthal I saw you with last night?"

            "That was no Neanderthal. That was my Cro-Magnon."

                                                     ***

        Between 98 and 99.9% of all species that ever walked, crawled, swam, flew, or ran for office anywhere on Earth are now extinct. As some species become extinct, others manage to adapt to a changing environment and thrive. It's called 'evolution'.

        "But, if we keep burning fossil fuels and carbon dioxide increases, won't that tip the balance? Won't we ALL soon become extinct? I saw this movie..."

        Movies are fun. Go, eat some popcorn, have a few laughs...but don't think you're watching a lecture by Albert Einstein. 

        In other words, maybe it's time to take a deep breath and calm down a little. There's a lot we don't know and, despite the assertions of some people who should  know better, and probably do, this whole subject is far from 'settled science.'

        Maybe even time to give up the politically correct greeting, "Hi. The Koch brothers are eating your children" and go back to the old fashioned, "Hello," which is rumored to still be popular in some remote parts of the country and can be very soothing.  

Don't Go Near The Water

     "What's all this fuss about the oceans becoming more 'Hasidic'? I know lots of Hasidim and they're very fine people."

        "Emily."

        "And they're also very modest. When they go swimming, they always wear those long bathing suits that go all the way from their ankles to their neck."

        "Emily."

        "And besides, the oceans belong to everyone and if the Hasidim want to swim in the oceans, well, what business it that of..."

        "Emily!"

        "What?"

        "Not 'Hasidic,' Emily. 'acidic.' The oceans are becoming more acidic because when carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean, it combines with water molecules, hydrogen ions are generated, and the ocean becomes more acidic."

        "Oh. Never mind."

                                                              ***

        So, is this really a serious problem or, like Emily Litella, should we just...'never mind?' Here's what you missed that day you were absent from Science class,  

        The pH of a liquid tells us how acidic it is. Pure water has a pH of 7 and is neutral. Liquids with pH lower than 7 are acids and greater than 7, bases or alkaline.

        Since the start of the industrial revolution 200 years ago, the pH of the oceans has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 so that it would actually be more correct to say that the oceans are becoming more 'neutral', i.e. less alkaline, than to say that they're becoming more 'acidic'.  But 'neutral oceans' just won't get those juices flowing the way 'acidic' ones will,

       Think someone is trying to snooker us with all this stuff? More taxes? More loan guarantees? Help out the Green People a little? Maybe we should ask to see their emails. Oh, all the hard drives fell into the ocean and got eaten by sharks? Well, it could happen."