tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40478522230420540382024-03-07T15:28:32.464-05:00JUST SOME POSTSThe universe, by definition, is infinite. It is arrogant for us to think mankind can formulate all the questions much less grasp all the answers.gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.comBlogger331125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-4929760408240222522023-12-30T14:29:00.005-05:002023-12-30T14:29:58.217-05:00Thoughts and Ideas for 2024<p><b><i><u> If you are truly pressed for time, just read the bold, italicized, and underlined sentences. That won't take you long at all!</u></i></b><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Another year
has passed and if you are reading this, a new one is getting ready to start (or
has started) for you. New Year’s celebrations are a time for reflection on what
has happened and also a chance to start anew. New Year’s resolutions are a
manifestation of this. Weight loss plans, gym proprietors, exercise equipment
makers, and others know this. If you have watched any TV, gone online, or read
any magazines or newspapers you know that the people that make their living
selling and signing people up for those things are hitting it hard. We like new
beginnings and the chance to reset and set new goals. Losing weight, stopping smoking,
cut back or stopping drinking, and other things a lot of folks see as improvement
are at the forefront of our collective thoughts and efforts this time of year.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Although not
a real advocate of New Year’s resolutions, I too am looking to the new year to work
on some things myself. For example, this post. I am going to try to get back to
writing my blog with some regularity. It may or may not take, but here is a
start. I also want to work on my health in 2024 by losing some weight and exercising
more. Those may be almost cliché they are so common, but they are among goals of
mine for the coming year. Now to the real point of this post. Among any self-improvement
you may have among your resolutions and goals for 2024 I have one I would like
to strongly recommend.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In the
coming year, and I would hope then going forward throughout your life, <u>spend
time reflecting on and spending time with things that make you happy and bring
you some type of inner peace.</u> </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Over forty-three
years ago we the people were introduced to all-news all-the-time when CNN
started. Those of us that had cable were able to get our news anytime we
wanted. Around two years after that we got Headline News. Twenty-four hours of
the world’s headlines were now also available when we wanted. These programs
and networks are mostly advertising supported. To interest advertisers you have
to get people to watch and keep watching. That is contrary to seeing the news
and especially the highlights of the news. It became an ongoing problem of how
to keep people tuning in and continuing to watch. This is a running societal
meme with the “more at 11” or “up next a local man adopts a pet lion” type ads
and promos that local stations run with. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">News organizations
were/are famous for the line “if it bleeds it leads”. As gross as that sounds
it epitomizes the fact that sensationalism grabs people’s attention. CNBC, MSNBC,
Fox News, and all the others came along over the next decade or so, and they
all needed viewers to survive. (although the numbers some of these networks draw
are so low that one wonders how much viewers really matter!) They all started sensationalizing
and promoting the “bad” news. The real issue is that this works! Some of that
is what I am asking you to avoid in 2024. Watching suffering that you can do
nothing about is not conducive to mental health. You can donate time or money,
so that can help. If you are in a position to do so, do it. Then move on and
avoid the drama.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Spend
at least the same amount of time with what makes you feel good as what upsets
you. Actually, double or even quadruple the amount of time would be better<u>.
The more you concentrate on the good the better for your mental health.</u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">“How can I
do this?”, you ask. “The world is going to hell and that is all I can think
about”. One of the reasons that is all you can think about is that you immerse
yourself in the mire. Social media is very bad for this for some of the same
reasons. Algorithms built into these apps are designed to keep feeding you what
keeps you scrolling and clicking. They want your eyeballs to stay on their feed
and thus viewing their ads. That is how they make money. Facebook, Instagram,
TikTok, and others all need you scrolling through their sites to make money. If
you click “like” on a meme on something or someone you will get more of the
same. So, back to the question – how do I cut out the information that upsets
me? Turn off the media, or at least look at cat videos or whatever else makes
you laugh vs what agitates you. Put down the screens and read a book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Watch a funny movie (although all media has
learned that putting some controversy in can add to “buzz” and get more press
and hopefully more viewers.) Take a walk, meditate, talk to someone you love (or
at least like a lot!). All of this can help bring peace and calm.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I am not
trying to keep anyone from trying to make the world a better place. But, to
worry endlessly about things you have very little control over and ignoring the
good that is around you is not fair to you. Support whatever cause you feel
passionate about with your time and or money. <b><i>But make sure you step away
and reflect on the things that are right with your world.</i></b> </span></p>
gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-11738797867141324742023-05-14T21:53:00.000-04:002023-05-14T21:53:02.169-04:00SHUT 'ER DOWN!!<p> Well, even though the media is doing what they always do and making the budget dispute now seem to be unique and disastrous, it is neither.</p><p>Just since 1980 there have been 10 government shutdowns. Some were for only certain branches of the government (in a bit of disclosure, I am not sure how the government can only shut down only some parts) and some were for only one day (actually only part of one day). </p><p>The last two were during the Trump administration. Those times the executive branch (Trump administration) wanted to set some limits on spending and the Democratic controlled Congress did not. The entire government was shut down for three days in January 2018 and then in December of 2018 the majority of the government was shut down for 35 days into January of 2019. </p><p>During the Obama administration there was a complete government shutdown for 16 days. The Obama administration was trying to increase spending and the Republican led Congress was trying to set limits. (See the previous posts on spending if you want to see that there have not been cuts - pretty much EVER). FYI, this time the "cuts" are in the growth, not the actual spending. But, that is another issue.</p><p>The government was shutdown for 21 days during the Clinton administration as well. </p><p>The point is, even if the government is "shutdown" life goes on. As for not being able to pay Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid bills, the military, etc.; that is mostly hyperbole. The government takes in money every quarter. The problem is, spending is greater than the intake of revenue, but there is always money coming in. (again, see the previous post - and many others prior to that - for more information) We have survived shutdowns running weeks and we have all survived as has the government. </p><p>As a final comment - spending DOES have to be cut or we will cease to have a viable economy. The spending bill passed by Congress (yes, there is one, but the Biden administration does not like it) has NO CUTS in it to spending. It has cuts to GROWTH in spending going forward. That is deemed to be radical and dangerous by the Democrats/Biden administration. SMH<br /></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-17385237835289151572023-05-08T21:35:00.006-04:002023-05-09T20:54:59.226-04:00Hey, I'm Good For It!<p> Here it is headed towards the middle of the fifth month of 2023, a year that I began promising myself I would start posting regularly again! Oh well...</p><p>I am moved to do this post due to the totally manufactured "debt crisis" that Congress is foisting upon us, the taxpayer - AGAIN! </p><p>Why do we have to raise the debt ceiling again? What is the debt ceiling? Why does any of this matter?</p><p>The debt ceiling was put into place in its modern form with the Budget Acts of 1939 and 1941. This established a limit to how much debt could be incurred by Congress to try to cap the cost of borrowing and spending. The issue has been, especially of late, that Congress just passed another set of rules saying they could increase this limit at will. (obviously assuming that the two parties could agree on the amount and vote it through) So, the limit is really just a suggestion, more or less.</p><p>The debt ceiling has to be raised because Congress/the Federal Government is spending more than is being taken in. Now, there are some that are saying this is happening due to tax cuts and such. That is B.S. The tax revenues have increased every year but one since a brief fall during the recession of 2008-2009. </p><p>In 2000 the tax revenue taken in was $2.03 Trillion. </p><p>By 2010 the figure had grown to $2.16 Trillion. That was after the drop I mentioned that occurred during the recession of 2008-09. The revenues had actually increased to $2.57 Trillion by 2007.</p><p>In 2015 the tax revenue was $3.25 Trillion. </p><p>2016 - $3.27 Trillion<br /></p><p>2017 - $3.32 Trillion </p><p>2018 - $3.33 Trillion</p><p>2019 - $3.46 Trillion (note the evil Trump tax cuts took effect in 2017)<br /></p><p>2020 - $3.42 Trillion</p><p>2021 - $4.05 Trillion </p><p>2022 - $4.90 Trillion (estimated) <br /></p><p>The issue is NOT tax revenue, it is increased SPENDING!! Do not believe the hype from a Congress that knows they can buy votes with spending. The government took in 50% MORE tax revenue in 2022 than in 2015. Are you making 50% more than eight years ago? I know some are, but most are not.<br /></p><p>In 2021, the last time the debt ceiling was raised, it was increased to the current $31.47 Trillion from right at $29 Trillion or an additional $2.5 Trillion dollars - over $7,500 for EVERY Man, Woman, and Child in the USA! Here we are two years later and the Congress-creatures want us to let them borrow more. </p><p>I know the arguments: If we don't allow them to borrow more the world will almost come to an immediate halt. People won't get paid, Social Security checks won't get sent, and all sorts of evil things. </p><p>That is a bit of an exaggeration, but essentially true. But, if you are drowning in debt, do you get to ask for a loan? Or, do you have to cut your spending? Congress has spent more and more and more and then they scream about how the government is going to default and the world will end.</p><p>In 2008 a Presidential candidate Barrack Obama said that the other candidate, sitting President Bush had allowed the national debt to rise to over $9 Trillion. He said this was almost "criminal". That is less than one-third of what it is today.</p><p>The government cannot keep spending and spending and spending. One issue now is the service on the debt. We all know the Federal Reserve has been raising interest rates to combat inflation (a misguided effort for may reasons, but that is another subject). The interest on the huge national debt will be well over $500 Billion (half a Trillion) dollars for 2023 and was over $400 Billion for 2022. Here is what was spent in 2022 by each government department:</p><div style="display: flex; justify-content: flex-end;"><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #79fff4; color: #00766c; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 600; margin-bottom: 24px; margin-left: 4px; min-width: 80px;">Dollars</span></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--chartsContainer--15MfP"><div data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" data-darkreader-inline-bgimage="" style="--darkreader-inline-bgcolor: #005e56; --darkreader-inline-bgimage: none; background: rgb(0, 118, 108); height: 40px; margin-right: 10px; width: 52%;"></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--percentOrDollarContainer--8CPjX" style="margin-right: 0px;">$1.64 T</div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--descContainer--2CJdt">Department of Health and Human Services</div></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--chartsContainer--15MfP"><div data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" data-darkreader-inline-bgimage="" style="--darkreader-inline-bgcolor: #005e56; --darkreader-inline-bgimage: none; background: rgb(0, 118, 108); height: 40px; margin-right: 10px; width: 40%;"></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--percentOrDollarContainer--8CPjX" style="margin-right: 8px;">$1.28 T</div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--descContainer--2CJdt">Social Security Administration</div></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--chartsContainer--15MfP"><div data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" data-darkreader-inline-bgimage="" style="--darkreader-inline-bgcolor: #005e56; --darkreader-inline-bgimage: none; background: rgb(0, 118, 108); height: 40px; margin-right: 10px; width: 38%;"></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--percentOrDollarContainer--8CPjX" style="margin-right: 8px;">$1.16 T</div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--descContainer--2CJdt">Department of the Treasury</div></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--chartsContainer--15MfP"><div data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" data-darkreader-inline-bgimage="" style="--darkreader-inline-bgcolor: #005e56; --darkreader-inline-bgimage: none; background: rgb(0, 118, 108); height: 40px; margin-right: 10px; width: 24%;"></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--percentOrDollarContainer--8CPjX" style="margin-right: 8px;">$727 B</div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--descContainer--2CJdt">Department of Defense--Military Programs</div></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--chartsContainer--15MfP"><div data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" data-darkreader-inline-bgimage="" style="--darkreader-inline-bgcolor: #005e56; --darkreader-inline-bgimage: none; background: rgb(0, 118, 108); height: 40px; margin-right: 10px; width: 20%;"></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--percentOrDollarContainer--8CPjX" style="margin-right: 8px;">$639 B</div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--descContainer--2CJdt">Department of Education</div></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--chartsContainer--15MfP"><div data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" data-darkreader-inline-bgimage="" style="--darkreader-inline-bgcolor: #005e56; --darkreader-inline-bgimage: none; background: rgb(0, 118, 108); height: 40px; margin-right: 10px; width: 8%;"></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--percentOrDollarContainer--8CPjX" style="margin-right: 8px;">$274 B</div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--descContainer--2CJdt">Department of Veterans Affairs</div></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--chartsContainer--15MfP"><div data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" data-darkreader-inline-bgimage="" style="--darkreader-inline-bgcolor: #005e56; --darkreader-inline-bgimage: none; background: rgb(0, 118, 108); height: 40px; margin-right: 10px; width: 8%;"></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--percentOrDollarContainer--8CPjX" style="margin-right: 8px;">$245 B</div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--descContainer--2CJdt">Department of Agriculture</div></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--chartsContainer--15MfP"><div data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" data-darkreader-inline-bgimage="" style="--darkreader-inline-bgcolor: #005e56; --darkreader-inline-bgimage: none; background: rgb(0, 118, 108); height: 40px; margin-right: 10px; width: 4%;"></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--percentOrDollarContainer--8CPjX" style="margin-right: 8px;">$114 B</div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--descContainer--2CJdt">Department of Transportation</div></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--chartsContainer--15MfP"><div data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" data-darkreader-inline-bgimage="" style="--darkreader-inline-bgcolor: #005e56; --darkreader-inline-bgimage: none; background: rgb(0, 118, 108); height: 40px; margin-right: 10px; width: 4%;"></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--percentOrDollarContainer--8CPjX" style="margin-right: 8px;">$113 B</div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--descContainer--2CJdt">Office of Personnel Management</div></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--chartsContainer--15MfP"><div data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" data-darkreader-inline-bgimage="" style="--darkreader-inline-bgcolor: #005e56; --darkreader-inline-bgimage: none; background: rgb(0, 118, 108); height: 40px; margin-right: 10px; width: 2%;"></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--percentOrDollarContainer--8CPjX" style="margin-right: 8px;">$81 B</div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--descContainer--2CJdt">Department of Homeland Security</div></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--chartsContainer--15MfP"><div data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" data-darkreader-inline-bgimage="" style="--darkreader-inline-bgcolor: #005e56; --darkreader-inline-bgimage: none; background: rgb(0, 118, 108); height: 40px; margin-right: 10px; width: 0%;"></div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--percentOrDollarContainer--8CPjX">$8 B</div><div class="how-much-does-the-govt-spend-module--descContainer--2CJdt">Other </div></div><p>The interest on the debt is more than the Department of Veterans Affairs AND the Department of Transportation COMBINED! That will only get worse with the recent interest increase and the increase in spending. </p><p>Tell your Congress-creature they don't need more money to spend, they need to spend LESS!!<br /></p><p><br /></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-17418104467384291712022-06-24T20:58:00.001-04:002022-06-24T20:58:34.278-04:00It's the Supremes! (but where's Diana Ross?)<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> Today is June 24th 2022, This day will be remembered as the day the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v Wade. I will start out by stating my personal feelings on abortion to clear the air. I have no problem with abortion on demand, even as birth control, in the first trimester (which was what Roe said, fyi). The age of viability (that age where a fetus is more likely to survive than die if delivered) is 24 week currently. The youngest baby to survive was 21 weeks and 5 days old. That is why I have no issue with first trimester (@13 weeks) abortions are fine for any reason. I also have no issue with an abortion at any stage (with some caveats) in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I think that decision should be up to the mother, her family - to the extent she wants them involved -, her doctor, and whatever higher power she may beleive in. So, this is not my cheer for the end of abortion! </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In case this is being read in some distant future where Roe v Wade is not recognizable, that was the name adopted (as is tradition for legal cases) from the litigants in a case concerning the legality/Constitutionality of laws banning abortions. The litigant, Norma McCorvey - referred to as Jane Roe to protect her identity - was prevented from having an abortion due to a Texas law. She filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the District Attorney in Dallas, Tx (representing the government by proxy) - thus Roe vs Wade.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, some clarity: the Supremes did not rule against abortion today. Obviously I do not know what is in the hearts and minds of the Justices, maybe a personal bias against abortion played a role with one or more Justice's vote. However, Supreme Court cases are not about being "for" or "against" anything before them, with rare exception. Their job is to rule on the Constitutionality (legality, in a way) of laws or rulings by lower courts on laws. In fact the case today was not even about Roe v Wade, nor were those names part of the case name, which was (is?): </span><span data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" style="--darkreader-inline-bgcolor: #0f1111; background-color: #131516; font-family: Publico; font-size: 18px; font-weight: 700;">Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. </span><span style="font-size: large;">It concerned the legality/Constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law banning most abortions in that State after 15 weeks gestation. The challenge to the Mississippi law invoked Roe as precedent that the law was unconstitutional. T</span><span style="font-size: large;">he Justices today ruled that State's do have the right to set laws for their residents that to not explicitly violate the Constitution. Since no medical procedure is mentioned in the Constitution it was ruled that way. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now for the legal argument against Roe, to the limits of my knowledge. I have taken a couple of Constitutional law courses over my studies. I never heard anyone agree that Roe was "good law". Invoking the 14th amendment as the basis for the Roe v Wade ruling has been decried by many, many people including Ruth Bader Ginsburg. RBG commented several times over the years that Roe was flawed and a bad decision. (my words, paraphrasing hers) She was a huge women's rights advocate and believed in abortion rights, but not Roe v Wade. She had hoped for another legal solution to allow abortions.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">What the court did was eliminate Federal jurisdiction over abortions and send the power back to the States to decide. That is how it should be according to many Constitutional scholars (and myself). The Constitution states in the Tenth Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights that: </span><span data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-bgcolor: #131516; --darkreader-inline-color: #b2aca2; background-color: #181a1b; color: #b2aca2; font-family: "Source Sans Pro", sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.</span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So, if a right is not expressly enumerated or spelled out, it should be handled by the people of each State through their elected representatives and the laws they make. This was how the US was set up - a confederation of independent States. The citizens of each State would have their representatives in their legislatures pass laws that met the mores, and desires of the people of that State. This has been eroded - in error, in my opinion - by those that want a Federal law to take precedent. The Constitution has been amended and interpreted to allow control by the Federal government in a broad range of areas. However, pure Constitutionalists see this a getting away from the Founders intent. But, I will move on. I have three posts on here about civics and the Constitution from a few years ago. If you care to, check them out. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Some people are comparing the Justices ruling earlier this week striking down the NY law severely limiting the right to carry a firearm on ones person. The HUGE difference here is that the right to bear arms is guaranteed explicitly and with that exact verbiage in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. They did not rule that one could carry a gun, fyi. They ruled the NY law was unconstitutional.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Abortion is not and was not banned by the Supremes. There are State laws now that ban abortions or put strong limits on the procedure. The key here is to get your State to change the laws or move to a State that has a law more pleasing to you. That was the intent of the Founders anyway.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-54406933765181423722022-04-17T10:53:00.000-04:002022-04-17T10:53:29.075-04:00AGE and AGEING<p> <span style="font-size: medium;">Age is just a number. You are only as old as you feel. Ageing is just another word for living. It's not how old you are, it's how you are old.</span></p><p>You probably have heard most if not all of those statements. Depending on your age when you heard them, you may have chuckled, or you may have just ignored them.</p><p>What is old? Age IS a number. We use it to have a measure of someone's maturity, although it is not a very good indicator of this. As for how old one may feel, I cannot speak for others but for me that means there are days I have one foot in the grave and others that I should join in a T-ball game. </p><p>To a 4 year old, a 10 year old is - old! In fact, I have a formula - if you are from 5 to 15 in age - someone that is half-again older than you - rounded up to the next whole year, is old (for clarity - I am not talking "ancient", just old). For example, a 6 year old would consider a 9 year old - old. They can stay up later. Instead of being in first grade, they are in the third or fourth. To a 11 year old a 17 year old is old. They are going to high school, can drive, can have a job, etc. </p><p>Now, you get to 16, you are driving. Other permissions have opened up to you as well. So, a 24 year old may not seem old, just older. To continue my formula, from 16+ someone twice your age is old. A 20 year old would consider a 40 year old - old; and so on.</p><p>Self-perception of age is different. The "not how old you are..." quote comes into play. If you are relatively healthy, with no serious mobility issues, 65 may not be old to you. There is a cognitive aspect to this as well. If your mental faculties are operating sufficiently, that too will keep you "young" if only in your mind. By the same token, if getting around and/or performing daily activities is difficult or impossible, you will more than likely feel "old" whatever your chronological age may be.</p><p>To be fair here. I am not sure exactly where to go with this. This thought came to me in the middle of the night and I have also been interrupted a few times while writing it. So, I will end with a poem and be done.</p><p> <span style="font-size: 16pt;">Getting Old</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">There are things I can’t
remember, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">That I’m not sure I ever
knew.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">There are places that I
can’t recall,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">I’m not sure I’ve ever
been to.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">There are people I can’t
picture,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">I'm not positive I ever met.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">It can be hard to say if I
ever knew,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Or if I did just forget.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;"> “THE”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;"> 4/8/17<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><br /></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-33201745619378980472022-03-08T13:59:00.001-05:002022-03-08T13:59:10.863-05:00WAR and the ECONOMY<p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"> I have been
studying the potential effects of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the
response by the rest of the world on the economy.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Some facts
on Russia and its economy – <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Russia has a
very large supply of certain minerals and natural resources, and they constitute
a large percentage of the world’s supply. For example: Russia provides 10% of
the world’s petroleum. Of that, they supply 40% of Europe’s natural gas. As a reference,
25% of all energy consumed in Europe is from natural gas.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Russia is
the top supplier in the world of grain – mostly wheat, of fertilizer products,
and of nickel. Nickel is necessary and critical for production of stainless
steel, and of lithium-ion batteries. They are also the top producer of palladium.
