My mom and I have been talking about presidential immunity lately, as I can’t think of an idea that more directly confounds what the Founding Fathers intended in terms of rule of law and the concept of a monarchy as a replacement for American democracy.

Mom believes if that U.S. presidents don’t have immunity, that they can be charged with crimes by their political opponents as in this case with Biden.  What I try to get her to realize is that our justice system doesn’t work that way. In Trump’s case, four different grand juries in four different jurisdictions found there was solid evidence that Trump had committed 91 felonies and needed to be indicted accordingly.

If Biden had any power in this regard, do you think his own son would be going on trial for gun-law violations?

What about Nixon?  He didn’t have immunity, which is why he resigned in disgrace.

 

 

Tagged with:

Funny meme here.

Seriously, however, many Trump supporters disbelieve that their hero lost to Biden by seven million votes, purely on the basis that the president didn’t do rallies with hats and flags.

Tagged with:

In my limited experience, even the most unintelligent and backwards people say they believe in science but contend (because this is what their online “research” has taught them), that disciplines like epidemiology and climate change are driven by money and politics, rather than science itself.

Frankly, I have some level of sympathy for these folks, and I count myself lucky at some level that I happen to know a significant number of high-level scientists in these fields personally, and that I can vouch for their integrity on an individual basis.

Also, my brain is wired along the lines of what philosopher David Hume wrote: “We always disbelieve the greater miracle.”

What’s more likely?  That millions of people, all around the globe, with “MD” and “PhD” after their names, working in research institutions and hospitals, conspired to develop and disseminate a story that COVID-19 was a serious disease when they knew it was no more dangerous than the flu?  Or, alternatively, that these people followed legitimate science to reach their conclusions, and took measures to prevent even worse outcomes than those we actually experienced?

When I come across a conspiracy theorist whose ideas are completely baseless, it reminds me that, in so many ways, we’ve lost our ability to think.  Then we see phenomena like Trump rising in the polls, and we have to admit that this is all completely predictable.

 

Tagged with:

Here’s an article from Fox News: Stephen A. Smith reacts to Trump’s guilty verdict, says it ‘all points to civil war.’

Well, here are a few legitimate questions, I believe:

When will it begin?  There were more people milling around our local hardware store yesterday than there were Trumpers supporting their leader in front of the courthouse in New York where the jury was deliberating, ultimately to convict the former president of all the 34 felony charges against him.

What form will it take?  Whom will his base of heavily armed morons attack?  All 40 million of us woke Californians?

When and how will it end?  How does one think that whatever tiny percentage of the Trump base that doesn’t mind spending years or decades in prison will fare against 1.3 million law enforcement personnel as assisted by the U.S. military with its $800 billion annual budget? We’re #1 in spending on military personnel and weapons, more than the next 14 countries combined. These soldiers have pledged their honor to the U.S. Constitution, not to a single deranged criminal.  I give it a few days, max.

Tagged with:

Here’s conclusion from a recent report from my colleague Renaldo Brutoco on battery EVs (BEVs) and hydrogen fuel-cell EVs (FCEVs):

As we continue to advance towards a low-carbon future, both BEVs and FCEVs will play pivotal roles. By embracing both technologies, we can ensure a smoother transition to sustainable mobility, effectively mitigating the environmental impact of our transportation needs while satisfying the diverse requirements of consumers and industry. This dual approach not only maximizes the benefits of each technology but also exemplifies the innovative strategies needed to overcome modern energy challenges.  

I respectfully disagree.  Eventually, the winner will win and loser will lose.  And, in particular, hydrogen will lose out, even though BEVs, as Renaldo correctly indicated in his piece, have challenges.

We’ve been talking with great enthusiasm about hydrogen since I was a teenager in the early 1970s, but with virtually no progress over the intervening period.  At stake is the cost of producing H2 from the electrolysis of water or the reformation of methane, the cost and fragility of fuel cells, and, most importantly, the absence of a fuel delivery infrastructure and the enormous economic and logistical challenges associated with overcoming that issue.

What will eventually happen with hydrogen in transportation is exactly what happened to wave energy, ocean current energy, run of river hydrokinetics, biomass, and geothermal in renewable energy.  Outside of niche applications, they all lost as the technology of solar and wind matured and the costs fell precipitously.

I know Renaldo is a huge fan of hydrogen, but it’s time to say goodbye.

Tagged with:

This from Norm Ornstein, emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a Washington, D.C., conservative think tank.

Good for a conservative to put science in front of politics and religion.

Also, good for a conservative to give a damn about the losses that the common American faces from storm floods, wildfires, etc.

Tagged with:

Will the oil companies attack the living hell out of Vermont’s new law?  Of course.  Will the legislation survive the onslaught of law suits that Big Oil brings against it?  Probably not.

But the point is that it’s the first attempt in the United States to internalize the externalities of burning hydrocarbons, i.e., prohibiting the fossil fuel boys from using the Earth’s atmosphere as their own private sewer.

Tagged with:

In our media, the decision re: what to cover is just as important as how to cover it.

Of course, sometimes a subject simply cannot be ignored, like Trump’s conviction on all 34 felony counts concerning election interference / business fraud.  Then, if you’re Fox News, you need to spin this as an unfair attack from a political opponent.

Their viewers could question what influence Joe Biden has on the New York State justice system, but that’s extremely unlikely to happen.

Tagged with:

A reader notes: I’ll be honest. I feel like I overestimated her.

Isn’t that the God’s-honest truth?

It’s hard to think of anyone less impressive than a progressive who turns into a Trump supporter, especially when it’s purely for political gain.

Tagged with:

I listened to a Ted Talk the other day that was given by a linguist and university professor of English, whose point was that the language is always changing, and that we shouldn’t be so rigid in our interpretation of others’ speech and writing.  As an example, she said that a few hundred years ago, the word “lollygag” meant to make out / kiss.

The problem I have with this is that window stickers like the one shown here is that they simply make you look like an idiot. This isn’t the morphing of language; it’s ignorance, and there’s plenty of that to go around, especially when it comes to political issues like this one.

I heard a television commentator covering a golf tournament describe an errant shot like this: “That ball could have went anywhere.” I’m hoping he got reassigned, perhaps to cage fighting.

While it’s true that the language is always in flux, poor grammar makes it hard for educated people to accept you as one of their own. When I tutor kids in English, I take my responsibilities in this regard quite seriously.

Tagged with: