How can investments find funding?

Country's such as Norway have never given up on their Kyoto commitment. Norwegian scientists have also witnessed to us the reality of melting methane condensate beds with warming seas and currents. The melting methane hydrates are all part of the "Negative Feedback" loop, which complicates all these efforts. It is why we have to proceed with vigor to accomplish these goals.

February 12, 2016

By Ben Garside

Norway still needs to buy around 20 million CERs (click here) to put it on track to meeting its 2020 Kyoto Protocol emissions target after contracting a little over 10 million over the past year via an open tender.

The country is one of the few remaining buyers of the UN-backed carbon credits and is negotiating deals with developers on a case-by-case basis to ensure it will have enough.

“We are looking at contracting around 80 million CERs for calculation purposes,” said Sigurd Klakeg, an official in Norway’s environment ministry who oversees the programme.

He said this would ensure the country gets the expected 60 million CERs it needs to hit its target under Kyoto’s second commitment period (2013-2020)....

Next week will start with Article 13. It is long and important.

Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) (click here)
Carbon credits generated through the CDM which can be used to meet an Annex B Party’s emission commitment under the Kyoto Protocol, as a unit of trade in GHG emissions trading systems or- if credits are subsequently cancelled – as a method of auditing to deliver foreign aid/investment

This is a very important definition.

Success in climate goals can be profitable.

February 5, 2016

The group travels on Nangaritza River (click here) in the Ecuadorean Amazon. Charles J. Smith photos

"I think I know an entrepreneurial operation when I see one," says Sheldon Engelhorn, stepping out of the canoe and onto the slippery banks of the rain-swollen Nangaritza River in the Ecuadorean Amazon, believed to be the most biodiverse place on Earth because it joins the Brazilian Amazon to the Pacific through a low point in the Andes called the Paramo.

I am on a rollicking expedition with the San Diego directors of Nature & Culture International, brainy entrepreneurs all, including Charles Smith (the Knowledge Factor), Steve Schutz (co-inventor of the online greeting card and Starfall, which is a kids reading site with 1 million page views a month) and Engelhorn, a biochemist who co-founded Novex, an off-the-shelf tool company that separates proteins and nucleic acids and now is a part of Life Technologies/ThermoFisherScientific. Engelhorn is also the recent alumni regent of the University of California.

And famed Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson (The Meaning of Human Existence) has recently joined NCI'S board....

This video is another one:

Article 12 of Kyoto Protocol

1. A clean development mechanism is hereby defined. 

Clean as I understand it, is well defined and obvious to it's purpose and outcome.

2. The purpose of the clean development mechanism shall be to assist Parties not included in Annex I in achieving sustainable development and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention, and to assist Parties included in Annex I in achieving compliance with their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3. 

3. Under the clean development mechanism: 

(a) Parties not included in Annex I will benefit from project activities resulting in certified emission reductions; and 

Clear and measurable.

(b) Parties included in Annex I may use the certified emission reductions accruing from such project activities to contribute to compliance with part of their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3, as determined by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol. 

4. The clean development mechanism shall be subject to the authority and guidance of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol and be supervised by an executive board of the clean development mechanism. 

5. Emission reductions resulting from each project activity shall be certified by operational entities to be designated by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol, on the basis of: 

Clear, measurable and consistent.

(a) Voluntary participation approved by each Party involved;

While all international agreements are voluntary, even when ratifying an agreement; the new agreement have all but three or four countries signing on to it. The new agreement isn't really voluntary with so many countries participating. It has to go forward, without exception.

(b) Real, measurable, and long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change; and 

(c) Reductions in emissions that are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the certified project activity.

I have a little problem with (c). It seems to me if a country reduced it's emissions over what was certified and stated in the beginning of it's commitment; it could have occurred because there was rapid response by the climate environment with a country's borders. Any exceptional outcomes should be recognized and rewarded. The UN must develop a reward of it's own to mark the accomplishment as extraordinary. 

One thing to realize, climate can react favorably when such shifts in emissions takes place. If that is the case then that country may have meet it's goal while others won't achieve such remarkable strides for five years or more. The achievement of 'zero greenhouse gas emissions' would then require maintenance of it.