This rare metal is used in electronics, catalytic converters, and many other
industrial uses – like the batteries mentioned above.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Russia is
the #2 producer of platinum and aluminum. Both critical construction components
in high-tech devices.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">They are #3
in coal and steel exports. <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">They are #4
in steel production<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">They are #5 in
the mining and export of iron ore, and of wood production. <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">In total
Russia provides @17% of the world’s commodities. They have the world’s 11<sup>th</sup>
largest GDP – 6<sup>th</sup> when measured in purchasing power.</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The sanctions against Russia have isolated it from most of
the world and crippled its economy and ability for most world trade. The loss
of access to and trade of the above-mentioned commodities and products will
impact the entire world. Even if Russia and Ukraine agree to a cease-fire and/or
cessation of hostilities, the sanctions are likely to continue, at least for
the foreseeable future. Cutting Russian banks off the “normal” world supply of
money and monetary transactions also will have a worldwide effect. Cutting
Russia off dollar transactions could unintentionally cause issues with the US
dollar as the unofficial standard of world trade as Russia works to raise
capital by any means. With China very desirous of having its currency becoming
the world’s standard, they could assist with this issue. That would have huge
consequences on the US economy long-term.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The loss of supply, especially the metals mentioned above,
have already caused tremendous spikes and availability problems with nickel,
stainless steel, copper, and other metals. Some of these prices are historical
highs. This pricing will impact pricing even more in an economy that is
absorbing the highest inflation in modern memory. (a side-note – comparing today’s
inflation with the 1980s is not truly possible as the formula for calculating
inflation has changed multiple times since – using the 1980s method of computing
inflation shows today’s figure much, much higher) <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>The metals and minerals that are supplied in large part by
Russia (and Ukraine coincidentally) are used widely in the new “green
technologies” – battery production has been mentioned, but also in electric
motors, wind turbines, solar cells, etc. The loss of a great supply of petroleum
will be harder to make up with this problem occurring at the same time. This will
lead to price increases in energy as well as potential shortages of supply.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In my industry of major appliances, steel shortages are
already playing a part. Stainless steel has been a bit more available. With the
raw materials for stainless steel being largely provided by Russia and the area
affected, stainless steel may also become an issue. It most definitely will
increase in price. Chips and circuit boards will continue to be tight. This
would be somewhat due to raw materials and from chips being diverted to
military use. Again, even if the active fighting stops today, Russia will want
to replace all the “smart” weapons they have used, and NATO and others will want
to ramp up production. With an almost unlimited budget, military contracts
normally get filled prior to commercial/consumer ones. This is also true of a
lot of other electrical/electronic parts that have uses in military and
consumer goods.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pressure on household economies and spending will be great
from inflation and macro-economic issues caused by the factors of supply and
energy discussed above. The loss of consumer confidence over the past two or three
months has only been accelerated by the Russian/Ukrainian conflict. This also
does not bode well for retail sales of any products, especially non-essential
ones. The benefit of our industry is that a lot of the products are essential
and if possible, they will be replaced. It may not be with the latest and greatest,
but they will be purchased. This could bode well for companies that fit into the
“meat” of the market quite well. True luxury brands too should do well, as those
in the top wealth tiers will continue to have money. What will suffer is the “better”
goods, if history is an indication. GE branded and Hotpoint appliances will outsell
Profile for example – in this scenario.<o:p></o:p></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-43704609381214006282022-02-13T12:31:00.002-05:002022-02-13T12:31:31.627-05:00THE WAY WE WERE...<p> <span style="font-size: large;">I just looked at the date of my last post and saw it was four months ago! I did not realize it has been that long. As I have mentioned here a few times after a pause like that - I don't not write due to a lack of inspiration or ideas, I don't write due to too much inspiration and too many ideas. I have four or five ideas for a post almost all the time. I cannot decide which to do, or I feel I have done a similar post in the past, or whatever reason - and I just don't do the post. Well, here I am again.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Speaking of doing similar posts, I decided this would not be about the pandemic or the vaccines (although I do still have a LOT of thoughts on that subject), I also decided not to do politics/political commentary, at least not directly. There are some that will consider this post political commentary - and maybe it is. On with the show...</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I was looking through my Facebook feed just now and came across a couple of posts showing "the way we were" or nostalgia/nostalgic photos. At least on my feed, I get a lot of that. Does everyone? Not sure. But that got me to thinking about how we romanticize the past and tend to remember the good things over the bad, unless the bad are VERY bad or tragic.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This made me think of the criticisms that (warning - political speak coming...) "Make America Great Again" brought on. Now, I know that a lot of the criticisms were from the fact that it was a political campaign slogan. Automatically the other side had to take offense. In today's world, if one party takes on stance, the other has to take the opposite - in almost every case. As someone that has lived through many campaigns and election cycles I can tell you that some of that has always been the case. I can also tell you that the division between and opposition to anything that the other party takes a stand on has never been greater (in my lifetime anyway). What is really almost humorous in a way is that sometimes the parties switch positions. Party 1 will come out for something and Party 2 will be against it. Then a switch will occur in the power of each party and Party 2 will come out FOR what Party 1 was supporting and Party 1 will be against it. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I was/am a supporter of "Make America Great Again" as a statement and as a political position (OK, those of you that think this is a political commentary post may be correct). But, the detractors and critics of that statement made it to be a race or power thing. I don't see it that way. I do not know anyone personally that wants to go back to segregation (FYI, I am not naïve enough or blind enough to say these types of folks aren't out there, I am saying I do not know anyone that has expressed that to me personally) , or a return to some of the worst aspects of past life. To me, MAGA means: (in no particular order - just as they pop into my head)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> <b><i>a return to civility and a </i></b></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><i>less judgmental</i></b></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><i> era.</i></b> You could have your views and I could have mine without us becoming mortal enemies.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>a return to a time when laws were respected along with those that upheld and enforced them.</i></b> Today, if even an elected official - sworn to "uphold the law" - does not agree with a law, they just do not enforce or obey it.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i style="font-weight: bold;">a return to a time when a minimum wage job was for a teenager's first job and was not expected to support anyone, or any family. </i>I know that there are people that do not have the training to do anything else - but that is the problem. Making entry-level jobs pay enough to support a family is not the answer.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>a return to a time when the government was not so authoritarian</i></b>. (in the spirit of disclosure, I am a staunch libertarian at heart - I believe most of the Federal level of government along with most of the State level, should and could be done away with) Dependency on the government is a cancer on society.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>a return to a time when the family was revered as THE way to live and to rear children</i></b>. Today, at least 25% of children are raised in a single family household. In 1960 that was 9%. Worldwide today, that figure is 7%. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>a return to a time when schools were to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic - not as social justice breeding grounds.</i></b> The fact listed above is tied into this one, but I do not think schools and teachers have any authority to teach ideology or moralistic practices beyond what is needed to function in society and school. That should be the duty of the parents. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>a return to a time when the trades were respected and in some cases aspired to by many.</i></b> We still need plumbers, welders, machinists, and others that work with their hands. Going to a four-year college or more is idiotic for a large percentage of the population. To get a degree that does not add a job skill is even more idiotic.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am not sure if it would be a return to, as I am not sure it ever truly existed in practice, but - <b><i>a return to the golden rule </i></b>- Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You" is a great overarching philosophy and would solve a lot of our immediate social issues if followed.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Were there bad things in society when the above were the norm? (if they ever truly were) Of course there were. There are bad things going on today and there will be bad things tomorrow. Evil exists. There is a right and a wrong in most circumstances. Sometimes what is right or good is harder to do. That means a certain percentage of people will choose the wrong or evil path.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I have published a statement along these lines - "Acceptance of what you do and/or who you are does not signal approval". I don't care if you wear leggings on your head (had trouble coming up with something absurd 😉) I can just ignore it - but, don't take that as me approving of your choice. Similarly, my disapproval does not signify hatred of you nor non-acceptance of your choice. Have at it, just don't try to make your choice the only one acceptable.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Be good to each other. More to come, I am sure.</span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-26690749490614784082021-10-25T22:51:00.004-04:002021-10-25T22:51:54.265-04:00Covid-19, 18, 17, 16,...1 Boom! Part2<p> <span style="font-size: large;">This is a continuation and supplement to the previous post. If you have not read that one, I highly recommend you do so as they connect and augment each other.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After I published the previous post - after almost 2 hours of writing while reviewing notes and doing additional research - I realized that I had left out quite a bit of information that I had intended to include. This post is to remedy that.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">First, in the previous post I referenced being "fully-vaccinated" and said I would address it later. That was referring to another of the moving goalposts that the CDC/NIH has set-up concerning this illness. Fully vaccinated against Covid-19 was defined as a shot of either Moderna or Pfizer with a follow-up at a later date - typically 3 or 4 weeks after the first depending on which vaccine you had. It also referred to a single shot of the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine. I do not think it has been officially changed at this writing, but the head of the CDC said last week that the definition "may have to be changed" so that one is not considered as "fully-vaccinated" if they have not had the follow-up booster shots. As I said in the first post: <b><i>A "vaccine" that does not confer immunity, and any benefit it does offer only lasts for 5 to 7 months is not a vaccine at all.</i></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A follow-up on the "fully tested and safe" claim of the mRNA vaccine: a very recent study has been released and a scientific and medical committee has recommended that acetaminophen (the generic name for Tylenol) have a warning for pregnant women as it has been shown to (a quote from the study) "</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: open-sans, sans-serif;"><b><i><span style="font-size: medium;">it is possible for the drug to alter fetal development, which in some cases could result in neurological, urological, and reproductive disorders in the infant.</span></i></b></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: open-sans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">"</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">This is not meant to blast acetaminophen/Tylenol, but to showcase how even a "safe" and approved drug that has been around for decades - the FDA approved it for children in 1951 and McNeil began marketing it in 1955 by prescription and was approved for OTC sales in children's strength in 1959 and for adults in 1961 - and has just now been determined to have potential for great harm. It has also now been tied to many other childhood issues that you can find it you want to do some research. Again, this is an FDA approved and widely sold (and recommended) drug that after sixty years of sales is being shown to have issues. Here is another snippet from a report:</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 13.5pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 45.0pt; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: black; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In the U.S. alone</span><sup><span style="color: #0869bd; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 7.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">24</span></sup><span style="color: black; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> the National Institutes of Health's
STATPearls manual reports that there are 2,600 hospitalizations, 56,000
emergency room visits and 500 deaths each year for acetaminophen overdoses as
of July 2021. And, the drug is the second leading cause of liver transplantation
worldwide and the leading cause of transplantation in the U.S.</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 13.5pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 45.0pt; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;"><br /></p><span style="font-size: large;">I mentioned the recent reports from Israel - of which the population is in the high 90% vaccinated area.</span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: #F0F0F0; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 13.5pt; margin-left: 49.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A recent report details a SARS-CoV-2 Delta outbreak in an
Israeli hospital where 238 out of 248 (96%) of the exposed patients and staff
had been fully vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: #F0F0F0; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 13.5pt; margin-left: 49.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Of the 238 fully vaccinated individuals, 39 (16%) were infected,
as were three of the 10 unvaccinated individuals who got exposed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: #F0F0F0; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 13.5pt; margin-left: 49.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">While all of the sickened staff recovered, five infected
patients died and nine turned into severe or critical cases. All of the dead
and severe/critical cases were fully vaccinated. Two unvaccinated patients that
got infected only had mild illness<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: #F0F0F0; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 13.5pt; margin-left: 49.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This outbreak tells us that the COVID shots cannot create herd
immunity. It also suggests vaccinated people may be more prone to serious and
lethal infection than the unvaccinated<o:p></o:p></span></p><span style="font-size: large;">I also mentioned about the misinformation that is being spread that having "everyone" vaccinated will stop the disease. Here is a snippet from the NIH site:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: #F0F0F0; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 49.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Of 41,552 hospitalized patients in the U.S., 73% of the
unvaccinated, 71% of the partially vaccinated and 72% of the fully vaccinated
received a diagnosis of COVID-like illness (CLI) between January 1, 2021, and
June 22, 2021</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: #F0F0F0; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 49.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></p><span style="font-size: large;"><br />I also mentioned Singapore which is over 75% vaccinated is having a huge outbreak of cases, hospitalizations and deaths. Here is a snippet from an article in Lancet concerning the outbreak:</span></div><div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: whitesmoke; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 107%;">Singapore’s daily cases
hit a record 3,994 on October 19, with the seven-day average number of new
infections more than tripling in the last month. The overall death toll has
more than quadrupled over the same period, rising to 280 on October 21 from
just 65. Authorities, meanwhile, have attested to rising pressure on hospitals
and healthcare workers</span><span style="background: whitesmoke; color: #111111; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 15.0pt; line-height: 107%;">.<o:p></o:p></span></p><span style="font-size: large;">So there (which is mostly a Pfizer vaccinated territory), the deaths are growing faster than the cases!</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Both of the above could be from another fact that has come out now that we have actual field results on this disease: the vaccinated have a larger load of the virus than non-vaccinated. This could (speculation on my part and others that I have read) cause the growth in cases even among the vaccinated.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">On the lack of honesty and openness from the government and the CDC, last week the CDC finally admitted to funding "gain of function" research in Wuhan, China. This is what Dr. Fauci vehemently denied before Congress a couple of times. It now is proven he was either lying or he is incompetent and does not know where millions of dollars of research grant money is being spent in an area that he controls. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Lastly, what is one supposed to do to avoid issues with this disease. One thing that is proving to be critical is to keep a good, high Vitamin D (vit D3 is the correct supplement) blood level. Vitamin D is very, very important to the immune system (and many other bodily systems). A large portion of patients that had the most severe cases have been shown to be deficient or low in Vitamin D levels. The patients that have the best results tend to have the highest levels. With the fear that has been instilled in the population over sun exposure has caused a deficiency in Vitamin D in many people. Our bodies can produce Vitamin D, but it requires sun exposure. If you do not get enough sunlight, supplementation (with D3) can be used. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I also have lots of data on the alternative and traditional treatments that are being used around the world with great results. For some reason that escapes me (I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, so I am having trouble grasping why any treatment is being vilified) any treatment over vaccination is being totally dismissed. It may be that all the treatments that have been mentioned are relatively low cost and cannot be patented. You all have probably heard of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">, and others. They are being used around the world with great success. Both mentioned drugs are safe when used as prescribed and have been used literally billions of times around the world. (not for Covid, but use is use and shows safety) Now Pfizer has a new drug (that they can patent and mark up hundreds of times) that is being touted. The trials have shown this drug not to be as safe as either of them. But, that is not the purpose of this post. I may do one at a later date with all the data.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br /></span><br /><br /><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(240, 240, 240); line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0in 49.5pt;"><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></div>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-73967138717189531312021-10-23T12:06:00.007-04:002021-10-23T12:08:14.575-04:00Covid-19, 18, 17, 16...1 - BOOM!<p><span style="font-size: large;">I had hoped not to do another Covid-19 post, but here I am - doing one!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As I noted in a previous post, I have been amazed at the sheer panicked response to this virus. I guess since I do not watch any TV news, nor ever watched a press conference by anyone concerning the virus, maybe I have missed some of the worst hyperbole. Maybe since I actively work on my health and especially my immune system regularly I have not been as affected by it. I am not sure.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Let me start out by saying I am not an anti-vax'er, at least by my standards. I do have and get the DPT and MMR vaccines. I have been vaccinated against polio and smallpox. I have also had the Covid-19 vaccine, and am what is still referred to today as "fully vaccinated" with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. (more in a moment on that). In the spirit of disclosure, I have never gotten a seasonal influenza shot, and at this time I cannot ever see myself getting one. Currently I am also not planning on getting a Covid-19 vaccine booster shot. (FYI, I do realize that those last statements makes me an "anti-vax'er" in many's eyes) Vaccines that do not confer immunity and need to be taken very frequently (annually or more often) are not appealing to me at all nor do they make medical sense with what I know of the immune system/response in humans.