Robert, thanks for bringing these words to my attention. Even still, you and I may be reading into them and coming away with different interpretations of what they mean. To me, Jeffereson is alluding to the need to grow, not so much to redefine or recreate. The 19th amendment giving women the right to vote is exactly the type of enlightened advancement he foresaw.
Perhaps I am a little touchy on the subject of constitutional change after all. VA is in the National spotlight as our Governor has decided that he and his supporters have the right to essentially do away with the Second amendment. Up until recently, gun rights were supported by both Democrats and Republicans equally among the general public. Hey, this is VIRGINIA y'all. Now the tide is shifting due to vast sums of out if state money (Michael Bloomberg) being spent to promote an anti gun agenda. I doubt this is what Jefferson envisioned as advancement to keep pace with the times..
Last edited by JWPalmer; 01-19-2020 at 07:55 AM. Reason: Spelling
Thankfully, the bees are smarter than I am. They are doing well, in spite of my efforts to help them.
Well Jefferson as one of the writers on the Declaration of Ind. as all men being created equal, he was a slave owner, right?
The a Declaration of Ind. is a declaration, different from the Constitution. It mentions all men being equal, and Jefferson still owned slaves after this. I’ll have to read up on this again. Nevertheless, you can “say” what you want but actions speak louder than words.
"To me, Jefferson is alluding to the need to grow, not so much to redefine or recreate." I find it hard to imagine that Jefferson or other founding fathers could imagine and plan for the current status. Thus the ability of the people / states to change the Constitution was provided.
The beauty of all this, people, country and web site, is not to stifle debate but encourage it. Those willing to discuss, listen and think will likely reach a consensus and generate the smart changes we need.
I do think the states environment and local conditions should guide a lot of the gun rules. I like Switzerland's law where every home must have a gun and a controled amount of rounds. Walking through Atlanta airport with an AK47 begs a problem. Didn't the Wild-Wild West often require checking in guns when entering a town or face the sheriff in a show-down? After all these years I am thinking of buying a gun because of old age disadvantages but my logic says no. The reason I want one is the reason I should not have one.
I find the gun issue very, very difficult to evaluate. I find the Federal gun protection laws, protecting manufacturers, against civil suits unconscionable and a violation of my rights. I hope a smart gun, smart laws or IROBOT comes along that solves most gun - societal issues. I have not killed except for food, fishing and clamming, since I was about 12. I had enough guns pointed at me.
Back to Global Climate Change or as I like to think Global Balance - a bigger issue. Funny, new issues never stop popping up!
I consider myself somewhat right of center on the political spectrum who generally believes the constitution with all of its amendments must be respected as written and not as someone deems they should be long after the fact and that we must be a nation of laws. The problem, however, is that the amendment process that originally worked just fine when the nation was a handful of states run by white males on the eastern seaboard of what is now the US is impossibly difficult to amend with the diversity and scope of our nation over 2 centuries later. Getting a 2/3rds majority of each house of congress and a 3/4ths majority of state legislatures to agree on anything is an impossibly high bar especially given the general ignorance of the voting electorate on both ends of the political spectrum. Perhaps thats a bit too harsh but I'd be willing to bet that fewer than half of American adults couldn't pass the most basic test that naturalizing citizens are required to pass. As a humorous (or maybe no so humorous) side note I recently had a sales person in an east coast US airport who during a friendly conversation asked me where i was from. Upon answering South Dakota she got a puzzled look on her face and asked "is that in the US?". Yikes. Sigh.
"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney
Well written and thoughtful.
Did she tell you to go back to where you came from?
It is not true that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
They can learn them, they just can't do them.
Jim, Not having any "Rs" in my pronunciations leaves me wide open to suspicion. Ever hear of RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS? Could be off the coast somewhere.