Another aspect to this that the UN has to develop is a policy about migrating pollution/emissions. The Clean Air model of the USA recognizes when wind sends pollution across state borders. The source then has to be identified and it becomes the emitting state to deal with such DRIFT. 

Point Source is very important. Funding is realized through the need to control the source.

6. The clean development mechanism shall assist in arranging funding of certified project activities as necessary. 

7. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first session, elaborate modalities and procedures with the objective of ensuring transparency, efficiency and accountability through independent auditing and verification of project activities. 

8. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall ensure that a share of the proceeds from certified project activities is used to cover administrative expenses as well as to assist developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change to meet the costs of adaptation. 

9. Participation under the clean development mechanism, including in activities mentioned in paragraph 3 

(a) above and in the acquisition of certified emission reductions, may involve private and/or public entities, and is to be subject to whatever guidance may be provided by the executive board of the clean development mechanism. 

10. Certified emission reductions obtained during the period from the year 2000 up to the beginning of the first commitment period can be used to assist in achieving compliance in the first commitment period.

This article is mostly housekeeping. It supplies practical information as to how the protocol will roll out.

The United Nations should entertain a fine for big polluters that do not commit and achieve reductions. Those fines can be applied to funding for other countries as well.

When global leaders visit Washington, DC they need to encourage the US Congress to maintain and grow this funding when results of the investment are provided.

Members of four different ethnic groups receive training in fighting forest fires in Brazil's Capota-Jarina Kayapo Indigenous Reserve

...We help communities (click here) better manage and benefit from their natural resources by:

• Supporting land tenure policies and resource rights, giving people the right to own and manage natural resources responsibly;
• Fighting deforestation and planting trees, so that forests continue to provide clean water and air, improve agricultural productivity, slow the rate of climate change, counter desertification, and support economic growth;
• Protecting biodiversity, so that people don’t lose essential goods and services generated by intact and functional ecosystems, and species aren’t lost to extinction; and
• Mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change, so countries can grow without harming the environment while strengthening their resilience to warmer temperatures and weather shocks.

For three decades, we have helped deliver ecological, economic, and environmental results:

• In 2010, we helped at least 930,000 people worldwide improve their incomes through sustainable natural resource management and conservation activities.
• In 2011 and 2012, we worked with governments in Kenya, Liberia, South Sudan, Tanzania, Kosovo, Ethiopia and Timor-Leste to evaluate and recommend policy reforms in support of stronger land rights and management to give people more secure access to land.
• By 2016, we will help 20 partner countries develop and implement strategies for increasing their economic growth with lower emissions.

Article 11 of Kyoto Protocol.

1. In the implementation of Article 10, Parties shall take into account the provisions of Article 4, paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, of the Convention. 

2. In the context of the implementation of Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 11 of the Convention, and through the entity or entities entrusted with the operation of the financial mechanism of the Convention, the developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention shall:

The discussion of the climate crisis in the USA Republican legislature begins and then immediately ends when US dollars are on the time. USAID is a valid source of funding, plus whatever the USA is assessed for their United Nations' dues is usually within a budget. 

(a) Provide new and additional financial resources to meet the agreed full costs incurred by developing country Parties in advancing the implementation of existing commitments under Article 4, paragraph 1 (a), of the Convention that are covered in Article 10, subparagraph (a); and

I would encourage global leaders to understand where they may have influence with the American people and appeal to that with a reminder to contract their Congress person. Just as an example, I would think India would have a large contingency of Americans to appeal to when visiting the USA. There are cable companies that would love to carry the words of foreign leaders to people of same culture and values. 

Global leaders should not ignore the clout they have with Americans and Congress. Pope Francis never under estimated his importance. They need to advocate for the change their country needs, especially a country of 1 billion people. The leadership should make rounds on Congress either in person or send their aids. There can be pressure brought to Congress. It is worth the try.

(b) Also provide such financial resources, including for the transfer of technology, needed by the developing country Parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs of advancing the implementation of existing commitments under Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention that are covered by Article 10 and that are agreed between a developing country Party and the international entity or entities referred to in Article 11 of the Convention, in accordance with that Article. 

Promises don't mean anything unless they are followed up with commitment. Promises make good political ads, but, that won't solve the problem.