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I have a statement that sums up my thoughts on this after many, many hours of study. (to clarify, I get a regularly read <i>The Lancet</i>, the British Medical journal; I also regularly go to the National Institutes of Health - NIH website, the Center for Disease Control - CDC website, the World Health Organization - WHO website (not so much of late), and other medical/health websites very regularly) The statement is:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>A "vaccine" that does not confer immunity, and whatever benefits it does offer last for only 5 - 7 months, is not a "vaccine" at all!</i></b></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: large;">In fact, a "vaccine" that has that result does not meet the CDC's own definition of a vaccine.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">OK, moving on. There are about 7,800 deaths that have been reported to VAERS from the vaccines as of today. (which is interesting as when I looked at it a month ago there were @12,000 - but that is another issue - we will go with the 7,800). These are deaths directly attributed to the vaccine and its side effects. Now, statistically that is a very low number when compared to the total vaccines given. Just one reference though, the H1N1 vaccine was scrapped and withdrawn years back when 41 people died. (again, I will note that it was in a MUCH smaller population of people that had received the vaccine, but...) That speaks to the "totally safe..." comments that you hear in the promotion of the vaccines. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Kind of on this subject, I wonder why anyone believes ANYTHING that the "experts" say on this virus? Almost every single statement or prediction on the virus has been proven wrong or they have just restated the "facts" and moved on like nothing happened. The subterfuge started with vaccine-god Fauci in February and early March of 2020 when he said that masks were not a good idea for the general populations and that he did not see a scenario where it was a good idea to have people wearing masks all the time. It continued with the Mayor of New York - Cuomo, the Mayor of San Franciso - Breed, as well as our esteemed Speaker of the House - Pelosi, were telling people to get out and about there was no reason to fear. This was in late February and into mid-March 2020 as well. Then we had the "two-week shutdown". After 18 months in some places, the two-weeks is almost up! On the vaccine front, we were told by our "experts" not to mix the vaccines. We were told to make sure you have your second dose within the 3 to 4 week window. We were told they are all equal, fully safe and tested, and good to go. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">To the subject of "fully tested" and safe - the vaccine was run through trials and testing faster than any vaccine in history. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccine use a very new technology that has never been used in a human vaccine before. Yet, they can tell us that these vaccines are "fully tested" and safe. Now, I will agree that as far as immediate effects and symptoms, they are as safe as most medicines. My issue is, no one has any idea what effect these vaccines will have on the body and its systems years or decades from now. What if instead of a vaccine, we called the Pfizer and Moderna shots - genetic manipulation? That is actually a more fitting name than vaccine. Would you still get the shots?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If you have ever watched any late night or Sunday morning TV, you have probably seen ads with a serious announcer asking "have you or your family ever taken xxxx(insert drug here), and suffered xxxx(insert side effect or damage here)? If so call this number now to see if you qualify for compensation." These drugs were all "fully tested" and safe - until they weren't. There have been vaccines pulled from the market over the years, just like drugs have. (again, to be fair - not many vaccines, but a couple like the H1N1 I referenced above). Quite a few drugs and vaccines don't make it out of human trials. The issue here is, these vaccines were given human trials that were much, much shorter than is normal. Who knows where will be with side effects in 5 years or more?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Another blanket statement: If you are over 50, or over 35 or so with co-morbidities - GET VACCINATED FOR COVID. It is shown pretty conclusively that vaccination helps prevent deaths and serious illness from the virus. However, if you look at the deaths and hospitalizations of those healthy individuals under 35, and especially under 25 - this virus is not a great threat. As for vaccinating children for this virus, I personally think after all the research I have done and the fact that there have been very, very few deaths under 20 - I would not - in fact I think it is crazy to do so! </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This is turning out to be a very long post. I have learned in the 13+ years I have been writing blogs that the longer the posts, the less readers. However, there is much more to say. So here we go.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We have been told that the vaccines prevent deaths and serious illness. That was very true with the original virus and the first few variants. With Delta and the new Delta variant (yes there are at least 2 Deltas), not so much. FYI, it is not discussed often, but there are MANY variants that have been identified - Alpha was the original, then Beta, Gamma, Epsilon, Eta, Iota, Kappa (and its variants), Mu, Delta (and it's new variant "Delta +" or Delta AY lineage) The original vaccines were developed from the Alpha line. Very briefly, (and very unscientifically) they worked by making the body aware of the spikes that the virus used to attach itself to the ACE 2 receptors in the body. (as an aside, the reason for the lung and circulatory issues with Covid-19 is due to the fact that those areas of the body contain a lot of ACE 2 receptors) Viruses have one mission - to make more viruses. Viruses are parasites of a sort, they cannot live without a host. To make more viruses, they mutate to remain effective. There is no conscious thought to this, it just happens. Most of the mutations are not productive. However viruses replicate so often that mutations happen very quickly comparatively. The mutations that make it are those that are more infectious - they allow the viruses to find and set-up in more hosts, and in some cases - those that are less deadly. That may seem counter-intuitive. But if you think that viruses need a host and they exist to create more viruses, they need to be able to have a host that lives long enough for them to spread themselves around. If a host can remain mobile and functional, that contributes to their success. If the virus kills the host, that is not good from a virus's standpoint.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now what will be seen as a controversial statement by some (maybe most): Vaccines, especially ones that do not completely stop the spread and do not confer immunity, actually can cause viruses to mutate quicker. The mutations that survive are those that the virus does not affect. As I understand it, the Delta variant is so successful because it changed the spike (or eliminated that one - I am still doing research on that) that the vaccine has the body look for. That is the limitation of these mRNA vaccines - they are very specific. That can be good I guess in some cases, but bad in this case where the immunity/defense is based on a small portion of the virus. When that changed, the vaccine is much, much less effective. Imperfect or partial vaccines cause only the viruses that can beat the vaccine to live. So vaccines actually enhance the successful mutations.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Let's move on to that - effectiveness. The vaccine is now estimated to be less than 50% effective against the most prevalent variants. Some scientific articles I just read say it is under 40%. When a vaccine is well under 50% effective it may be doing more harm than good going forward. We have real life testing of this now - Israel is fully vaccinated by definition - @95% (I have seen a figure as high as 97%). However, they have had more cases recently than early this year when a small portion of the population had been vaccinated. Although deaths have dropped, they are still seeing many deaths, almost all among vaccinated people.</span><span style="font-size: large;"> Singapore is over 75% vaccinated and has had a huge increase in both cases and deaths. As we get areas in the USA that are highly vaccinated, we are seeing the same things. As I said above, if you are over 50 and/or have co-morbidities, get the vaccine. But, the idiotic claim that full vaccination with these vaccines is going to stop this virus are just that - idiotic claims.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now to a favorite - masks. The mask is good if the wearer is symptomatic. However, for a well person to wear a mask may cause more issues than solve. Why? First, it can cause a false sense of security and they may participate in more risky behaviors, Second, masks when repeatedly worn are breeding grounds for bacteria and certain viruses themselves. Third, unless you are wearing a true N95 mask, viruses are not stopped by the mask. Yes, a water droplet with viruses contained would be stopped, but look at the second point I made. If you look at States, counties, and cities with mask mandates - over time there is almost no difference in infection rates. Yes, the spikes may have been delayed or accelerated, but the infection rates are very similar. In school systems where some counties have had mask mandates and adjoining counties have not - there is no statistical difference in infection rates. Masks are theater for the most part. That being said - if a business or building wants you to wear a mask and you don't want - go elsewhere or wear the mask. In almost every case, the person you will give a hard time to had/has nothing to do with the policy. They may not like it any better than you do, but they want the paycheck!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Sorry for the length. As always this has been extensively researched. To the best of my knowledge it is all factual except for where I identified it as my opinion. Every fact I present is one that I have verified with at least 2 sources. This post represents about 12 - 14 hours of pure research and well over an hour of writing. Speaking of sources, they are out there. It is not easy finding data that goes against the norm, they are mostly on scholarly or true medical sites, but they are out there. If I can find them, so can you if you desire. You can chose to believe and trust me, or find the facts for yourself. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Be kind, be safe.</span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-83909086389532421682021-08-12T20:28:00.001-04:002021-08-12T20:28:35.714-04:00On Death's Door, Or Not<p> <span style="font-size: large;">The amount of fear being spread about the current viral pandemic - Covid-19 - amazes me. Yes, this virus has killed many, many people. Any unnecessary death is tragic. Any premature death is tragic. I understand that. My heart goes out to any family that lost a loved one due to this disease.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What I don't understand is the sheer terror that seems to have affected people, especially those that are younger. I reported last summer (on this EXACT date!! I just noticed!) about how deaths were concentrated among the portion of the population that is over 60. If you want to see those numbers and my comments, go here: https://justsomeposts.blogspot.com/2020/08/covid-19-for-ages.html</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I got the numbers again today and here they are:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOazbajv20kNpr43Zdvf4PRSgp5Ds8bY1AWrJgPVLq0Dsf-DS8mYPMlZzaMrbeR0FBaAKN1ddY1JiJaYliTqd36X75rSccfACiyJuhZzYBl7wvqRDImYmDrPvl0BLmcTOff1q_A-bSFig/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="62" data-original-width="193" height="103" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOazbajv20kNpr43Zdvf4PRSgp5Ds8bY1AWrJgPVLq0Dsf-DS8mYPMlZzaMrbeR0FBaAKN1ddY1JiJaYliTqd36X75rSccfACiyJuhZzYBl7wvqRDImYmDrPvl0BLmcTOff1q_A-bSFig/" width="320" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />You can see that less than 3% of the total deaths to this point have been in people under 45 years old! The danger if you are under 45 is very low. Even if you are 64 or younger, less than 21% of the total deaths are in those age groups. </span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One thing that has not been reported and most people (myself included before this) do not realize is from 50,000 - 65,000 people die each week in the US. Every week!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So when it is reported that 3,000 people died from something it sounds very high, but is a small percentage of the total deaths. Here are some numbers showing the deaths from Covid compared to the total deaths, also by age groupings:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6aHES0YJvW0Qhqs1smEri80Xb7gnzj5sYrEEa_epxeqw65Dvn6upbb7uTMyW1GJH9K7frA0vI_f54nbSV1Iu1ge-XTVsC85QsGS7KUJa8-39g4gtLqKl_pD0x2m7Iizkb1dSo6RUyfBA/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="83" data-original-width="577" height="106" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6aHES0YJvW0Qhqs1smEri80Xb7gnzj5sYrEEa_epxeqw65Dvn6upbb7uTMyW1GJH9K7frA0vI_f54nbSV1Iu1ge-XTVsC85QsGS7KUJa8-39g4gtLqKl_pD0x2m7Iizkb1dSo6RUyfBA/w737-h106/image.png" width="737" /></a></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Note that in the under 16 group Covid is almost statistically Zero! Even in the 18 - 29 it is under 3% of total deaths. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As I have stated many, many times: perspective matters. The fear over a disease that does not affect any large portion of the population under 50 has been presented as Black Death revisited. The fear is wrong! The psychological burden being placed on those uninformed is criminal. The financial burden being placed on those that pay taxes now and will in the future is also criminal, and unsustainable.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">FYI, these figures came from the CDCs weekly reporting that is accessible online to anyone that wants to go a look versus just letting the media sensationalize the numbers.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-37126791714724213642021-07-31T20:11:00.003-04:002021-07-31T20:11:58.558-04:00I MIGHT CROAK AS WELL!<p><span style="font-size: large;">I am sitting here in my humble abode listening to the rain that has been going on, with intermittent pauses, for hours. That is not all I am listening to. For the better part of an hour, a frog has been trying to set a record of some sort for the loudest sustained croaking.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I just read that male frogs croak to announce to other males that this is their territory. They also croak to find a mate. Some frogs croak during the act of mating, depending on the species this croaking can be done by the male or female.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So, this guy is either extraordinarily desperate for frog sex or having the best sex of his froggy life.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Whichever it is, I hope it is all over soon!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkoe_nrb1OI-D8HD18PEjNdW-3J3xRTbfIJQFJ0xayxKqrMDDzepCo1ng8hcFjYQHhY06ZuNfrbbqymgJAiLF8MploRaZhbdA10SipsioAgZpUXF8eOqF3fxwrNGwn-XErZxT27SZL1_g/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="448" data-original-width="809" height="177" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkoe_nrb1OI-D8HD18PEjNdW-3J3xRTbfIJQFJ0xayxKqrMDDzepCo1ng8hcFjYQHhY06ZuNfrbbqymgJAiLF8MploRaZhbdA10SipsioAgZpUXF8eOqF3fxwrNGwn-XErZxT27SZL1_g/" width="320" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br /></span><p></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-41089445511422119902021-07-16T21:47:00.002-04:002021-07-16T21:48:42.963-04:00I'M NOT SURE I HAVE THE ENERGY FOR THAT!<p><span style="font-size: large;">This one has been rolling around in my brain for a while. I was on some online forum a bit ago and we were "discussing" energy, specifically the need and uses of energy to support our modern life. We got to a discussion of electric vehicles and the growth of solar and wind power. I realized with one comment that the person I was "talking" to really did not understand electric cars and power generation. He seemed to think changing all vehicles to all electric would solve all our problems. (FYI, I say "he" as the self-description was a 20-something male college student - I only "know" them from an exchange or two on the forum).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> I explained that one problem with that is that electric cars to do not produce any power, they just consumer power. A battery does not produce energy, it stores and releases it. The power has to come from somewhere. I really don't think he had ever thought of that and after a brief exchange, he left the forum. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Batteries have to be charged. It takes a generator attached to something like a windmill, water turbine, nuclear driven turbine, gas powered turbine, or other source to produce the energy. Then the battery stores this energy in chemical form and releases it as needed in electrical form. Batteries by themselves, without a producer of energy, are useless. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So, where does that energy come from? Here is a list showing the production of electricity in 2020:</span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">U.S. utility-scale electricity generation by source, amount, and share of total in 2020</span></b></p><p><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 10.5px; line-height: 1; position: relative; top: -0.5em; vertical-align: baseline;">1</span>Preliminary data as of February 2021</p><p>Energy source Billion kWh Share of total </p><p><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Total - all sources - </span>4,009</p><p><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Fossil fuels (total</span><b><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">) </span>2,419 - 60.3%</b></p><p>Natural Gas 1,617 - 40.3%</p><p>Coal 774 - 19.3%</p><p><b>Petroleum </b>(total) 17 - 0.4%</p><p>Petroleum liquids 10 - 0.2%</p><p>Petroleum coke 8 - 0.2%</p><p>Other gases 11 - 0.3%</p><p><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Nuclear </span>790 - 19.7%</p><p><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Renewables (total)</span><b><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"> </span>792 - 19.8%</b></p><p>Wind 338 - 8.4%</p><p>Hydropower 29 - 17.3% </p><p>Solar (total) 91 - 2.3%</p><p>Photovoltaic 88 - 2.2% </p><p>Solar thermal 3 - 0.1%</p><p>Biomass (total) 56 - 1.4%</p><p>Wood 37 - 0.9%</p><p>Landfill gas 10 - 0.3%</p><p>Municipal solid waste (biogenic) 6 - 0.2%</p><p>Other biomass waste 2 - 0.1%</p><p>Geothermal 17 - 0.4%</p><p><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Pumped storage hydropower<span style="font-size: 8.4px;"> </span></span>-5 -0.1% (actually uses net energy, just a storage system)</p><p><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Other sources<span style="font-size: 8.4px;"> </span></span>13 - 0.3%</p><div><span style="font-size: large;">You can see that roughly 60% of the electricity came from some type of fossil fuel and 20% came from nuclear power. Even with the rapid growth of renewables they are still only 20% of total power production. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Now, what happens if a large portion of the vehicles start using electricity versus producing their own energy through internal combustion? We will need a lot more electricity? We already have two major States - in the richest country on Earth! - that are having problems meeting the electrical needs of their citizens/businesses now. These are also the two most populous States with the most registered vehicles - read "need fuel for transportation" - California and Texas.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The world has had more people taken out of poverty in the past 200 or so years than in all of previous history. This has largely happened for two reasons:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">1) the establishment of property rights and the ability to build real wealth by ownership of property. Throughout history real property was owned by a "lord" or "King/Queen"/"Royalty" and the common folk were unable to build wealth. This started in the late Middle Ages and took hold around the world in the 1800s.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">2) the availability of powered "tools" to increase productivity. "Tools" are everything from powered looms to produce fabrics, to diesel powered trucks to allow farmers in the country to sell their goods in far-off cities. The coal-powered and then diesel-powered trains were the beginning of true movements and settlement of masses of people and to tap the resources of entire continents.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Item 2 was made possible mostly by the ability to tap the energy contained in fossil fuels and the use of machines. There is a thing called entropy. It has to do with the amount of energy that is actually available for work in an energy system/fuel. ( fyi, as always, when I discuss scientific principles or facts I am taking license and purposefully over-simplifying things. I do not intend these comments to be scientifically intricate, but layman-like explanations of complex issues. Entropy is also a measure of randomness or chaos in a system. I am going to concentrate on the availability of useful power.)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Fossil fuels provided, for the first time, a large amount of relatively cheap energy to do work. Compare a horse team hooked to a plow to a modern tractor hooked to a plow. The horse team was infinitely more efficient than humans with hand tools, just as the fuel-powered tractor is over the horse team. Gasoline and diesel-powered machines have allowed people to do more in less time. As mentioned above, it allowed mass movement of goods and people unlike any time in our history. Resources were allowed to be taken to people instead of people going to resources. The energy from fossil fuels has low entropy by the definition I am using. It is readily available, relatively low-cost, and very adaptable using different machines.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Renewables have high entropy. Take wind power. It is totally dependent on the wind (obviously). There are places that have almost constant wind, but they also have storms that can damage these expensive machines and require them to be shut down to prevent damage. There are also times that the wind just does not blow, or blow at sufficient speed and power. There is the same problem with solar. By definition, one must have the sun to be out to capture solar power. There are many hours of the day that there is no direct sunshine or darkness. There are storms and clouds that affect the power available from solar power. There are also dire environmental issues with the production of wind turbines due to rare earth magnets needed and fiberglass production among other things. The same thing goes for solar panels. The production of solar panels is currently one of the most environmentally hazardous there is. There is also the cost of both of these methods.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The fossil fuel industry was/is pretty much self-supporting and funded. Gas stations, pipelines, wells, and the other equipment and tools needed to produce and bring these products to market were paid for by the industries themselves. (I understand that this cost was borne by the customers, but I am distinguishing this from direct government/taxpayer support.) If the subsidies and tax credits were not being given to the renewable companies none of these would be feasible at all. (I know, you have all read of the "subsidies" paid to the big oil companies. This is mostly hyperbole from the anti-fossil fuel folks. The "subsidies" are mostly just depreciation and tax credits that are available to any business. Big oil companies have gone through years that they do not make any profits.) There are provisions in the latest tax and spending bills for building out the charging stations and such to support the electric cars. This is taxpayer support. I personally do not want my tax dollars going to this. Let the electric car companies and charging companies pay for the infrastructure and develop the charging networks as the oil companies did with the gas stations and distribution networks for petroleum products.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">One other mention of an issue with electric cars. Practicality in a natural disaster. Have you ever been in an evacuation area of a hurricane? I have. One of the issues in getting away is getting fuel for your vehicle. My car gets about 400 miles on a tank of gas on the highway. If I have a full tank when the evacuation order comes, I can get around 350 miles away before I am looking for a fill-up. I can tell you from experience that one of the first thing that happens when thousands upon thousands of cars hit the road in a short period of time - gas stations run out of fuel. But, at least I can get 300+ miles inland before it is a problem. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Now, how about if half the cars are electric. The average range of a fully charged electric car is around 250 miles. There are over a million cars in South Florida. A major storm is approaching and an evacuation is ordered. If half of the cars are trying to evacuate and half of those are electric, then 250,000 cars are all going to need to be charged within 200 or so miles from South Florida. 250,000 cannot make it out of Florida and really can't get much past Orlando or Daytona, if that (we are assuming a full charge upon leaving, as I was a full tank of gas)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Now, can electric cars be made to work. Of course they can, and they probably will. But, by forcing the issue we are either going to have to foot a huge bill to pay for the infrastructure needed to make them practical or watch them fail. I have no problem overall with electric cars. I do have a problem with them being forced on the market and making people that are not interested in making electric car companies rich pay for it!</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The same goes for renewable energy. Will wind, solar, and other renewables grow in importance. Yes, no doubt. But forcing the issue and subsidizing the industries to make them work is wrong and expensive. It also leads to profiteers just going after the money. There have already been massive solar and battery failures even with the support of taxpayers money. Let the market work it out. Let the companies become competitive and grow due to actual demand, not because of a $2,000 tax credit.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Lastly - the only true "carbon-free" electrical energy production method that is out there and will not require ridiculous adaptation of our lifestyles is nuclear. There are new technologies that are out there that make nuclear power safer, greener, and better in most ways than almost any other source. The anti-nuclear fear-mongers that have killed the industry should be shut down and shut up so that industry can take it rightful place in our power supply.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-2276574684647061682021-07-04T11:49:00.001-04:002021-07-05T11:33:39.771-04:00Does Every Country Have a 4th of July? (yes, it comes after the 3rd of July!)<p><span style="font-size: x-large;">I am writing this on the morning of the 4th of July. As noted in the title, the 4th of July happens everywhere. What does not is Independence Day. The 4th of July is celebrated in the U.S. to mark the day the 13 colonies of North America declared their independence from Great Britain. But, why the 4th? It is at the top of the Declaration of Independence, the official document that was drawn up by Thomas Jefferson at the behest of the Continental Congress. However, there are a lot of other dates that we could (and maybe should?) celebrate or at least publicize.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As you might imagine, I am going to do a bit of that for you now.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">By July 4th, 1776 the Colonies were already at war with Great Britain. (fyi, for simplicities sake, I am going to follow convention and just refer to Great Britain and her armies as "the British" in most cases)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The first shots "officially" fired at British troops by Continental militia were at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts on April 19th 1775. (I say "officially" as there were skirmishes and potshots taken at the British well before this) These are considered the first battles of what would become the Revolutionary War. So, almost a year and half prior to the Declaration of Independence the Colonies were fighting the British.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">By the way, they were still British colonies at this point. It was not a widely held thought that the Colonies were independent and separate from Great Britain. In fact. most residents of the Colonies thought of themselves as British citizens. It is highly likely that if King George had granted some of the relief, regulations, and privileges that the Colonists had asked for, there would not have been a Revolutionary War and possibly no United States of America, at least as it exists today. But, I digress.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">That is not to imply that there was not a movement for some freedom, even if it did not involve a true break from British citizenship. On September 5th 1774 the first Continental Congress was convened in Philadelphia. There were delegates attending from twelve of the thirteen colonies; Georgia did not have anyone in attendance. The Congress was meeting mostly to consider a response to the "Intolerable Acts", a group of trade restrictions imposed by the British - that incidentally led to the Boston Tea Party prior to this meeting. Congress called for a boycott of trade with Great Britain and some of her colonies to protest. They also agreed to convene the Second Continental Congress in May of the next year, 1775. There was groundwork laid here to facilitate revolution, but I cannot find any real record of direct talk to end the relationship with the British from this meeting. It was decided that it would be called a Congress and led by a President. Two ideas that you would recognize as common now, but not then.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Second Continental Congress did indeed convene on May 10th, 1775 as had been decided. This Congress was attended by delegates from all thirteen Colonies. This was the Continental Congress that was in session into 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. They established an army, set about negotiating treaties with other countries - especially France (seen as critical to competing with the British in a war), and other "housekeeping" duties for a fledgling nation. As noted in the date above, this Congress met shortly after the battles of Lexington and Concord. Although still not officially recognized, this was a war council as well since the Colonies were in revolt against the British on American soil.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As for independence from Great Britain, there was a growing movement in certain areas. It is disputed as to what Colony declared itself independent first. North Carolina, in the Mecklenburg Declaration was supposed to have declared itself independent on May 20th, 1775, which would make it the first Colony to do so. (a date and document that is highly disputed, but on the NC State flag today). North Carolina also claims to have declared independence by voting to send delegates to the Continental Congress with the express instructions to vote for independence. This vote was on April 12th, 1776 (a date also on the NC flag) </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Widely accepted as the first Colony to formally declare itself independent from Great Britain in a circulated document was Rhode Island on May 4th, 1776. Historians and scholars recognize Rhode Island as the first independent sovereign state in the western world.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now for the actual Declaration of Independence - actually the "Lee Resolution" (one of the delegates from Virginia - Richard Henry Lee - had put forth a formal resolution declaring independence. This was what was voted on) There was a vote taken on July 1st, 1776. Only nine of the thirteen colonies voted for the declaration. South Carolina and Pennsylvania voted "NO", New York abstained, and Delaware did not vote - saying it needed more consideration (my words, I am not sure of Delaware's actual words).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Congress knew the importance of a unanimous declaration and vote and had stipulated that it would be so prior to the public announcement. So, the next day - July 2nd, 1776 - another vote was held on the Lee Resolution and all thirteen colonies voted for the declaration. So, the actual declaration of independence (not the Declaration with a capital "D", but the statement) in the form of the Lee Resolution was actually made on July 2nd, not the 4th. Many thought that the 2nd of July would be a celebrated date. John Adams wrote to his wife that July 2nd: "...<span face="freight-sans-pro, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #262b30;"><i>will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival… It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade with shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this continent to the other from this Time forward forever more..."</i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">As to the actual Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson had been assigned by a five person committee of the Continental Congress to draft it. The bulk of the work was done by Jefferson, with some changes made by the committee and then small changes made by the Congress prior to the approval. John Hancock, as President of the Congress, signed the document. It is interesting to note that the other signatures were not done until August 2nd, 1776. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">It is also interesting to note that although official fighting started in 1775, Colonies started talking formally about independence in the same year, the Lee Resolution was voted up unanimously on July 2nd, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was presented and signed by John Hancock on July 4th, 1776, and all signed the document on August 2nd, 1776; the United States was not truly independent until September 3rd 1783. Why September 3rd you ask? That was the date of the Treaty of Paris was signed, ending the Revolutionary War and marking Great Britain's acceptance of the independence of the United States of America.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Happy Independence Day! </span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-58993369915060943772021-04-03T22:02:00.004-04:002021-04-03T22:11:06.917-04:00DEVIL WENT DOWN TO GEORGIA (perhaps to vote?)<p> <span style="font-size: large;">Unless you have been living under a rock you have probably seen a couple of news stories (and maybe other types of mentions) about the recently passed law that passed in Georgia on voting - "The Election Integrity Act of 2021". It has been labeled by most of the media and an increasing number of celebrities and athletes as "racist", the "revival of Jim Crow", "suppression of the minority vote", and other scary names. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As with some other laws and proposed laws, I decided to actually read the bill to see what the uproar is about. I would wager that most of those railing against the bill have not read it. The bill is 94 pages long. It contains a lot of "stuff" that probably could have been said more clearly and simply - like most bills. It seems those that write the bills at the State and Federal level live by the theory that if 20 words is good, 100 words is better. I am going to try to give you a synopsis of the bill and tell you what it says. I will use direct excerpts from the bill as well as some synopsis of the more benign parts. I am also going to give you the page numbers where some of the most "troublesome" parts are so that if you want to go read it yourself, it will save you some time. 94 pages is a lot of bs to wade through! Let's go...</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The bill starts with a couple of pages stating what the bill was written to do/change. Here are the actual words with no editing: (one of the longest run-on sentences ever! Someone failed elementary writing!)</span></p><p>To comprehensively revise elections and voting; to amend Chapter 2 of Title 21 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to elections and primaries generally, so as to revise a definition; to provide for the establishment of a voter intimidation and illegal election activities hotline; to limit the ability of the State Election Board and the Secretary of State to enter into certain consent agreements, settlements, and consent orders; to provide that the Secretary of State shall be a nonvoting ex officio member of the State Election Board; to provide for the appointment, confirmation, term, and removal of the chairperson of the State Election Board; to revise provisions relating to a quorum of such board; to require the Secretary of State to support and assist the State Election Board; to provide for the appointment of temporary and permanent replacement superintendents; to provide for procedures; to provide for performance reviews of local election officials requested by the State Election Board or local governing authorities; to provide for a definition; to provide for appointment and duties of performance review boards; to provide for reports of performance review boards; to provide for promulgation of rules and regulations; to provide additional requirements on the State Election Board's power to adopt emergency rules and regulations; to provide that no election superintendents or boards of registrars shall accept private funding; to provide that the State Election Board shall develop methods for distribution of donations; to provide that certain persons may serve as poll workers in other than the county of their residence; to provide for the appointment of acting election superintendents in the event of a vacancy or incapacitation in the office of judge of the probate court of counties without a board of elections; to provide for resumption of the duties of election superintendent upon the filling of such vacancy; to provide for the compensation of such acting election superintendents; to provide for the reduction in size of certain precincts under certain circumstances; to provide for notice when polling places are relocated; to provide for certain reports; to provide limitations on the use of buses and other moveable facilities; to provide for allocation of voting equipment by counties and municipalities; to provide for the manner of handling the death of a candidate prior to a nonpartisan election; to provide that no candidate shall take or be sworn into any elected public office unless such candidate has received a majority of the votes cast for such office except as otherwise provided by law; to provide for participation in a multistate voter registration system; to revise procedures and standards for challenging electors; to provide for the printing of ballots on safety paper; to provide for the time and manner for applying for absentee ballots; to provide for certain limitations and sanctions on the distribution of absentee ballot applications; to provide for the manner of processing of absentee ballot applications; to provide for absentee ballot drop boxes and the requirements therefor; to provide for the time and manner of issuing absentee ballots; to provide for the manner of voting and returning absentee ballots; to revise the times for advance voting; to limit changes to advance voting locations in the period prior to an election; to provide notice requirements for changes of advance voting locations; to provide for the processing and tabulation of absentee ballots; to provide sanctions for improperly opening an absentee ballot; to provide for certain elector identification for absentee balloting; to provide for monitors and observers; to provide for poll watcher training; to provide for restrictions on the distribution of certain items within close proximity to the polls on election days; to provide for the voting and processing of provisional ballots; to provide for duplication panels for defective ballots that cannot be processed by tabulating machines; to provide for ranked choice voting for military and overseas voters; to revise the time for runoffs; to revise eligibility to vote in runoffs; to provide for the deadline for election certification; to provide for a pilot program for the scanning and publishing of ballots; to provide for the inspection and copying of original ballots by certain persons following the completion of a recount; to provide for special primaries and special elections to fill vacancies in certain offices; to provide for public notice and observation of preparation of voting equipment; to provide for observation of elections and ballot processing and counting; to provide for the filling of vacancies in certain offices; to prohibit observing or attempting to observe how a voter marks or has marked his or her ballot or inducing a voter to do so; to prohibit the acceptance of a ballot for return without authorization; to prohibit the photographing or other recording of ballots and ballot markers; to amend Chapter 35 of Title 36 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to home rule powers, so as to provide for the delay of reapportionment of municipal corporation election districts when census numbers are delayed; to amend Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions regarding state government, so as to provide for the submission and suspension of emergency rules by the State Election Board; to provide that scanned ballot images are public records; to provide for legislative findings; to provide a short title; to provide for related matters; to provide for effective dates; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. </p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Anyone still wonder why it is 94 pages long?!? I wonder how they capped it at 94 after that. OK, if you have read that, let's move on to how they accomplished all of that!</span></p><p><span style="color: red; font-size: large;"><i><b><u>If you want to get to the bottom line as far as I am concerned, without having to read even my synopsis, here you go</u>: I do NOT see any problem with any aspect of this bill. It actually increases access to early voting, and codifies the use of dropboxes and mail-in voting. It does require ID for absentee, but has a broad range of ID that qualifies, even getting to a utility bill. The former law called for signature verification, which was not accurate and very subject to error. Most of what is here is just clarification of existing laws and regulations. </b></i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Early on the bill gets into one of the changes that have been labeled as "racist" and all the other things I said above; the change in early voting. Here is what the bill says: </span>The broad discretion allowed to local officials for advance voting dates and hours led to significant variations across the state in total number of hours of advance voting, depending on the county. More than 100 counties have never offered voting on Sunday and many counties offered only a single day of weekend voting. Requiring two Saturday voting days and two optional Sunday voting days will dramatically increase the total voting hours for voters across the State of Georgia, and all electors in Georgia will have access to multiple opportunities to vote in person on the weekend for the first time.</p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So, what the bill does is make mandatory at least two Saturdays of early voting and recommends Sunday early voting as well, with two Sunday options. Early voting is now standardized throughout the State with more weekend options in almost every case. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The next area addressed is the money that flowed into the State directly to county/city Boards of Elections. As a relatively new phenomenon there really were no laws to address this. Now, money for support of elections being given would seem like a good thing. The problem is bias and the fact that money was only given to very specific areas and precincts. Granted, this is also a partisan argument as almost all of the money given was to high majority Democratic areas. But, this still represented a huge risk of manipulation or influencing elections as well as disparity between the funds available and spend per capita in varying areas. The bill says: </span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;">Some
counties in 2020 received significant infusions of grant funding for election
operations, while other counties received no such funds. Promoting uniformity
in the distribution of funds to election operations will boost voter confidence
and ensure that there is no political advantage conferred by preferring certain
counties over others in the</span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;">distribution
of funds.</span></p><p><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: large;">Part of the issue with the 2020 elections were the change in the voting process due to the pandemic. I will not get into the right and wrong of that; it is water under the bridge. It is a fact that most, if not all, of these changes were made under temporary and/or emergency rulings and decrees that were specifically for the 2020 election. They since have lost any authority or power in almost all cases. The bill addresses some of these issues as well like the dropboxes and mail-in ballots. </span></span></p><p><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: large;">The dropboxes were an issue in certain areas for a lot of reasons. They were unsecured, unregulated as to the design, size, access, and almost any other parameter as they were last minute additions that did not have the power of regulation/law behind them. The boxes were instituted by the Boards of Elections and not by laws passed by the Legislatures. The law addressed the dropboxes and makes them legal with parameters for the above mentioned specifications. The law says: </span></span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;">Opportunities
