As suggested in the cartoon here, humankind is currently losing the battle to keep the Earth a healthy place to live. This is largely driven by the United States, the world’s largest economy, and our refusal to reduce carbon emissions.
If change can be brought about, it will come from masses of Americans who see through the disinformation and demand it.
Liz Cheyney is 100% correct in what she told her party here. Trump will be gone, and soon. He’ll lose the election, then face criminal conviction on dozens of different felony counts.
And what of his supporters in Congress? Like the worms they are, many will try to pretend none of this every happened.
Most people would like to believe that Pat Toomey’s announcement, is, in fact, a big break in the campaign. But let’s look at it squarely for what it is: a statement that may affect the thinking of a few voters who are still uncommitted.
Imagine you’re a Trump supporter somewhere in Central Pennsylvania, and a former senator tells you that he won’t elect a convicted felon, or a misogynist, or a …. whatever. The reaction of most of these folks, is going to be, “Well, that’s because he’s a lily-livered woke socialist.”
A reader who believes that hydrogen fuel cell-based vehicles represent our future asked me to explain why I disagree.
My belief is that hydrogen is a red herring, and I become more convinced of that with each passing year. As a nation, we’ve been talking about this since the OPEC embargo in the second Nixon administration a full 50 years ago.
To me, electrification seems to be the only path that makes sense; Big Auto/Oil knows this but wants to keep the world distracted indefinitely.
The question posed here is one that many of us have asked ourselves frequently throughout our lives.
My belief: The best response probably isn’t a present-day world-leader, even the president of one of the most enlightened countries on Earth, and thus it’s not a “household name.”
Most of us have our own personal mentors: people who arrived in our lives accidentally, who have impressed us beyond words, and changed our lives forever. These are the people we would have represent humankind if such a situation arose.
You go to a grocery store and buy something, e.g., sausage that, from the moment it was processed out of pigs’ ankles and intestines, has been wrapped in traditional plastic made from petroleum.
You take it home, remove and discard the packaging in which it came, and place it into bags made from a new kind of plastic harvest and processed from plants.
And you think you’re promoting a lifestyle that’s healthier for your family and planet?
I wouldn’t say this about myself. Not to quibble about minor differences in the definitions of words, but I thought Trump was a sick joke, rather than an object of hatred, when he first entered the American political scene in 2015.
I remember calling my mom shortly after the first debate and asking her, “Isn’t there an unwritten rule that a candidate for the U.S. presidency has to be at least supposed to be a decent, honest, and reasonably intelligent person? That standard certainly existed when I was a little kid.
“I watched the election returns with you guys in 1960 and you were disappointed that Kennedy had won, but you didn’t think he was dishonest. When I was 13, the United States elected Nixon for the first time, and the second time when I was 17, but we didn’t know then that he was a criminal. This strikes me as an important distinction.”
She and I enjoyed a quick laugh about Trump, and Mom immediately assured me that he didn’t have a chance.
A short nine years later, the entire Republican party is being led around by the nose by a career felon.
The party is composed by about 5% of highly educated but amoral rich people, and about 95% of uneducated racists, but that actually could be enough to win Trump a second term as the leader of the free world.
Let’s begin by admitting that this is an America-only problem, and that, even here, in the world capital of mass shootings committed by the mentally ill, this would represent a rare situation in which a parent would find him/herself.
If you’re an absolutist on the Second Amendment, you might infer that the fellow here is the “good guy with a gun,” i.e., the “only one who can stop a bad guy with a gun.”
Personally, I’d grab my kids and leave, but not before telling the owner of the establishment, “If you think I’m going to subject my family and me to the danger posed by people openly carrying lethal weapons, you’re incorrect; don’t expect to see us in the future.”