The implementation of these existing commitments shall take into account the need for adequacy and predictability in the flow of funds and the importance of appropriate burden sharing among developed country Parties. The guidance to the entity or entities entrusted with the operation of the financial mechanism of the Convention in relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties, including those agreed before the adoption of this Protocol, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provisions of this paragraph. 

Develop relationships with countries sponsoring projects that combat the climate crisis. Don't simply pay a visit and return home. Continue relationships that prove to be willing, interested and helpful.

3. The developed country Parties and other developed Parties in Annex II to the Convention may also provide, and developing country Parties avail themselves of, financial resources for the implementation of Article 10, through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels. 

The terror camps and their exploitation of natural resources has to end.

A Nigerian soldier pull down a Boko Haram flag as a mark of victory

February 14, 2016

The Nigerian military (click here) says it is winning the war against terrorism in spite of some challenges.

Victor Ezugwu, the GOC, 7 Division of Nigerian Army, Maiduguri, stated this while speaking with journalists in Maiduguri.

“We are winning the war. We are bringing the war to conclusion, very soon,” Mr. Ezugwu, a Brigadier General, said.

He, however, said that Nigerians must support the military to sustain the successes so far recorded.

“We want everybody to help us to support the peace that is emerging.

“The peace is more enduring and more gratifying for us in Borno and other parts of the North-East of Nigeria,” Mr. Ezugwu said.

He commended civic groups that had been partnering with the military toward the success of the counter-insurgency operation....

Continue Article 10

That statement has to be emphatic. When effective modalities work, they work. There is no question, no asking pretty please. When something works to eliminate CO2 emissions then it needs to be incorporated into countries to bring about a larger 'reduction footprint.' We are too far along the timeline to negotiate with Wall Street. Either Wall Street is a partner to what is effective or they are not; but, there is no pretty please anymore.

(c) Cooperate in the promotion of effective modalities for the development, application and diffusion of, and take all practicable steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, or access to, environmentally sound technologies, know-how, practices and processes pertinent to climate change, in particular to developing countries, including the formulation of policies and programmes for the effective transfer of environmentally sound technologies that are publicly owned or in the public domain and the creation of an enabling environment for the private sector, to promote and enhance the transfer of, and access to, environmentally sound technologies; 

As a global community we know how developing countries are stretched to do much of anything except feed it's people. However, where there is war, how can any climate programmes be implemented. Rebel groups use natural resources to raise money to support themselves and fund their war. In particular, Boko Haram settled into northeast because of discovered veins of precious metals.

These rebel groups have to be brought down to end the threat to the people. If Boko Haram needs timber they'll cut down forests without a second thought.  

 (d) Cooperate in scientific and technical research and promote the maintenance and the development of systematic observation systems and development of data archives to reduce uncertainties related to the climate system, the adverse impacts of climate change and the economic and social consequences of various response strategies, and promote the development and strengthening of endogenous capacities and capabilities to participate in international and intergovernmental efforts, programmes and networks on research and systematic observation, taking into account Article 5 of the Convention; 

Economic and social impacts of the climate crisis has to be included as part of the record to this effort. Deaths of extreme storms, droughts, failed crops and dying livestock. Also realize the number of opportunistic viruses the global community has seen with a warming Earth. That accounting of disease needs to start no later than SARS. 

The dynamics of Earth's stressed climate has many symptoms and not just temperature and gases. This hot climate has profound impacts on governments and people. 

It was Thomas Friedman from the New York Times that traced the implosion of Syria directly to the drought and the need of water by Syrians.

All that counts and should be a part of the climate record and regular meetings.

(e) Cooperate in and promote at the international level, and, where appropriate, using existing bodies, the development and implementation of education and training programmes, including the strengthening of national capacity building, in particular human and institutional capacities and the exchange or secondment of personnel to train experts in this field, in particular for developing countries, and facilitate at the national level public awareness of, and public access to information on, climate change. Suitable modalities should be developed to implement these activities through the relevant bodies of the Convention, taking into account Article 6 of the Convention; 

There is so much opportunity for investment and return on investment in paragraph (e) it should be ignored. These are generational changes for Earth's people. This is not temporary. This is the future and will be enforced by societies alone. Wall Street, if it is to survive, needs to take heed of what is becoming the 'static Earth' capable of supporting life. Wall Street needs to get over itself and it's clenched fist on it's wealth. It is not productive and requires regulation if it continues.