for delivering absentee ballots to a drop box were first created by the State
Election Board as a pandemic response. The drop boxes created by rule no longer
existed in Georgia law when the emergency rules that created them expired. The
General Assembly considered a variety of options and constructed a system that
allows the use of drop boxes, while also ensuring the security of the system
and providing options in emergency situations.</span></p><p><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: large;">So, dropboxes were made legal, and standardized with specific hours and controls. More later.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The increase in absentee (and the new mail-in) ballots created a delay in counts in a lot of precincts and jurisdictions. Part of this was due to the laws that prohibited any pre-counting of these ballot prior to the close of the polls. (Did you know that? It was actually a violation of election law to count the absentee/mail-in ballots until the end of election day voting in most areas, including Georgia. Delays anyone?) There is now legal precedent for the votes to be pre-counted but not revealed until after as to not affect the outcome. The law says: </span></span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;">Counting
absentee ballots in 2020 took an incredibly long time in some counties. Creating
processes for early processing and scanning of absentee ballots will promote
elector confidence by ensuring that results are reported quickly.</span></p><p><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: large;">There has been a lot of coverage of the "no water in line" rule that is in the law. It is in the law, which we will see later. There were actual complaints from voters that were in line about being approached by people that were trying to influence their vote. They were being asked who they supported and such. The new law is to prevent this. If a loophole had been left for water or food to be offered, it would have been impossible to prevent people approaching. The explanation is: </span></span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;">The
sanctity of the precinct was also brought into sharp focus in 2020, with many
groups approaching electors while they waited in line. Protecting electors from
improper interference, political pressure, or intimidation while waiting in
line to vote is of paramount importance to protecting the election system and
ensuring elector confidence.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Another issue that slowed down the vote tabulation caused by people from outside the precinct wanting to vote on a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots can be important to help with poll worker human error, improperly printed voter rolls, or other reasons. But, a large percentage of provisional ballots end up being discarded due to not being valid (people already voted elsewhere, not properly registered, etc.). The bill specifies that people appearing at the wrong polling place will be told where their polling place is and told to go there. More later on this as well. The law says: </span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;">Electors
voting out of precinct add to the burden on election officials and lines for
other electors because of the length of time it takes to process a provisional
ballot in a precinct. Electors should be directed to the correct precinct on
election day to ensure that they are able to vote in all elections for which
they are eligible.</span></p><p><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: large;">There were complaints from both major political parties as well as some non-partisan observers of irregularities. The law addresses this by setting up a formal "complaint line" (my words) to the Attorney General with this: </span></span>The Attorney General shall have the authority to establish
and maintain a telephone hotline for the use of electors of this state to file
complaints and allegations of voter intimidation and illegal election
activities. Such hotline shall, in addition to complaints and reports from
identified persons, also accept anonymous tips regarding voter intimidation and
election fraud. The Attorney General shall have the authority to review each
complaint or allegation of voter intimidation or illegal election activities
within three business days or as expeditiously as possible and determine if
such complaint or report should be investigated or prosecuted.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: large;">The bill standardizes the makeup of the State Board of Elections as well as setting up some parameters to regulate the local boards and poll workers. There is also some formalization and updating of the rules on how to handle the death of a candidate that is on the ballot that died to late for another candidate to be named. I do not see this as much of a problem myself or in any of the hubbub around the law so I will just print some of it here without commentary: (note this is NOT the entire verbiage on these subjects, just my selected highlights. If you have an interest in reading it all, see pages 8 - 22 of the bill) </span>The chairperson of the board shall be nonpartisan. At no
time during his or her service as chairperson shall the chairperson actively
participate in a political party organization or in the campaign of a candidate
for public office, nor shall he or she make any campaign contributions to a
candidate for public office. Furthermore, to qualify for appointment as
chairperson, in the two years immediately preceding his or her appointment, a
person shall not have qualified as a partisan candidate for public office,
participated in a political party organization or the campaign of a partisan
candidate for public office, or made any campaign contributions to a partisan
candidate for public office.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Makeup of Board from both parties. – Board can suspend or
relieve County/City Election officials for cause – no more than 4. Sets up
performance reviews and such to determine performance prior to dismissal –
rules:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(c) Following the preliminary hearing described in
subsection (b) of this Code section, the State Election Board may suspend a
county or municipal superintendent pursuant to this Code section if at least
three members of the board find, after notice and hearing, that: (1) By a
preponderance of the evidence, a county or municipal superintendent has committed at least three violations of this
title or of State Election Board rules and regulations, in the last two general
election cycles; and the county or municipal superintendent has not
sufficiently remedied the violations; or (2) By clear and convincing evidence,
the county or municipal superintendent has, for at least two elections within a
two-year period, demonstrated nonfeasance, malfeasance, or gross negligence in
the administration of the elections.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Specifics on “special & extraordinary” standards, rules,
and/or regulations to address circumstances of imminent peril to public health,
safety, or welfare. (pandemic?) by the Board and the notification process prior
to implementation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To address outside money going directly to Counties/Boards of
Election: (b) No superintendent shall take or accept any funding, grants, or
gifts from any source other than from the governing authority of the county or
municipality, the State of Georgia, or the federal government. (c) The State
Election Board shall study and report to the General Assembly a proposed method
for accepting donations intended to facilitate the administration of elections
and a method for an equitable distribution of such donations state wide by
October 1, 2021."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">POLL WORKERS – must live in the County where serving, (or
municipality in a City election), must not hold political office (except for
office of a political party) or be on the ballot in that precinct – nor any
immediate relative of same.<o:p></o:p></p><p><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: large;">Pages 23 - 28 cover how a voter can be challenged as to their proper registration and eligibility to vote. Here are some highlights: </span></span><b>To formalize a challenge to registration of a proposed
voter: </b>Said chapter is further amended by revising Code Section 21-2-229,
relating to challenge of applicant for registration by other electors, notice
and hearing, and right of appeal, as follows: "21-2-229. (a) Any elector
of a county or municipality may challenge the qualifications of any person
applying to register to vote in the county or municipality and may challenge
the qualifications of any elector of the county or municipality whose name
appears on the list of electors. Such challenges shall be in writing and shall
specify distinctly the grounds of the challenge. There shall not be a limit on
the number of persons whose qualifications such elector may challenge. <b>More
on how to handle a challenged voter if they arrive to vote.</b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>To formalize a challenge to registration of a proposed
voter: </b>Said chapter is further amended by revising Code Section 21-2-229,
relating to challenge of applicant for registration by other electors, notice
and hearing, and right of appeal, as follows: "21-2-229. (a) Any elector
of a county or municipality may challenge the qualifications of any person
applying to register to vote in the county or municipality and may challenge
the qualifications of any elector of the county or municipality whose name
appears on the list of electors. Such challenges shall be in writing and shall
specify distinctly the grounds of the challenge. There shall not be a limit on
the number of persons whose qualifications such elector may challenge. <b>More
on how to handle a challenged voter if they arrive to vote.</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">I do not have any issues with these parameters (in fact I thought they were all already in the election laws). I do recognize this is one area that people have concerns with so I am going to just post the above and you can go to those pages (23 - 28) and read it for yourself.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The next section gets into forming a non-partisan (love that word - as if anything surrounding government can be non-partisan - their words not mine) commission to check for data on deaths, moves, and such that would require a person to be removed from the voter registration roles. The law says (and references other regulations) : </span><b>The formalization of removing people from the
registration rolls</b>: "(3) Once becoming a member of the nongovernmental
entity described in subsection (d) of Code Section 21-2-225, the Secretary of
State shall obtain regular information from such entity regarding electors who
may have moved to another state, died, or otherwise become ineligible to vote
in Georgia. The Secretary of State shall use such information to conduct list
maintenance on the list of eligible electors.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">I did some research into this aspect as I realize it too has become politically charged when anyone is removed from the voter roles. From what I found this commission was created from earlier legislation. Again, I have no problem with it. I can offer a bit of personal commentary on this subject. My wife passed away in 2011. Even though I went down to the Board of Elections in Forsyth County where she was registered, it still took until 2018 (and another in-person visit by me) to get her removed from the registration lists.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The next three subjects are also a bit benign in my mind. They involve precincts being split when they get too large, ballot configurations, helping to specify the number of voting machines and voting booths at precincts. Some of the delays were due to a lack of either or both from what I have read. The complete verbiage is on pages 28 - 33 if you care to read it. Highlights are: </span><b>Formalize process and requirements or forming new
precincts to reduce wait times. Formalize the process to move a voting place
for safety or other issues.</b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>Outline that non-partisan elections should be on a
separate ballot or page if possible, from the partisan elections.<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal">
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>Formalize the number of voting booths and/or machines are
available at each polling place.<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">One complaint in some areas was the fact that ballots were printed on printers other than the "official" ones as the ballots had no special aspect to them. The next section specifies that absentee and mail-in ballots be printed on security paper (watermarked or otherwise identifiable as "official") to eliminate the chance of fraud. The entire section is: </span><b>BALLOTS</b>: Other than ballots delivered electronically
to qualified electors who are entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the
federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 52 U.S.C. Section
20301, et seq., the ballots shall be printed on security paper that
incorporates features which can be used to authenticate the ballot as an
official ballot but which do not make the ballot identifiable to a particular
elector."</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Then there is specifications of and requirements for testing of voting machines. It reads: </span><b>Voting Machine Tests</b>: "(c) On or before the
third day preceding a primary or election, including special primaries, special
elections, and referendum elections, the superintendent shall have each
electronic ballot marker tested to ascertain that it will correctly record the
votes cast for all offices and on all questions and produce a ballot reflecting
such choices of the elector in a manner that the State Election Board shall
prescribe by rule or regulation. Public notice of the time and place of the
test shall be made at least five days prior thereto. The superintendent of each
county or municipality shall publish such notice on the homepage of the
county's or municipality's publicly accessible website associated with
elections and in a newspaper of general circulation in the county or
municipality and by posting in a prominent location in the county or
municipality. Such notice shall state the date, time, and place or places where
preparation and testing of the voting system components for use in the primary
or election will commence, that such preparation and testing shall continue
from day to day until complete, and that representatives of political parties
and bodies, news media, and the public shall be permitted to observe such
tests. The superintendent of the county or municipality shall also provide such
notice to the Secretary of State who shall publish on his or her website the
information received from superintendents stating the dates, times, and
locations for preparation and testing of voting system components. However,
such representatives of political parties and bodies, news media, and the
public shall not in any manner interfere with the preparation and testing of
voting system components. The advertisement in the newspaper of general
circulation shall be prominently displayed, shall not be less than 30 square
inches, and shall not be placed in the section of the newspaper where legal
notices appear."</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Then there is very detailed coverage of how, when, why, etc. of absentee ballots. The pages are 34 - 69. Some highlights (actually a LOT as this is a critical section: </span><b>ABSENTEE BALLOT REQUESTS</b>: Except as otherwise
provided in Code Section 21-2-219 or for advance voting described in subsection
(d) of Code Section 21-2-385, not more earlier than 78 days or less than 11
days prior to the date of the primary or election, or runoff of either, in
which the elector desires to vote, any absentee elector may make, either by
mail, by facsimile transmission, by electronic transmission, or in person in
the registrar's or absentee ballot clerk's office, an application for an
official ballot of the elector's precinct to be voted at such primary,
election, or runoff. To be timely received, an application for an
absentee-by-mail ballot shall be received by the board of registrars or
absentee ballot clerk no later than 11 days prior to the primary, election, or
runoff. For advance voting in person, the application shall be made within the
time period set forth in subsection (d) of Code Section 21-2-385.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Any person applying for an absentee-by-mail ballot shall
make application in writing on the form made available by the Secretary of
State. In order to confirm the identity of the voter, such form shall require
the elector to provide his or her name, date of birth, address as registered,
address where the elector wishes the ballot to be mailed, and the number of his
or her Georgia driver's license or identification card issued pursuant to
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Title 40. If such elector does not have a Georgia
driver's license or identification card issued pursuant to Article 5 of Chapter
5 of Title 40, the elector shall affirm this fact in the manner prescribed in
the application and the elector shall provide a copy of a form of
identification listed in subsection (c) 897 of Code Section 21-2-417. The form
made available by the Secretary of State shall include a space to affix a
photocopy or electronic image of such identification. The Secretary of State
shall develop a method to allow secure electronic transmission of such form.
The application shall be in writing and shall contain sufficient information
for proper identification of the elector; the permanent or temporary address of
the elector to which the absentee ballot shall be mailed; also include the
identity of the primary, election, or runoff in which the elector wishes to
vote; and the name and relationship of the person requesting the ballot if
other than the elector; and an oath for the elector or relative to write his or
her usual signature with a pen and ink affirming that the elector is a
qualified Georgia elector and the facts presented on the application are true.
Submitting false information on an application for an absentee ballot shall be
a violation of Code Sections 21-2-560 and 21-2-571.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>SENDING OF BALLOTS</b>: A blank application for an
absentee ballot shall be made available online by the Secretary of State and
each election superintendent and registrar, but neither the Secretary of State,
election superintendent, board of registrars, other governmental entity, nor
employee or agent thereof shall send absentee ballot applications directly to
any elector except upon request of such elector or a relative authorized to
request an absentee ballot for such elector. No person or entity other than a
relative authorized to request an absentee ballot for such elector or a person
signing as assisting an illiterate or physically disabled elector shall send
any elector an absentee ballot application that is prefilled with the elector's
required information set forth in this subparagraph. No person or entity other
than the elector, a relative authorized to request an absentee ballot for such
elector, a person signing as assisting an illiterate or physically disabled
elector with his or her application, a common carrier charged with returning
the ballot application, an absentee ballot clerk, a registrar, or a law
enforcement officer in the course of an investigation shall handle or return an
elector's completed absentee ballot application. Handling a completed absentee
ballot application by any person or entity other than as allowed in this
subsection shall be a misdemeanor. Any application for an absentee ballot sent
to any elector by any person or entity shall utilize the form of the
application made available by the Secretary of State and shall clearly and
prominently disclose on the face of the form: 'This is NOT an official
government publication and was NOT provided to you by any governmental entity
and this is NOT a ballot. It is being distributed by [insert name and address
of person, organization, or other entity distributing such document or
material].'<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Except in the case of physically disabled electors residing
in the county or municipality or electors in custody in a jail or other detention
facility in the county or municipality, no absentee ballot shall be mailed to
an address other than the permanent mailing address of the elector as recorded
on the elector's voter registration record or a temporary out-of-county or
out-of-municipality address. Upon request, electors held in jails or other
detention facilities who are eligible to vote shall be granted access to the
necessary personal effects for the purpose of applying for and voting an
absentee ballot pursuant to this chapter. (E) Relatives applying for absentee
ballots for electors must also sign an oath stating that facts in the
application are true. (F) If the elector is unable to fill out or sign such
elector's own application because of illiteracy or physical disability, the elector
shall make such elector's mark, and the person filling in the rest of the
application shall sign such person's name below it as a witness.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Formalize notification procedures of rejected absentee
ballot requests. Formalize and allow for temporary registration locations.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>ABSENTEE DROP BOXES</b>: A board of registrars or
absentee ballot clerk shall establish at least one drop box as a means for
absentee by mail electors to deliver their ballots to the board of registrars
or absentee ballot clerk. A board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk may
establish additional drop boxes, subject to the limitations of this Code
section, but may only establish additional drop boxes totaling the lesser of
either one drop box for every 100,000 active registered voters in the county or
the number of advance voting locations in the county. Any additional drop boxes
shall be evenly geographically distributed by population in the county. Drop
boxes established pursuant to this Code section shall be established at the office
of the board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk or inside locations at
which advance voting, as set forth in subsection (d) of Code Section 21-2-385,
is conducted in the applicable primary, election, or runoff and may be open
during the hours of advance voting at that location. Such drop boxes shall be
closed when advance voting is not being conducted at that location. All drop
boxes shall be closed when the advance voting period ends, as set forth in
subsection (d) of Code Section 21-2-385. The drop box location shall have
adequate lighting and be under constant surveillance by an election official or
his or her designee, law enforcement official, or licensed security guard.
During an emergency declared by the Governor pursuant to Code Section 38-3-51,
drop boxes may be located outside the office of the board of registrars or
absentee ballot clerk or outside of locations at which advance voting is taking
place, subject to the other limitations of this Code section.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk shall
arrange for the collecting and return of ballots deposited at each drop box at
the conclusion of each day where advance voting takes place. Collection of
ballots from a drop box shall be made by a team of at least two people. Any person
collecting ballots from a drop box shall have sworn an oath in the same form as
the oath for poll officers set forth in Code Section 21-2-95. The collection
team shall complete and sign a ballot transfer form upon removing the ballots
from the drop box which shall include the date, time, location, number of
ballots, confirmation that the drop box was locked after the removal of the
ballots, and the identity of each person collecting the ballots. The collection
team shall then immediately transfer the ballots to the board of registrars or
absentee ballot clerk, who shall process and store the ballots in the same
manner as absentee ballots returned by mail are processed and stored. The board
of registrars, absentee ballot clerk, or a designee of the board of registrars
or absentee ballot clerk shall sign the ballot transfer form upon receipt of
the ballots from the collection team. Such form shall be considered a public
record pursuant to Code Section 50-18-70. (4) At the beginning of voting at
each advance location where a drop box is present, the manager of the advance
voting location shall open the drop box and confirm on the reconciliation form
for that advance voting location that the drop box is empty. If the drop box is
not empty, the manager shall secure the contents of the drop box and
immediately inform the election superintendent, board of registrars, or
absentee ballot clerk, who shall inform the Secretary of State."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">then<b>: Formalizing the mailing of absentee ballots and the
affidavit of a person assisting someone</b>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Rules for handling, storing, approving. or rejecting, and
counting an absentee ballot. (page 61-68)<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The next area covers poll hours. There is NO change to cut off voting at 5 pm as has been widely touted by opponents. The only mention of 5 o'clock is back in the early voting sections for weekend voting and in the provisional voting section coming up (can only do a provisional ballot AFTER 5 pm). This part specifies that polling places can be kept open if needed due to delays. Here is the wording: </span><b>VOTING TIMES & POLL HOURS: </b>Poll hours at a
precinct may be extended only by order of a judge of the superior court of the
county in which the precinct is located upon good cause shown by clear and
convincing evidence that persons were unable to vote at that precinct during a
specific period or periods of time. Poll hours shall not be extended longer
than the total amount of time during which persons were unable to vote at such
precinct. Any order extending poll hours at a precinct beyond 9:00 P.M. shall
be by written order with specific findings of fact supporting such
extension."</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Then the bill addresses appointment of poll workers. Here: </span><b>POLL WATCHERS</b>: In counties or municipalities using
direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems or optical scanning voting
systems, each political party may appoint two poll watchers in each primary or
election, each political body may appoint two poll watchers in each election,
each nonpartisan candidate may appoint one poll watcher in each nonpartisan
election, and each independent candidate may appoint one poll watcher in each
election to serve in the locations designated by the superintendent within the
tabulating center. Such designated locations shall include the check-in area,
the computer room, the duplication area, and such other areas as the
superintendent may deem necessary to the assurance of fair and honest
procedures in the tabulating center. The locations designated by the
superintendent shall ensure that each poll watcher can fairly observe the
procedures set forth in this Code section. The poll watchers provided for in
this subsection shall be appointed and serve in the same manner as other poll
watchers." "(e) No person shall be appointed or be eligible to serve
as a poll watcher in any primary or election in which such person is a
candidate. No person shall be eligible to serve as a poll watcher unless he or
she has completed training provided by the political party, political body, or
candidate designating the poll watcher. Upon request, the Secretary of State
shall make available material to each political party, political body, or
candidate that can be utilized in such training, but it shall be the
responsibility of the political party, political body, or candidate designating
the poll watcher to instruct poll watchers in their duties and in applicable
laws and rules and regulations. Each political party, political body, or
candidate shall, in their written designation of poll watchers, certify under oath
that the named poll watchers have completed the training required by this Code
section."</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Then the dreaded no contact section. If you read this, the regulation covers within 150 feet of the polling place. It also allows for water to be provided from a fountain or other form without any contact from non-authorized poll workers. Poll workers can offer water or assistance to a voter in line. Anyone can offer water or food outside of 150 ft. Here is the actual wording (in its entirety, but it is page 71 if you care to read directly): </span>CONTACT WITH VOTERS:
restrictions on campaign activities and public opinion polling within the
vicinity of a polling place, cellular phone use prohibited, prohibition of
candidates from entering certain polling places, and penalty, as follows:
"(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or
method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor
shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money
or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor
shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person,
other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any
tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast: (1) Within 150
feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is
established; (2) Within any polling place; or (3) Within 25 feet of any voter
standing in line to vote at any polling place. These restrictions shall not
apply to conduct occurring in private offices or areas which cannot be seen or
heard by such electors." "(e) This Code section shall not be
construed to prohibit a poll officer from distributing materials, as required
by law, which are necessary for the purpose of instructing electors or from
distributing materials prepared by the Secretary of State which are designed
solely for the purpose of encouraging voter participation in the election being
conducted or from making available self-service water from an unattended
receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote."</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">We are in the home stretch now. The bill gets into provisional ballots like so: </span><b>PROVISIONAL BALLOTS</b>: If the person presents himself
or herself at a polling place in the county in which he or she is registered to
vote, but not at the precinct at which he or she is registered to vote, the
poll officials shall inform the person of the polling location for the precinct
where such person is registered to vote. The poll officials shall also inform
such person that any votes cast by a provisional ballot in the wrong precinct
will not be counted unless it is cast after 5:00 P.M. and before the regular
time for the closing of the polls on the day of the primary, election, or
runoff and unless the person executes a sworn statement, witnessed by the poll
official, stating that he or she is unable to vote at his or her correct
polling place prior to the closing of the polls and giving the reason therefor.
(b) Such person voting a provisional ballot shall complete an official voter
registration form and a provisional ballot voting certificate which shall
include information about the place, manner, and approximate date on which the
person registered to vote. The person shall swear or affirm in writing that he
or she previously registered to vote in such primary or election, is eligible
to vote in such primary or election, has not voted previously in such primary
or election, and meets the criteria for registering to vote in such primary or
election. If the person is voting a provisional ballot in the county in which
he or she is registered to vote but not at the precinct in which he or she is
registered to vote during the period from 5:00 P.M. to the regular time for the
closing of the polls on the day of the primary, election, or runoff, the person
shall execute a sworn statement, witnessed by the poll official, stating that
he or she is unable to vote at his or her correct polling place prior to the
closing of the polls and giving the reason therefor. The form of the
provisional ballot voting certificate shall be prescribed by the Secretary of
State. The person shall also present the identification required by Code
Section 21-2-417."</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">More on Handling Provisional Ballots – pages 73-75</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The last section is on the compilation and reporting of results. Here are the highlights: </span><b>REPORTING OF RESULTS/COUNTS</b>: (a) After the time for
the closing of the polls and the last elector voting, the poll officials in
each precinct shall complete the required accounting and related documentation
for the precinct and shall advise the election superintendent of the total
number of ballots cast at such precinct and the total number of provisional
ballots cast. The chief manager and at least one assistant manager shall post a
copy of the tabulated results for the precinct on the door of the precinct and
then immediately deliver all required documentation and election materials to
the election superintendent. The election superintendent shall then ensure that
such ballots are processed, counted, and tabulated as soon as possible and
shall not cease such count and tabulation until all such ballots are counted
and tabulated. (b) The election superintendent shall ensure that each precinct
notifies the election superintendent of the number of ballots cast and number
of provisional ballots cast as soon as possible after the time for the closing
of the polls and the last elector votes. The election superintendent shall post
such information publicly. The State Election Board shall promulgate rules and
regulations regarding how such information shall be publicly posted to ensure
transparency, accuracy, and security. 21-2-421. 1956 (a) As soon as possible
but not later than 10:00 P.M. following the close of the polls on the day of a
primary, election, or runoff, the election superintendent shall report to the
Secretary of State and post in a prominent public place the following
information: (1) The number of ballots cast at the polls on the day of the
primary, election, or runoff, 1960 including provisional ballots cast; (2) The
number of ballots cast at advance voting locations during the advance voting
period for the primary, election, or runoff; and (3) The total number of
absentee ballots returned to the board of registrars by the deadline to receive
such absentee ballots on the day of the primary, election, or runoff. (b) Upon
the completion of the report provided for in subsection (a) of this Code
section, the election superintendent shall compare the total number of ballots
received as reported in subsection (a) of this Code section and the counting of
the ballots in the primary, election, or runoff minus any rejected and uncured
absentee ballots, uncounted provisional ballots, and any other uncounted
ballots, with the total number of ballots cast in the primary, election, or
runoff. The results of such comparison and all explanatory materials shall be
reported to the Secretary of State. The reason for any discrepancy shall be
fully investigated and reported to the Secretary of State."</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">COUNTING OF AND TABULATING OF BALLOTS. RUN-OFFS &
OTHER BALLOT/ELECTION ISSUES: Pages76-91</span><b><o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Pages 91 - 94 is "housekeeping" and clean-up of some issues about who can and cannot be around voters at polling places and some other minutia. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">That is the bill. Sorry this "synopsis" is so long. It is hard to condense 94 pages down to just a few. I hope you will review this, my comments, and then read the actual bill beyond what I have here if you still have questions. I am amazed that anyone that actually reads the bill would have any real problem with any of it unless they wanted loopholes to allow illegalities around our voting.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">I know it is very popular now to talk about count every vote. I agree. But, if someone that is not supposed to vote does, it cancels out a person's vote that did have that right. That to me is just as important if not more so. Making voting easy is a great goal. Making voting integrity easy is also.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">I will end with a comment on our society - <i><b>I think a large part of our problems today can be traced to the fact that we as a people have through our laws and regulations, determined that it takes more maturity to decide to buy an alcoholic beverage or tobacco product than it does to elect the next leader of the free world or our representatives in government.</b></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-78684672874454066202021-03-06T10:31:00.000-05:002021-03-06T10:31:03.010-05:00The Doctor is In! (or is he OUT?)<p><span style="font-size: large;">The "woke" warriors that are now trying to save us from anything they consider the least bit offensive have gone after another icon - Theodor Geisel better known as Dr. Seuss.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Dr. Seuss books have now been determined to be racist and show stereotypes that will have a negative effect on the development of the children that read them. smh</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I figured these revised books may be more fitting in today's society:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnEMKpa2xiktQXN1x2bSeZOfWJJQRIzC683lVkJQvZXaI286-doXaJxh7sY-eCcDQ09jARs5zpBib5p5Tzvs4J3ZyppInnWnmdk_fQOmTmQ4JjqqVhyphenhyphenR_1xr67qipuDk3MtyTAEuzJnx4/s2048/1+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1492" height="361" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnEMKpa2xiktQXN1x2bSeZOfWJJQRIzC683lVkJQvZXaI286-doXaJxh7sY-eCcDQ09jARs5zpBib5p5Tzvs4J3ZyppInnWnmdk_fQOmTmQ4JjqqVhyphenhyphenR_1xr67qipuDk3MtyTAEuzJnx4/w263-h361/1+2.jpg" width="263" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTChGy2G827Jh76kSF2cgXsykrd6j1eKojwcwBHNGyzh_W9Zyq2k6M_mIhIk4FypqHXeRdU01LujxsSKygv5YS-ecaLzeJZyU1CYWtgDBuS9jMGFZ2L0Qt92lbTewfG1hXjVVuh-4u-20/s558/cat+n+mask.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="558" data-original-width="402" height="363" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTChGy2G827Jh76kSF2cgXsykrd6j1eKojwcwBHNGyzh_W9Zyq2k6M_mIhIk4FypqHXeRdU01LujxsSKygv5YS-ecaLzeJZyU1CYWtgDBuS9jMGFZ2L0Qt92lbTewfG1hXjVVuh-4u-20/w262-h363/cat+n+mask.png" width="262" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizf9sZZ_xVKZIBzeqyc_YbvpjLV-MaOzkeT9AYZech0q-qDJvTNlXvg_PRJmHW05tP9uKLRO7t7LYa3xjfuvSBi1et02xMUKhfI2HAUwVBfLCEcUby4xUpf8yR7DeYqL-lUxrIJyXsJg0/s1024/ge+n+h.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="724" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizf9sZZ_xVKZIBzeqyc_YbvpjLV-MaOzkeT9AYZech0q-qDJvTNlXvg_PRJmHW05tP9uKLRO7t7LYa3xjfuvSBi1et02xMUKhfI2HAUwVBfLCEcUby4xUpf8yR7DeYqL-lUxrIJyXsJg0/w254-h360/ge+n+h.png" width="254" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibdQI5MRNhyQQPdC10n5GqLdvMTCfOlLHsFG-qIER0RsZpYOBbilKitvj1Sxs0pcyWxP5IxI3lG7jPFM97AbRuSbPGHMLfQZusIUDE6or4TU104dKQRAo5Q4sVwsy2yIriL64_aLdrJnU/s494/who.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="494" data-original-width="368" height="346" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibdQI5MRNhyQQPdC10n5GqLdvMTCfOlLHsFG-qIER0RsZpYOBbilKitvj1Sxs0pcyWxP5IxI3lG7jPFM97AbRuSbPGHMLfQZusIUDE6or4TU104dKQRAo5Q4sVwsy2yIriL64_aLdrJnU/w258-h346/who.jpg" width="258" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Dr. Seuss aka Theodor Geisel was a known fighter against racism and discrimination. Did he use depictions and symbols that are now seen as offensive? Yes, to some. But to repeat something I wrote a while back: </span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"Our view of the past will always be distorted when seen through the lens of the present"</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Erasing history or trying to make if fit neatly into our world view today (or to be more correct - a small minority view, imho), is pointless and harmful for those that are actually trying to grow as humans.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>a note: I am not that good at photo manipulation - those 4 took me almost 2 hours! I learned some things in doing these and the last definitely went quicker than the first though. I may do more as I enjoyed the result; but I had to quit at 4 due to time! Just another mention - the mask comments are not meant to be in protest or start an argument, these are just the first 4 Dr. Seuss books that I could think of a witty change for the title.</i></span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-78072866886975265592021-02-21T20:47:00.001-05:002021-02-21T20:47:41.964-05:00We Have the Power! Or do we?<p> <span style="font-size: large;">The recent historic cold weather in Texas and the effects it had on the energy grid there has been bandied about by many politicians, newscasters, and just about everyone else that could (and still can) do so.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The folks on one side are saying that the failure was due to the recent emphasis on green energy, especially the windmills that quit working due to freezing up. The other side is saying it is because Texas separated itself from the national electric grid and was unable to get help from others among other things.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As with most statements that are polar opposites and extreme, the truth appears to lie somewhere in between those two positions.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Here are some facts I have been able to find after hours of study and digging around on websites.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) runs the Texas power grid - which is somewhat independent of the national grid. FYI, most power companies have some level of autonomy and control over their own areas of the country that they supply power to, and do so. All companies and controlling entities - like ERCOT - do work with the national grid. The Texas grid allows more independent power production and wholesale selling onto the Texas grid at market prices. This was to encourage investment and flexibility in production at the cost of some control. The Texas grid is separated from the other major interconnects (areas that share readily) and does not go outside of the borders of Texas to avoid Federal regulations and control. Here is a map of the North American interconnects:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4pkmPhPmZBYsK-6JORtfbFQ9wc2KpEhiK1yAJ7F4qbmnM-lEF8S7Lvw_SfkZmpH59XEbJlbn5YvBGFHjrnt2pHR9xqGRV1O3KOwHC5IHNJ9uLkuj-WhvDvfejW8_ouhlna-GErOTuVJ4/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="720" height="615" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4pkmPhPmZBYsK-6JORtfbFQ9wc2KpEhiK1yAJ7F4qbmnM-lEF8S7Lvw_SfkZmpH59XEbJlbn5YvBGFHjrnt2pHR9xqGRV1O3KOwHC5IHNJ9uLkuj-WhvDvfejW8_ouhlna-GErOTuVJ4/w615-h615/image.png" width="615" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">You can see that the Texas interconnect stands alone and covers most of Texas. (I did not find a good explanation for what happens in the purple area that covers part of Texas and five other states!?)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Texas has plenty of power production to handle any "normal" load. The power load in winter in Texas is typically much lower than the summer months and is when power plants and production is taken off-line for maintenance and repair. Combined with the power off-line on purpose and that which did not perform due to the extreme temperatures, there was a problem. The demand was obviously much, much higher than planned and ended up exceeding production capability. I have some facts and figures to demonstrate how unprecedented this power surge was. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">First, here is a breakdown of the total electricity production capability in Texas: (note - this is the max if all production was online)</span></p><p> <img alt="" data-original-height="203" data-original-width="237" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZVX6ZVuC53WPvZ6Dp60n3k2HKBXfpVgwsL1XzBxCs6WeNy8O9WSxnDvNB94Le34kk6kksSh2cEaEHvd5_R0Sq31UlkEuHNZKhW4ryszf-U0NrDVdZm_5qC_IMlBNAeyx-NMe8F6DC6ic/w294-h252/image.png" style="font-size: x-large; text-align: center;" width="294" /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here is the actual production from October of last year to show an "average month":</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz-_rKyqt-eGOa99V2mAOpKGC9fvSrt5PenjcpxpFin9m9aGv-w6nvA7XbODEjpuvnaFo-FcR_4gMEq8mC5h6J8FQFL2PXi0OCfKupUQAnaGt2nM274Zpn7WI7yujQYVS0ed6NfgFi8cs/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="228" data-original-width="367" height="254" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz-_rKyqt-eGOa99V2mAOpKGC9fvSrt5PenjcpxpFin9m9aGv-w6nvA7XbODEjpuvnaFo-FcR_4gMEq8mC5h6J8FQFL2PXi0OCfKupUQAnaGt2nM274Zpn7WI7yujQYVS0ed6NfgFi8cs/w409-h254/image.png" width="409" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;">You can see there is plenty of potential capacity for production when all of the production is active, which would not happen often, if ever. Excess backup capacity is always preferred "just in case".</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Now, here is what was being produced the day before the temperatures dropped to the arctic-like conditions compared to the day of the low temperatures:</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9rrwlsTEX6_p-ctYcvs2_7U0gIW5Z5zbVh8YexBt8TZ9DehPoSzZ-W0A3SbcgXQFI7rLhmYHsCZYfqvdVKklxxqGg_k6KosAOTqmjLQMKWHNKdab8slMnAsKCg276fRngdhDnPpNnb2Q/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="254" data-original-width="538" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9rrwlsTEX6_p-ctYcvs2_7U0gIW5Z5zbVh8YexBt8TZ9DehPoSzZ-W0A3SbcgXQFI7rLhmYHsCZYfqvdVKklxxqGg_k6KosAOTqmjLQMKWHNKdab8slMnAsKCg276fRngdhDnPpNnb2Q/w582-h275/image.png" width="582" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />As I said in opening, the truth of the matter is somewhere between - "Texas isn't playing nicely with others and screwed up production" and "Green energy caused the problem".</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">It is true that the Wind production dropped by almost 92% due to the freezing up of the equipment. The day before it was providing just shy of 12% of the total power, and it dropped to under 2%. It is true that solar power is shut down by nature when the sun is not shining (but, solar was not a factor in the drop from day to day as it was not producing a significant amount before the freeze). Hydropower also was non-existent in the sub-freezing temperatures. (a very small portion comes from hydro power anyway) </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">It is also true that ALL power production methods dropped. The average of all the other types is well over a 25% drop in output. Natural gas, the largest form of production, also dropped the most in real numbers and at 29.4% of the previous days production. This amounted to just under 52% of the overall drop in electricity output just because it is such a large part of the total generating power. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Now the "blame". First, it is not economically feasible to plan and set-up criteria and procedures for every possible catastrophe. If we did that the price of the goods and services would skyrocket. I know you cannot put a price on human life, but I also know that in practice it is not within reason to try to eliminate all downside. Engineers work with managers and politicians to establish a reasonable tradeoff between cost and "safety" as all of us do in almost every aspect of life whether we realize it or not. That being said, natural gas plants as well as windmills can be "winterized" against all but the lowest temperatures. This was not done for many reasons - cost among them I am sure. I also know that some inspections and such were not done due to Covid-19 restrictions. Basically the equipment and plants were not prepared for the drastically colder weather than normal.