Robert “ The beauty of all this, people, country and web site, is not to stifle debate but encourage it. Those willing to discuss, listen and think will likely reach a consensus and generate the smart changes we need. ”
Being a Conservative, who agrees with the Second Amendment, etc., and who voted for a non-politician, (I am sure I will get booed here with my admission), I am somewhat disappointed in the current lack of environmental concern in general, regarding farmers and pollinators especially. As for the dreaded title of this thread “Global Warming”, it seems that a balanced discussion can be somewhat difficult like with any hot (no pun intended but it was a good one!) news-worthy topic that can be subjective depending on what articles etc. are read.
BTW, I agree no AK47’s, maybe a bazooka? Just kidding. A have a great discussion.
I agree the bigger and more diverse the country gets the harder to amend the constitution. In terms of electoral college I think it would he fine to go to a direct voting system like all the other seats. I think the original constitution is a pretty fine document with a few almost fatal flaws. It was of course based on the constitution of the Five (Iroquois) Nations. Some notable differences are that women had no rights and owning humans was allowed. Today these are obvious transgressions against basic human rights. Given that, it does not seen far fetched that the founding father's may have included some other flaws, however unintentionally. Another example of how the thinking was shifted (dec of ind): Jefferson lifted the idea from John Locke I believe, to include "life liberty and the pursuit of property" but to appease slaveholding interests in the continental congress this was ammended to "happiness." a very different statement. I think the posibility of the American dream is based on the availability of property, which at that time was abundant. In the north east if you want to start a farm you either have to take a huge loan and go bankrupt because of it or partake in the feudal system of renting from wealthy landowners so they get a tax break. Almost....
Jim, I'd be curious to hear what you think of the second amendment. The oft quoted "right ... to ... bear arms" in the constitution is actually linked to "A well regulated militia." to me this means that there is some oversight built in and people must be part of a regulated group (at that time who practiced together weekly, not just a club membership or online group) who could be called upon by state or national interests (who had neither the will nor funding to keep a standing army) for defense. And of course, like shays rebellion, who could also stand up to state and federal overstepping. My interpretation is that the nra is not a well organised militia. Also that the Bundy's (?) do not have the right to graze their cattle for free on government land, which would obviously count as an unfair subsidy and likely put other hard working Americans out of business. I have not been following VA gun law changes so I don't know how much of that is liberal overstepping or within the intended bounds of the constitution.
Cloverdale: Just for fun I quote you "Being a Conservative, who agrees with the Second Amendment, etc." is a real subject for discussion. What do you agree with? The first SCOTUS decision which was overturned after 70 years by the second SCOTUS decision 12 years ago ( 6-5 decision).
2nd Amendment ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." AN amendment that has had opposing interpretations by two Supreme Court decisions. The latest and new interpretation occurred in 2008 - so much for the "Framer's" intent and interpretation thereof.
I consider myself conservative but many might not agree with me. I grew up with a very weak English skills. When I first read it, 2nd Amendment I thought I could wear a short sleeve shirt to school - "bare Arms". As I got older and caught on I wonder what is the definition of "Arms" - poisonous gas and tactical nuclear weapons? Both would make good Arms but there are laws against me having them. I think I am still watched via satellite for having a 100 lb. bag of pure sulfur on hand for my Blueberries. So! This gets into what is the definition for "Arms". At the time of the 2nd amendment the arms of choice where cannonballs, pikes and knifes, with black powder muskets I believe. (so much for strict construction arguments versus change ).
My home defense weapon of choice is "Bear Spray". I also used this "Arms" for backpacking - guns are just to heavy. (Met some young novice guy all decked out for war while backpacking, heavy stuff, and he was lost plus tired. I pointed to the trail out to the closest road. Simply not appropriate and dumb.) So, can I defend my little farm with a rail gun? Lasers? Microwave cannons that make your blood boil? Bacteria? Have you ever seen Sherwood Forrest? What are the limits?
I think clearly defined Common Sense Laws, Regulations and Smart Technology improvements will go a long way to resolving these conflicts. Is that not what governing is all about.
Back to topic.
month forecast observed
January 410.4 410.9
December 411.7 411.9
so we forecasted a 1.3 PPM increase for the year and got a 1.0 PPM measured increase. I am not seeing the need for panic.
add in :
In 2016, consideration of the large El Niņo event allowed the record rise in atmospheric CO2 to be successfully forecast. The 2016 rise would have been underestimated without this. In 2018, the CO2 rise would have been overestimated if the effects of the La Niņa conditions had been neglected.