 (f) Include in their national communications information on programmes and activities undertaken pursuant to this Article in accordance with relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties; and 

 (g) Give full consideration, in implementing the commitments under this Article, to Article 4, paragraph 8, of the Convention.

I'll put it this way. The sooner Russia and Saudi Arabia create a different economic infrastructure with better energy and transportation, the sooner oil will end it's oppressive enforcement of hardship. 

Saudi Arabia has the perfect country for changing it's energy sources. Solar mirrors that heat tubes of oil to 800 F to then heat steam to power electricity. It will be so modern it will make Dubai jealous. 

Russia needs some good wind maps. 

Government programs that work. It is important. Fact to reality, not abstract conversation that accomplish nothing but politics.

...The 2009 report, (click here) Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices (PDF) (98pp, 1.5MB About PDF), shows that approximately 42 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are associated with the energy used to produce, process, transport, and dispose of the food we eat and the goods we use. This includes the extraction or harvest of materials and food, production and transport of goods, provision of services, reuse of materials, recycling, composting, and disposal. The report also indicates the following:

• 29 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions result from the provision ofgoods produced within the United States.
• The provision of food contributes another 13 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
• Traditional “waste” management represents 1 to 5 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions....

Article 10 of Kyoto Protocol

All Parties, (click here) taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and their specific national and regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances, without introducing any new commitments for Parties not included in Annex I, but reaffirming existing commitments under Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and continuing to advance the implementation of these commitments in order to achieve sustainable development, taking into account Article 4, paragraphs 3, 5 and 7, of the Convention, shall: 

The paragraph below is asking pretty please. There is no solid language of which can't be circumvented. Kyoto Protocol was so vital, recognized only cooperation to the fullest extent. That didn't happen. Where Kyoto asked please do your best, it was replied by the petroleum industry as a myth. Instead of countries taking the climate seriously as did their scientists, they laughed at  the idea of substituting one wealth venture for one yet untried. Kyoto was abandoned rather than embraced.

(a) Formulate, where relevant and to the extent possible, cost-effective national and, where appropriate, regional programmes to improve the quality of local emission factors, activity data and/or models which reflect the socio-economic conditions of each Party for the preparation and periodic updating of national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol,  using comparable methodologies to be agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties, and consistent with the guidelines for the preparation of national communications adopted by the Conference of the Parties;

There is no agreement. There is just doing. There is finding what works, what is 
completely benign and what makes things worse. There is no agreement that has to be reached. It is all black and white. Either it works and emissions of greenhouse gases come down or it is making the emissions worse. What is benign is recorded. But, there is no agreement anymore. There are no negotiations. There is setting it right and maintaining it.

(b) Formulate, implement, publish and regularly update national and, where appropriate, regional programmes containing measures to mitigate climate change and measures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change: 

Get rid of "where appropriate." There are only measures that are appropriate.

(i) Such programmes would, inter alia (among other things), concern the energy, transport and industry sectors as well as agriculture, forestry and waste management. Furthermore, adaptation technologies and methods for improving spatial planning would improve adaptation to climate change; and 

Waste management is vital to containing reentry of greenhouse gases to the environment. I have noted in other places on this blog that waste management of CO2 by Wall Street has been to condense it to a liquid or solid for recycle. Recycling CO2 is not containing it. It simply redistributes it for re-release.

That is partially why electric cars are a far better choice for the First World than cars that use ethanol. Ethanol uses vegetable based oils mixed with regular petroleum fuel to provide a lower emission of CO2. Supposedly, that is a recycling effort.

I can point to a dozen different environmental reasons as to why that is not so, but, in a country such as the USA it is considered "something" that leverages CO2 to lesser amounts. It is that very idea of 'doing something at least' that has to go. We are not saying pretty please anymore.

Ethanol cannot deliver direct CO2 reductions because we it burns and releases CO2, it is assuming the climate will be static and not devolving in order to grow crops, plants and trees. The growth of chlorophyll is not static under a climate crisis. 

I will say this. 

Duke University in North Carolina, USA, did a study about 2004 which stated trees will absorb more CO2 when the CO2 is dense TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT, then no matter the level of CO2 trees will not absorb anymore. In other words, this is abrupt climate change which has brought on the Sixth Extinction. Realizing this is abrupt climate change, trees have not evolved or mutated to change their chlorophyll into better factories of plant energy. 