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">It is also true that over the past few years three large coal power plants have been taken off-line. Instead of being "turned off" and left as excess capacity, they were dismantled (or are in the process of being dismantled). If those plants were able to be restarted, even two days or so in, they would have helped prevent the brownouts, maybe totally. Combined with the lack of solar, hydro, and wind production the drop in green energy output was a huge factor.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">The lack of preparing the gas power plants for the excessive cold was a huge factor as mentioned. I could not find figures as to how low of a temperature the "winterization" could have allowed the plants to perform in, but it is obvious it would have made a difference. There is also one other aspect of natural gas distribution that is set-up to help consumers, but ends up hurting more in a crisis like this with unprecedented temperatures. Gas distribution is diverted from businesses (including power plants) to go to consumers as much as possible to keep those furnaces and ranges going in homes. Lastly, I also read that the great demand lowered the pressure in the gas lines that made all use of natural gas somewhat "iffy". (a thought just came to me - matter shrinks in cold - so I am guessing the natural gas would have also had less volume in the ridiculously cold pipes which would have lowered pressure)</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Was the move to green power to blame - Yes! </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Was the lack of preparation for cold weather to blame - Yes!</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">So, what is to be learned from this? This is opinion, fyi:</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">1) we must not abandon any source of electrical generation totally in favor of any other until the time that we are sure it will operate in all conceivable circumstances.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">2) the move to green energy production must be done intelligently and with the recognition of its shortcomings as well as its advantages</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">3) the power companies must do better planning for the "fringe" circumstances like excessively cold (or hot, or wet, etc.) weather.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">4) we have to stop using all these catastrophes and problems as political weapons to "punish" the "other side", which ever side that may be.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br /><br /></span></div><p></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-68929520525838397352021-01-26T17:48:00.003-05:002021-01-26T17:48:47.288-05:00SPEECH ON THE FLOOR OF THE US SENATE 1-25-21 by SENATOR RAND PAUL<h2 style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>I think there may be one other instance where in the over 10 years I have been doing this blog that I have used someone else's words instead of my own. I do not think I have ever just used someone else's words. This does not need anything I can give it other than an introduction. So here it is: </b></span></h2><h2 style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) delivered a strident address on the floor of the Senate on Tuesday afternoon in which he cited examples of Democrats encouraging violence and aggressive behavior against Trump supporters and Republicans.<br /></span></b></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Paul highlighted the Democrats’ hypocrisy as he spoke against the impending impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, which is scheduled to begin Tuesday afternoon, though substantive proceedings will be delayed until February 8.<br /></b></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Paul’s remarks, in full, are as follows.</b></span></h2><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;">***</span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>"This impeachment is nothing more than a partisan exercise designed to further divide the country.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Democrats claim to want to unify the country, but impeaching a former president, a private citizen, is the antithesis of unity.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Democrats brazenly appointing a pro-impeachment Democrat [Senate President Pro Tem Patrick Leahy] to preside over the trial is not fair or impartial, and hardly encourages any kind of unity in our country.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>No, “unity” is the opposite of this travesty we are about to witness.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>If we are about to try to impeach a president, where is the Chief Justice? If the accused is no longer president, where is the constitutional power to impeach him? Private citizens don’t get impeached. Impeachment is for removal from office. And the accused here has already left office.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Hyper-partisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history. Instead of doing the nation’s work, with their new majorities in the House, the Senate, and the executive branch, Democrats are wasting the nation’s time on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>It’s almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump. Without him as their bogeyman, they might to legislate, and to actually convince Americans that their policies are the right ones.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Democrats are about to do something no self-respecting Senator has stooped to: Democrats are insisting the election is actually not over, and so they insist on regurgitating the bitterness of the election.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>This acrimony they are about to unleash has never before been tried. Why? Because calmer heads have typically prevailed in our history, and allowed public opinion to cast blame where blame is deserved.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>This sham of an impeachment will ostensibly ask whether the president incited the reprehensible behavior and violence of January 6 when he said, “I know everyone here will soon march to the Capitol to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>“Peacefully and patriotically.” Hardly words of violence.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>[Interjection: Not at all.]</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>But what of Democrat words? What of Democrat incitement to violence?</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>No Democrat will honestly ask whether [Senator] Bernie Sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise and volunteer coach. The shooter nearly pulled off a massacre — I was there — because he fervently believed the false and inflammatory rhetoric spewed by Bernie and other Democrats, such as, “The Republican health care plan for the uninsured is that you die.”</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>As this avowed Bernie supporter shot Steve Scalise, nearly killing him, and shot one of our coaches and two or three of our staff, he screamed, “This is for health care.” Ask me, or anyone, if that’s incitement.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>No Democrat will ask if [Senator] Cory Booker incited violence when he called for his supporters to get — get “up in their face” of congresspeople — a very visual, and specific incitement. No Democrat will ask whether [Representative] Maxine Waters incited violence when she told her supporters, and I quote, that “If you see a member of the Trump administration at a restaurant, at a department store, at a gas station, or any place, you create a crowd, and you push back on them.” Is that not incitement?</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>My wife and I were pushed and surrounded and screamed at by this same type of mob that Maxine likes to inspire. It’s terrifying to have a swarm of people threatening to kill you, cursing at you and literally holding you hostage until police come to your rescue. That night we were assaulted by the crowd, I wasn’t sure if we would survive even with the police protection. But no Democrat suggested impeaching Maxine for her violent rhetoric.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>In fact, Republicans, to our credit, have never once thought it legitimate to formally censor or impeach these Democrats. No Republican has sought to use the government to hold these Democrats responsible for Antifa and Black Lives Matter violence that has consumed our cities all summer, resulting in over a billion dollars of destruction, looting, and property damage. Not one Republican said, “Oh, let’s impeach the Democrats who are inciting this.” Because it would be ridiculous.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Many on the Democrat side of the aisle cheered them on. [Then-Senator] Kamala Harris famously offered to pay the bill for those who were arrested. I wonder if she’ll be brought up on charges of inciting violence for that now that she’s Vice President.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Should Kamala Harris be impeached for offering to pay for violent people to get out of jail who have been burning our cities down? No! And no Republican has offered that, because we’re not going down the road the Democrats have decided, this low road of impeaching people for political speech.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Should Republicans impeach the Democrat mayor of Seattle who incited and condoned violence by calling the armed takeover of part of her city a “summer of love”? Any Republicans try to impeach her?</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>On June 8, the <span style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">New York Post</span>, citing U.S. Justice Department statistics, reported that more than 700 law enforcement officers were injured during the Antifa/Black Lives Matter riots. There were at least 19 murders, including 77-year-old retired police officer David Dorn. Yet Democrats insist on applying a test of incitement to a Republican that they refuse to apply to themselves.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>I want the Democrats to raise their hands if they have ever given a speech that says “Take back,” “Fight for your country.” Who hasn’t used the words “fight” figuratively, and are we going to put every politician in jail, or are we going to impeach every politician who has used the words “fight” figuratively in a speech?</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Shame. Shame on these angry, unhinged partisans who are putting forth this sham impeachment, deranged by their hatred of the former president. Shame on those who seek blame and revenge, and who choose to pervert a constitutional process while doing so.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>I want this body on record, every last person here: Is this how you think politics should be?</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Look, we have now got crazy partisans on the other side of the aisle trying to censor and remove two of the Republican Senators for their political position. Now, look, I disagreed. I don’t think Congress should overturn the Electoral College. But impeaching or censoring or expelling a member of Congress you disagree with? Is the truth so narrow that only you know the truth?</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>We now have the media on their side, saying there is only one set of facts, one set of truths, and you can only interpret it this way. Now we have seven Senators on the other side trying to expel, censor, or impugn two Senators on this side. And I defend them, not because I defend their position — I disagreed with their position — but you can’t impeach, or expel people you disagree with.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>What’s this coming to?</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>In a few minutes, I will insist on a vote to affirm that this proceeding we are about to enter is unconstitutional; that impeachment of a private citizen is illegal, and essentially a bill of attainder; and that no sense of fairness or due process would allow the judge in the proceeding to be a partisan Democrat already on favor of the impeachment.</i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0.75em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>A sham, this is, a travesty. A dark blot on the history of our country. I urge my colleagues to reconsider this kangaroo court and move forward to debate the great issues of our day."</i></span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-52110848892393116582021-01-23T10:41:00.000-05:002021-01-23T10:41:04.173-05:00PARDON ME?<p> <span style="font-size: large;">A lot has been made in the last couple of weeks of the President's (now past President) pardons and commutations (although most don't know what a commutation is - they "know" they should be upset with them. For the record a commutation is the substitution of a lesser penalty than originally given - typically time served. The conviction and criminal record still exists. A pardon is the overturning of the actual conviction. It exonerates the person and expunges their record of the crime.)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Presidential pardons and commutations are a power granted to all Presidents from the U.S. Constitution. In the section enumerating Presidential powers and authority, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 states which states: "...he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States". Although there has been some arguments among Constitutional scholars, this power is considered to be only for convictions and/or violations of Federal laws, not State laws. </span><span style="font-size: x-large;">Every President has used this power, particularly in the time immediate time prior to leaving office (read "January prior to the Inauguration</span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> of the incoming President).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">President Trump used this power and headlines were blasted across newspapers, magazines, and websites about how he was "Expected to Grant Over 100 Pardons" in his last week. I just wanted to give some perspective (as I am want to do on many subjects). Let's compare with his predecessor President Obama. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>In the 8 years Obama was President his pardons and commutations numbers were:</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>212 Pardons </b>and<b> 1,715 Commutations</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Trump's numbers for his 4 years were:</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b> 143 Pardons </b>and<b> 94 Commutations</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">I hear the cry now: "But Trump served half the time! The comparisons are not fair!" </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">So, here are the numbers for the January they were both leaving office (<b>January 2017 for Obama and January 2021 for Trump)</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>President Obama: 142 Pardons & 1,043 Commutations</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>President Trump: 74 Pardons & 75 Commutations</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So, it is apparent that President Trump did not "go crazy" with the use of his pardon power. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As a reference here are the numbers for some other recent Presidents and the two referenced above:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Regan: 393 Pardons & 13 Commutations<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">H.W. Bush: 74 Pardons & 3 Commutations</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Clinton: 396 Pardons & 61 Commutations</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">W. Bush: 189 Pardons & 11 Commutations</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Obama: 212 Pardons & 1,715 Commutations</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Trump: 143 Pardons & 94 Commutations</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">I do recognize that depending on your position, both politically and on certain laws, would cause you to feel differently about the persons that were granted pardons and commutations, but that is not the subject of this post. One could argue those positions endlessly in any case. I just wanted to point out the numbers. </span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-47246219142585964042021-01-14T18:08:00.000-05:002021-01-14T18:08:45.057-05:00Not More Numbers! <p><span style="font-size: large;">I have done a couple of fairly recent posts on perspective. I have been amazed at the fear shown over Covid-19 from young people. I am not making light of any deaths. However, statistically Covid-19 has not been a significant cause of death for those under 65 at all. If you look under 55, it is even less. There are many other things that are as if not more likely to kill you.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Some US Covid-19 numbers</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The most deaths in number and as a percentage of that population is in those over 75. That demographic represents just under 7% of the total population (6.88% of the numbers I was using). However, they account for just under 60% (59.6%) of all the Covid-19 deaths. Read those numbers again - 6 out of every 10 Covid-19 deaths in the US are in people 75 and older! </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If you include the next demographic - 65 years and older (so it would include the previous group as well as those from 65 to 74 years old) you are now at almost 81% (80.9%) of all deaths from Covid-19. This group represents just under 16.5% of the population. So again, think about that - just over 8 of every 10 deaths is someone that is 65 or older. Another way to say that in words without numbers is: well under 2 of every 10 people represent over 8 of every 10 deaths!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Looking at it from the other angle - I mentioned those under 55 as having a very low risk. The group of the population that is 54 and younger represents a great majority of the population - almost 71% (70.6% to be precise). The percentage of deaths? Under 7.5% (7.32%) So, well under 1 out of every 10 Covid-19 deaths are in people under 55 years of age.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The number of deaths go down dramatically as the age demographic drops. Less than 3% (2.6%) under 45, less than 1% (0.85%) under 35, and under 25 is less than a quarter of a percent (0.19%) </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The chart I made from the CDC numbers is here:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidRvK1JLnRI33GEWsP7pxw-qU2w_3BwwxhT8VALBf-39MVQOsjS5aNwh9i4HNEaKSuivlOm7563aWGVjFI49WXOjf6muKssqxVqgC0UyUJUBzrxleXeOdyg1ZA7HCVU5OotkiBzDUaHdY/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="281" data-original-width="812" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidRvK1JLnRI33GEWsP7pxw-qU2w_3BwwxhT8VALBf-39MVQOsjS5aNwh9i4HNEaKSuivlOm7563aWGVjFI49WXOjf6muKssqxVqgC0UyUJUBzrxleXeOdyg1ZA7HCVU5OotkiBzDUaHdY/w640-h222/image.png" width="640" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />Again, I am not making light of any death. Covid-19 is taking and has taken too many people too soon. I am just pointing out that if you are young, the danger is much reduced. When government and health officials are making plans and procedures to mitigate the deaths from the disease they need to take this into account. Killing the economy by making everyone stay behind locked doors and shuttering businesses is destroying more young people and livelihoods than the disease!</span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-86889807823343021882021-01-09T18:31:00.002-05:002021-01-09T18:31:23.197-05:00Some Basic Thoughts<p><span style="font-size: large;">Just a brief post with some reminders (or maybe some original thoughts for some of you!)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">1) </span><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Censorship, especially of speech, is a bad thing in almost every case</b>. Freedom of Speech was made as part the First Amendment to the Constitution (in the Bill of Rights) because it was recognized that the most effective way to silence dissent was to limit its spread. To limit the spread of differing ideas is to limit the possibility of dialogue and growth and leads to tyranny. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">2) <b>Discrimination against a group of people will never counteract or neutralize discrimination that was fostered upon another group of people</b>. (also can be read: two wrongs don't make a right - no more comment is needed)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">3) <b>Diversity for the sake of diversity is discrimination</b>. See #2. If you select a person for a position solely based on the color of their skin, their gender, or any other attribute other than their ability, you are practicing discrimination. Selecting the best candidate, based upon their qualifications and performance (or expected performance) is the only way to assure no bias or discrimination in the selection. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I began this post describing it as being "brief", so I will stop there and end with reminders of some of my basic "laws".</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>There is no government money.</b> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Corporations do not pay taxes, people pay taxes</b>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">There are many posts contained within this blog that go into great detail on the how and why of those statements, but they are fact. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Lastly, a paraphrase of numerous people: Government is NOT the solution. In fact, more often than not, they are the cause of the problem, directly or indirectly. We have to stop looking to government, especially at the Federal level, to solve our issues. The unintended consequences of government regulations are a huge problem.</span></p><p> </p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-87736569171437012020-12-06T14:55:00.003-05:002021-01-09T18:03:53.188-05:00WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THAT GROUP AGAIN?<p><i> <span style="font-size: medium;">I have been wrestling with doing a post since shortly after the last one. As I gave written here before, when I don't post it is more likely that I have too many ideas rather than none. There are many, many things that I have thought about writing on and a few I have actually "roughed out" in my head. But, then something else would come along before I got it written and take the space. So, I end up writing neither. Sigh.. So, here we go...</span></i></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">I thought I would just do a post on a new group I am founding and am going to be soliciting for members of shortly. It is the</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"> <b><span style="color: red; line-height: 107%;">S</span></b><span style="line-height: 107%;">top
<b><span style="color: red;">T</span></b>rying to <b><span style="color: red;">U</span></b>nderstand
<b><span style="color: red;">P</span></b>eople with <b><span style="color: red;">I</span></b>deas
that are <b><span style="color: red;">D</span></b>ifferent </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="line-height: 107%;">group </span></span><span style="font-family: verdana;">or the acronym - </span><span style="color: red; font-family: verdana;"><b>STUPID</b></span><span style="font-family: verdana;">. We spend entirely too much time trying to relate to all those other people that think differently than we do. It is time to get together to celebrate our agreement with the correct thoughts - ours. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 107%;">I am still working out the details but I know the ideas we will believe in will have to be determined and delineated so we can think alike. For that we will elect a </span><b><span style="color: red; line-height: 107%;">P</span></b><span style="line-height: 107%;">olicy
<b><span style="color: red;">C</span></b>ommittee or <span style="color: red;"><b>PC</b></span> group to establish and oversee the correct ideas. This committee will work with members to record our common beliefs and ideas.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 107%;">There will always be those detractors out there; those folks that don't want to follow <b><span style="color: red;">STUPID</span></b> ideas and thoughts. That is fine unless it becomes disruptive to the activities and beliefs of the group. Then we will have to have our enforcers come to assist in making sure that all know the<b><span style="color: red;"> PC </span></b>way that the <b><span style="color: red;">STUPID</span></b> group is thinking. This group of members appointed to this important task will be known as: </span><b><span style="color: red; line-height: 107%;">A</span></b><span style="line-height: 107%;">dministrative
<b><span style="color: red;">S</span></b>taff <b><span style="color: red;">S</span></b>ervices
to <b><span style="color: red;">H</span></b>elp <b><span style="color: red;">O</span></b>vercome
<b><span style="color: red;">L</span></b>osers that <b><span style="color: red;">E</span></b>schew