Also offered is some of the CO2 increase will be due to the brush fires in Australia
So Ocean currents and Wild fires can account for some of the increase. So even if you blame humans for the "rest" of it which I do not, we humans would be adding "measured" < 1 PPM in the year measured above. So even if we use the 400PPM as a "base" mathematically we are getting at each others necks over 1/4 of 1 percent rise in CO2 in the year measured. do we really think in the past 100,000 years a 1-2 percent change has never happened and the earth recovered from? I think we are exaggerating our impact, and underestimating the earth's ability to handle it. If YOU feel the need,, go plant some trees, In the northern 1/2 of the planet has spring is coming. for "other" reasons I have 600 or so trees on order, white pine, spruce, Tamarack. I am making a green strip from a large woodland across my property to lure deer in for harvest. Why Because I like to eat them. So live clean do what you feel would help. IMO hand wringing is not likely to offer a climate change in the direction opposite to what you fear.. I state it that way because in the 70s the "fear was "an ice age is coming" likely by 2035 we have the pendulum swing back and we start blaming each other for the next Ice Age as the cooling will happen. Then the trees I planted can be cut down to make a Sauna, to ease the cold temps, on the next generation, The only constant is change.
GG: I think there is more to the 1-2% change in CO2 then you model emphases. But , all thigns considered, I like your efforts to balance problems with solution(s), adapt. I like your balanced approach to eating. Personally I think there is change going on in a big way. We will likely go into space soon ( too late for me) and fusion or some acceptable form fission power is on it's way - maybe both. Anyway I am optomisitic and thinking of buying farm land North of me.
And yes the "only" future is to go off planet, as our sun will not last forever we will need to find a "few" planets that we can live on. Should volcanoes go aff and leave earth too polluted for 200 years we have another niche. And yes once we have a good clean power source a lot of these issues go away. for example a Fission powered desalination plant would produce lots of freshwater.
I like to forage ,so a place that boarders a large tract of state land has some options, mushrooming, nut collecting, hunting, herb collecting.
We just need to find that Stargate, where is it hidden......
Some say the Aliens are already here....
Good luck finding a perfect farm for you.
GG: I forgot to mention the "ice age" scare in 1970. I never believed it and wondered who planted the idea. The oil and gas industry?
Fortunately, I graduated in 1968. I made a lot of money re-installing dock / float pilings every early Spring. The tidal effects with ice freezing on low tide resulted in the pilings being yank them out. I thought to myself by 1968 that this source is drying up as less and less damage was occurring. I also was not able to skate on the salt pond anymore. Spring was important to me as I would be out of money by then.
Yeah, we got a few more cold winters but the water temperature trend was definitely upward. Now the soft shell clams are gone and quahogs are very productive - salintiy and pH changes? Even the type of design used for building docks inthe salt pond has changed and adapted ( at lower cost).
Just a bit: (citation)
At this point it is worth to noting that Solidago protein content is about one-third less than 172 years ago, because the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in global atmosphere has risen from about 280 to 398 ppm (parts per million) *. A 2-year controlled field experiment that exposed goldenrod to a gradient of carbon dioxide levels from 280 to 500 ppm strikingly similar decreases in pollen protein. It indicates that increasing carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere can reduce protein content in other floral pollens.
Extract from: Honey bee nutrition and feeding by Zbigniew Lipinski ISBN: 978-83-939279-0-6 (a brilliant book about bee nutrition, citing 1,356 scientific references)
*) Proc Biol Sci. 2016 Apr 13;283(1828). pii: 20160414. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.0414.
Rising atmospheric CO2 is reducing the protein concentration of a floral pollen source essential for North American bees.
Ziska LH, Pettis JS, Edwards J, Hancock JE, Tomecek MB, Clark A, Dukes JS, Loladze I, Polley HW.
If this is true, that global warming (or climate change? ) is gonna cause some problems for our beloved bees.