But, ethanol of any kind is better than pure petroleum oil. There should be a mandate in the USA for every internal combustion engine be fueled with at least 10% ethanol. It is also known as E10. 

The real change is accepting electric cars as the standard for status in the USA. It simply is. The other necessity in the USA is to value public transportation and use it. Europe already has an appreciation for public transportation, including, water ferries that are an attraction to tourists. The scenic views along Europe's waterways makes a simple ferry boat into something splendid. 

If we are to value public transportation it has to be safe and safe guarded against violence of any kind. 

(ii) Parties included in Annex I shall submit information on action under this Protocol, including national programmes, in accordance with Article 7; and other Parties shall seek to include in their national communications, as appropriate, information on programmes which contain measures that the Party believes contribute to addressing climate change and its adverse impacts, including the abatement of increases in greenhouse gas emissions, and enhancement of and removals by sinks, capacity building and adaptation measures;...

National communications with the citizens/public should be mandatory. The people have to know what they are doing and what they are up against. Ultimately, it is up to the end users of products to decide. There have been consumer conscientiousness about this in the USA for decades. For decades people have tried to make that change. But, when your electric car is powered by a coal burning power plant, the reasons to have an electric car dulls it's morality and begs to ask how much of a change it that making?

The best ideas will survive and thrive.

If the USDA did not participate and attend, it needs to get a copy of the proceedings. I would expect the USDA to take a global leadership role. The USA has fed the world for a long time. Now, it is up to First World countries to be sure all countries are capable of farming and where modifications need to be made to insure that capacity.

The United Nations is not just about war and peace. It also has a broader scope to insure people are surviving and preferably thriving. I would think the USDA would have at least addressed the UN once to contribute the views of American Agriculture.

This isn't just about temperature and the Sixth Extinction. It is about sustainability and life.

February 14, 2016

Global market integration (click here) is key to buffering future commodity prices and food security from the negative effects of climate change on agriculture, says a Purdue University agricultural economist.

Rising temperatures and an increase in extreme weather events will likely have adverse impacts on global crop production, leading to higher food prices and food scarcity. But global markets that have the ability to deliver food where it is needed most could help offset these consequences, said Thomas Hertel, distinguished professor of agricultural economics.

"If the pessimists are right, if we see the worst-case climate impacts in agriculture, what could we do in terms of economic adaptation?" he said. "Trade agreements could significantly moderate some of the worst effects on food security."

Hertel will present his research at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., Sunday (Feb. 14) at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park.

His talk, "The Underlying Climate Mechanisms of International Food Trade," is part of the symposium "Climate Change and Agriculture: Revisiting the Evidence and Potential Solutions."

Global agriculture stands to suffer under future climate change. A predicted increase in the frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts and floods could buffet crop yields over the next few decades. But short-term climate impacts will vary by crop and region, Hertel said, with some areas benefiting as crop production shifts geographically....

Article Nine of Kyoto Protocol

1. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall periodically review this Protocol in the light of the best available scientific information and assessments on climate change and its impacts, as well as relevant technical, social and economic information. Such reviews shall be coordinated with pertinent reviews under the Convention, in particular those required by Article 4, paragraph 2 (d), and Article 7, paragraph 2 (a), of the Convention. Based on these reviews, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall take appropriate action. 

I could never understand why a Republican Party could simply look the other way when there was strong scientific EVIDENCE regarding a deadly trend for Earth. But, especially because there are impacts. Climate Change as documented by Kyoto stated where were and would be impacts on Earth that would alter the environmental safety of people. Besides the impact on nature alone, it would impact people in their water supply, food and their homes with safety and place threatened.

In case this isn't common knowledge, this is the Preamble to the USA Constitution. Not the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights. This is the first paragraph to the USA Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Posterity is the future generations or the USA and/or the descendants of current citizens. There is a clear understanding Americans were coming together to protect themselves as a country and the future of their children. There is no ambiguity. 

2. The first review shall take place at the second session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol. Further reviews shall take place at regular intervals and in a timely manner. 