our <b><span style="color: red;">S</span></b>ignificance or simply <b><span style="color: red;">ASSHOLES</span></b>. </span></span></p><p><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">These <span style="color: red;"><b>ASSHOLES</b></span> will take to social media, chat rooms, bulletin boards, and even public gatherings to make sure that the ideas that come from the <b><span style="color: red;">PC</span></b> / <span style="color: red;"><b>STUPID</b></span> are respected and appreciated by all.</span></span></p><p><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">So, prepare to join <b><span style="color: red;">STUPID</span></b>. There will be membership information coming to you soon. FYI, some of you are already grandfathered in as members due to your actions and support in the past. Some of you are pre-approved to be in the <span style="color: red;"><b>PC</b></span> group. Lastly, a lot of you are already <b><span style="color: red;">ASSHOLES</span></b>. Now you can have a purpose beyond just calling out individuals for their erroneous ideas and statements. You can be <span style="color: red;"><b>STUPID</b></span>! </span></span></p><p><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="color: red; line-height: 19.9733px;">S</span></b><span style="line-height: 19.9733px;">top <b><span style="color: red;">T</span></b>rying to <b><span style="color: red;">U</span></b>nderstand <b><span style="color: red;">P</span></b>eople with <b><span style="color: red;">I</span></b>deas that </span></span></span></p><p><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="line-height: 19.9733px;">are <b><span style="color: red;">D</span></b>ifferent - </span></span></span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: xx-large;">Join </span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: xx-large;"><span style="color: red;">STUPID</span></b><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: xx-large;"> today!</span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-7225975655246225942020-11-15T12:03:00.007-05:002020-11-16T12:21:49.239-05:00Maybe New Math is Catching up to US! We Cannot Count Any More!<p> <span>As I write this the 2020 election is 11+ days past. The news media, for the most part (there are still some that have the integrity to not call it yet) has called it a win for Biden. The issue there is, it is not over. News organizations, no matter which one, do NOT call the election results. They can REPORT election results. They use algorithms and projections along with exit polls and real vote counts to forecast a winner of each race. The State legislatures must certify the results and appoint the electors. As of this writing only eight States have certified their results. (that is not unusual, the dates for certification is still in the future for the others - I am not implying anything, just reporting) Now, I am not saying that the odds are not showing that Biden/Harris have won. It would be a long shot for President Trump to hold on to his office. But, it the race is NOT over.</span></p><p><span>Some are not being reported at all, and most are not being reported widely; but as best I can find there are about 120 <b><u>sworn affidavits</u></b> from people alleging fraud or voting procedural violations of some sort. Why did I highlight "sworn affidavits"? That is critical to why the election results are not settled as of yet. A sworn affidavit carries some power of law. A person that swears to an affidavit is subject to perjury charges if the affidavit is proven to have been presented falsely or in bad faith. Unlike hearsay - where someone knows someone that knows a poll worker that saw another poll worker trash a ballot, a sworn affidavit is where someone states under oath (and subsequent penalty of perjury - 1 year in prison and fines for most State violations, and 5 years in prison and fines for Federal violations if found guilty) that they are witness to or have first-hand knowledge of voter fraud or a violation of voting laws, rules, and/or regulations.</span></p><p><span>The people that swore out these affidavits are of from all walks of life: postal workers (FYI, the most reported on postal worker that had a follow up story that said he recanted - he says he did not recant and has supposedly filed a formal affidavit), a former assistant State's Attorney, poll workers - both volunteers and paid staff, as well as voters. There are also staff of some of the buildings used that have supposedly filed affidavits of things they saw. I could get into some specifics of the claims (the ones that have been made public, most have not - and as I opened with, the lack of interest in any fraud that may have helped Biden makes it very difficult to find details anywhere). There are some out there if you care to look - beyond the headlines. I will leave that to you.</span></p><p><span>As I said at the outset - it is highly likely that the next President will be Joe Biden. However, if over 100 affidavits alleging problems with the procedures and/or counts are not followed up with, how are we to have any faith in the election process in the future? Are we just to be happy when our candidate wins? "We'll get 'em next time!" is not a great message to instill voter confidence. A quick statement on 2016 and now - it amazes me that a large number of Clinton supporters/Democrats still believe there was interference/meddling in the 2016 Presidential race enough to change the outcome after hearings, special prosecutors, and rulings that found the opposite; but now just want to "move on, Joe won" is their cry now!</span></p><p><span>The other reason that all this needs to be followed up with besides the integrity of the election process is that it COULD make a difference. The States of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all have multiple lawsuits and affidavits to work through before their results are final. (unless the State Legislatures decide to validate results with these things pending - which I think they can do, at least in some States). I am going to leave Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin out of the further discussion as the lead in each is statistically large enough that something very odd would have to have occurred for the results to have been altered enough to change. I will note that Wisconsin is having a total hand recount however as I write this, so we shall see. Also, there are many of the affidavits that cover problems in Michigan, so this too is open to change, however small.</span></p><p><span>So one by one:</span></p><p><span>Arizona - </span><span>Biden (FYI, I am not going to write Biden/Harris each time - no snub meant to Ms. Harris, just quicker) is ahead at this point by just over 10,000 votes out of 3,300,000+ votes cast or 0.31% of the total. This was one that Fox News called early (earlier than almost anyone else) and got some heat for it. Some others have called it, and some still show it undecided.</span></p><p><span>Georgia - Biden is shown as the leader here also, but by even a smaller percentage - 0.29% of the total 4,930,000+ votes cast, or just over 14,000 votes. This State is one where it is alleged (by sworn affidavit) that thousands of votes were incorrectly counted. The votes were said to have been not filed/filled out properly or not received on time. There is a recount being done here now as well. </span></p><p><span>Pennsylvania - Biden is shown as the leader here by just under 1% (0.97%) or just shy of 66,000 votes out of the almost 7,000,000 total votes cast. I am including this one as there are affidavits concerning large numbers of illegitimate ballots being brought in and added to the totals in Philadelphia. There are also documented cases of Republican (and in at least 1 case a Democrat being removed for filing a complaint as to how things were being done) poll judges not being allowed to view the counting process.</span></p><p><span>If these States are taken out of the total for Biden, the Electoral count is 253 - 238 in favor of Biden. The Electoral votes for each are;</span></p><p><span>Arizona - 11, Georgia - 16, Pennsylvania - 20</span></p><p><span>You can see if these three are in play, it can change the outcome. The path is much easier for Biden than for Trump, but both could win. If you include any one of the other States with lawsuits/affidavits pending, the outcome could definitely change.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-91285734826328667122020-10-29T20:16:00.004-04:002020-10-29T20:16:32.353-04:00Where Are We Going? <p> <span style="font-size: large;">As I have not done a reminder in a while, first a bit of a review:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">1) <b>There is NO government money.</b> There are detailed explanations in other posts on this blog as well as many other sites. Just know that any time you hear something is being paid for with "federal funds", a "federal grant", "State funds'' or any other euphemism for government money, know what it really means is - taxpayer's money - either current or future.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">2) <b>Corporations DON'T pay taxes! PEOPLE PAY TAXES!</b> You can put whatever tax rate you want to on Corporations and the taxes will be paid by their customers eventually. I have seen arguments that try to explain why the taxes will be paid by the company due to market forces or other reasons. This is not true in almost all cases. Every Corporate P&L (financial statement/planning) has a line item for taxes. It is a cost of doing business and computed into the finances like any other cost and built into the price of their wares/services.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">There are other "truths" that I have outlined in other posts, but those are the two that I wish everyone could grasp.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now for the main idea of this post:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">We the people are at a strange time in our history. It used to be that people were divided and separated by political party just as we are today but the overarching goal for the country as a whole was pretty uniform. Now, we still differ on the path but we also differ on the end result. This is compared to a group trip where multiple vehicles are used. Formerly all the drivers would agree on a destination, if a long trip maybe even interim destinations during the trip. However, they may not always have agreed on the exact route. They may have started their journey from slightly different locations or had a route that took them to pick up a traveler that was unable to join at the very start. One may have used a new bypass that the other was not aware of or did not think was better. One may have avoided a particular route that involved bridges, toll roads, or some other impediment that they did not want to negotiate. However, they all knew that they would meet up at their agree upon final destination at some point. </span><span style="font-size: large;">Now we not only have different routes politically, we do not even agree on the goal or destination. We are torn in where we are going and how we are to get there.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Founders set up our Federal government to be contentious and to move slowly on most change. The Senate particularly was set up to be a slow and deliberative body with equal representation for all States. This was where a State like Rhode Island with a small geographic area as well as a smaller population would have equal say as the larger more populous States. There are (and were even more) rules and procedures that allow a small number of Senators to slow down and/or even stop a bill or resolution even if a majority is in favor of the bill. The Founders were greatly worried about and understood the downside of a true democracy - that of a 51% majority jamming through everything they wanted even if 49% disagreed. That is why we are a representative republic and why the Senate in particular has (or had in some cases) rules to allow for a minority to slow things down. Now, both parties have had occasion to change rules to "streamline" the actions and debate in the Senate. They have felt hamstrung and held back from carrying out what they wanted by the rules. These changes have come back to haunt each party at some point in the future once they were out of the majority. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Founders, for the most part, were very concerned about a very powerful Federal government. (there were some that felt the opposite, but even they knew that absolute power in the Federal government would be troublesome and could lead to abuses similar to the Monarchy that they were leaving) They saw the day-to-day interactions of the government with the people being at the local level first. This was where the government was most responsive to the population and most aware of the issues and problems of each locale. Then the State government would be the next level of interaction and would be the identity that most would "rally around". (this raises a totally different topic maybe for another day that most do not understand when discussing the US Civil War. Most of the population felt they were fighting for their State, not their country. When their State seceded from the Union (or did not) they felt honor bound to support it) The States were to be a nexus of power with their own legislatures, courts, and executive branches to handle the majority of governing.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Federal government was necessary to deal with other countries for trade (without it you might have two States dealing for the same trade deal and cutting each other down), for handling diplomatic relations - up to and including war if necessary, and for handling debt incurred in the Revolutionary War (and other items later). It was not felt that the Federal government and Federal laws would have a great impact on the day-to-day lives of most people. This has been changed greatly with Federal law and taxes having a great impact almost universally. There are posts on this site where I discuss the obligations and requirements of each of the three branches of government, so I will not go into as much detail here.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The Executive branch (the office of the President, Vice-President, the Cabinet, and all the government agencies) is one area that has become quite unwieldy. The human quest for power has driven the Executive branch into a mammoth and powerful home to almost 3 million employees! (technically the Armed Forces is part of the Executive branch and that adds another 1.3+ million) The problem is, these people outside of the President and VP are not elected. Most are not even directly appointed by the President/VP. they are just hired as bureaucrats. However, they are given immense power. In my opinion, as well as many Constitutional scholars, too much power that has been given to them in most cases by a Legislative branch that has not lived up to its obligations. For example, the EPA passes regulations that have the power of law and adds immeasurable costs to businesses and people throughout the country. Instead of passing specific laws that direct people to achieve a specific goal, they Legislative branch will pass a non-specific law that says the CO2 output needs to be reduced to some lower number. The actual rules and regulations are left to the bureaucrats that are not elected and not answerable to the people or businesses they are regulating. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I think a lot of our "arguments" could be resolved or at least mitigated by returning the power to the local and State levels. For example, the abortion issue. Roe vs Wade should have never been passed. I am firmly in favor of it being overruled. (for the record, I have no problem in abortion on demand -even as birth control - in the first trimester. Later in the pregnancy requires more space than I am willing to give to it here) I then think the laws need to be reviewed and or written/rewritten in each State to reflect the will of the people. If abortion on demand is the something that someone desires, they move to that State. If a ban on abortion is something that someone desires, they can move there. The State should be a reflection of the majority of the voting population in the State and then people could live where their ideals were being met. This could work with other contentious issues as well. It is not a panacea by any means. People could cross State lines to obtain products or procedures that were banned in their State. (in fact that is the only argument for Federal laws that makes sense) This could be resolved over time with agreements between States. Our "destinations" could be more agreed upon at the State level than they will ever be at the national area. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Sorry, this rambles a bit and is not exactly what I set out to write when I started, but in my defense it was done over two days. I am much better when I do something from beginning to end in one sitting. I hope it offers some ideas for thought and discussion.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-73579130867808068982020-09-29T14:57:00.002-04:002020-09-29T14:57:37.720-04:00Advice & Consent of the Senate<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">There are a lot of comparisons between Trump's appointment of Amy Barrett and Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland. There is one HUGE difference that makes all the difference. The President's party is in control of the Senate at the time of the appointment.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">People seem to not understand that the appointments to the Federal Judiciary are at the “Advice & Consent of the Senate”. The advice and consent of the Senate of the Garland appointment was “we will not approve him”. Although I thought at the time and still think now it would have been better to have the vote and the appointment be ended that way, it is well within the Senate’s purview to say “No” prior to the vote. It is forgotten that Garland would have not been approved in all likelihood even with the vote.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> The other point is this: the people have spoken and had input into the appointment of the next Supreme Court justice - in 2016 they voted in Donald Trump (I know that argument is somewhat negated by the fact that Obama was the duly elected president in 2016 - I accept that) The main “voice” of the people was voting in 2018 to leave the Senate with a Republican majority. Everyone that is politically savvy at all knows that the Senate confirms Presidential appointments. If they don’t realize they confirm most of them, they surely know they confirm the Supremes!
The 2018 election was the chance for the “voice of the people” on any Trump appointments, just as the 2014 elections were for any Obama ones. If the Senate is of the same party/mind as the President as far as appointments go - then nominations will (and should imho) be approved right up until the next election.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Judge Barrett sits on the second highest court in the land in the Court of Appeals. She has been vetted by the Senate and approved for a lifetime Federal judgeship in 2017. She is eminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court (as was Merrick Garland, btw - he just had the bad luck of being nominated by a lame duck President without the support of the Senate) The Supreme Court has around 7,000 cases sent to them for review annually. They actually hear and rule on 100 - 150 of these. That means that @6,900 go back to the lower court, which in a lot of these cases is the Court of Appeals - where Judge Barrett has a seat. The Court of Appeals makes many, many more rulings than the Supremes with the same power of law. </span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4047852223042054038.post-70349025203658925872020-09-12T21:30:00.000-04:002020-09-12T21:30:36.129-04:00Who's In Charge Here?<p><span style="font-size: large;"> Somewhere among all these posts is one where I talked about how the problems that the politicians were going to fix have been the same all my life. The political ads from the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s could be used today with a small bit of "polishing". </span><span style="font-size: x-large;">Our elected representatives have been correcting inequities and solving the same problems for as long as I have been hearing politicians. I am sure it goes back way before me!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><i>If the politicians wanted to (or giving them the benefit of the doubt - <u>were able to</u>) solve these issues - they would have - period.</i></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">There are also posts here where I try to delineate the powers and responsibility of the branches of our government as outlined in the Constitution. I will not go there again (if you care - go looking), I will just say that the three branches have to work together - at least somewhat - to get anything done. As a reminder the three branches are the Executive (President), the Judicial (the federal courts headed by the Supremes), and the Legislative (which is divided into the Senate and the House of Representatives). For this discussion I am going to leave the judicial branch out even though they do come into play, especially with our modern outlook on the courts, when any large legislative change is made.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">To get a change in the governmental definition, regulation, and/or control of something requires both houses of Congress to approve a bill outlining the said definition, regulation, and/or control. Then this bill goes to the President to sign. This process is almost always fraught with disagreements between the different parties and houses of Congress. If the same party is in control of both houses, the process is much easier (note - I did not say "better" just easier - one could make an argument for making change difficult to make sure it was correct). If the President is also of the same party - the bill is almost assured of becoming law. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I started by mentioning that the same problems/issues were being brought up by today's politicians in their ads. They were going to make it all better. If we elect (or more to my point here - reelect) them they will go to (or back) to Washington and solve these issues for us - the people! I am calling B.S. in case you haven't caught that yet. I have some interesting numbers about control of our government by the two major parties since World War 2. That is 76 years" 1945 - 2021 - 38 Congresses (one is seated every 2 years), 19 Presidential terms (every 4 years). During this 76 year period:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">the Party in <b><u>control of the House</u></b> was:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Democrat - 52 years Republican - 24 years</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">the Party in <b><u>control of the Senate</u></b> was:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Democrat - 50 years Republican - 26 years</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Years one party <b><u>controlled BOTH chambers at the same time</u></b>:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Democrat - 44 years Republican - 18 years</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">the <b>Party in the <u>White House</u></b>:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Republican - 40 years Democrat - 36 years</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And the "golden ticket" - years <b><u>one party controlled all three</u></b>:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Democrat - 22 years Republican - 8 years</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Also worth noting - years the President's party had </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="text-decoration-line: underline;">no Congressional control: </b>(the opposition held control over both houses of Congress)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Republican - 20 years Democrat - 10 years</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">You can see that each party has had enough control to "solve" something during at least one term. The Democrats have had much more control, but the Republicans have had some chances as well. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am not sure exactly where I want to go with this. I wanted for people to see how silly the argument that the politicians make in their political ads are when they say "elect me, and I will ..." (insert "solve") - poverty, homelessness, corruption, discrimination, etc. - (or "build/bring back") our defenses, working across the aisle, lowering taxes/increasing taxes on some "evil" group, or serving the people, etc. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We keep electing the same people to Congress in large part as well. There are many, many members of Congress that have been there for more than 20 years and a large number that are approaching or have exceeded 40 years! Some of these are in the House! The House of Representative was set up as the "people's chamber". It has 2 year terms as the founders saw it as being populated by the people. They saw it as a way to get fresh ideas into government from people that knew what government needed to do to help real people. We now have a government run by a political class in large part. They get to Washington and stay, and stay, and stay...</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p>gumbypoole aka Scott Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156958105647674689noreply@blogger.com0