I would like to remind all participants there is a structure in place, as I understand it, to meet regularly. At those regular meetings a comprehensive review is to take place to report the FACTS of the previous year(s). Those facts have to be whether or not there was progress, benign outcomes or data indicating there was a failure to achieve goals.

That is very important. The current climate agreement is to solve problems and not increase them. So, while scientific evidence is clear regarding a warming planet, we have to move past diagnosing the problem and into measuring it. To that end, there is still information needed that proves the best methods going forward. There are micro-environments on Earth to understand that can provide greater insight to progress in ending and reversing this deadly trend. 

The scientific facts of what has occurred are vital to finding an end to this warming process. Clear scientific facts. There is no failure in any attempt. The facts will validate attempts that work and those that do not. Those that do not and contribute to the warming are to be scrutinized for ways to change adverse outcomes. There is no failure as if shamed by it. There is only failure that can be noted with a course correction.

All efforts have to be sincere and based in scientific law and theory. It will be incredibly insightful to have nearly every country, with different biotic content report on the efforts and progress. 

We aren't playing let's pretend. This is it. This is the agreement that will end the climate crisis. It has to be. Nothing is more moral than getting this right.

It's Sunday Night

"Roses are red (click here)
Violets are blue
You are the President 
and I am your boo"

In response:

"Somebody called the situation room
because things are about to get hot
Michelle this Valentine's Day 
I am going to treat you right
I am going to make you some 
zucchini bread
and I'll spread out some veggies on a plate
just as you like them
And then I am going to give you a massage 
as you watch Ellen's Design Challenge on HDTV?
Because I love you so much
I Obamacare about you more than you know
That's right, Obama cares
But, Michelle I've made a lot of great decisions as President
The best decision I ever made was choosing you
Thanks for putting up with me
I love you,
And, Ellen, Happy Valentine's Day

"Valentine" by Martina Mc Bride (click here for official website - thank you)

If there were no words, no way to speak

I would still hear you

If there were no tears, no way to feel inside

I've still feel for you

And even if the sun refused to shine

Even if romance ran out of rhyme

I would give my heart until the end of time

'Cause all I need is you my love, my valentine

All of my life

I have been waiting for all you give to me

You've opened my eyes

And shown me how to love unselfishly

I've dreamed of this a thousand times before

In my dreams I couldn't love you more

I will give you my heart until the end of time

'Cause all I need my love, my valentine

La da da da da

Even if the sun refused to shine

Even if romance ran out of rhyme

You would still have my heart until the end of time

'Cause all I need is you, my valentine

Oh, you're all I need my love, my valentine

None of Moore's films are whiz bag favorites. This time Americans are treated to a different political paradigm, the future for Americans and their children.

February 14, 2016

By Pamela McClintok

...By one measure, (click here) Where to Invade could be perceived as a silver medalist. It's the second-biggest opening gross for Moore behind Fahrenheit 9/11, which still holds the crown for the top-grossing doc of all time in the U.S. with $119.1 million. Fahrenheit, which opened to $23.9 million, scored a hefty location average of $27,558 when it bowed nationwide in 868 locations in 2004.

But it's the per-theater average, and not the opening gross, that is the true gauge of success for Moore, since all of his films, save for Fahrenheit, have opened in a limited number of locations before expanding. His last film, Capitalism: A Love Story, earned $231,964 from four theaters in 2009 for a theater average of $57,991. A week later, it expanded into a total of 962 locations, grossing $4.4 million for a location average of $4,263.

The Republican electorate has always been made to serve Wall Street and the coal industry is a perfect example.

Mitch McConnell brought a coal worker to sit with him at the State of the Union address. That was to introduce the idea he is fighting for coal and President Obama's policies are the problem. That is a lie. Mitch McConnell played politics with the State of the Union address and would use that moment for his next campaign or the current Presidential campaign.

The truth is the coal industry for decades have been developing technology to replace workers. It is that which has eliminate workers from coal industry employment. 

Also, this Wall Street rhetoric is far more beneficial to the CEOs than the employees. I realize there is an important union affiliated with these employees and I am a fool for not backing up McConnell to protect the industry. The union is a result of a very dangerous circumstances within the coal industry. The union is there to protect workers and not machines. How long does the mining union think it is going to be a viable union with the massive deterioration of employees in the coal industry?

The lawmakers involved with the population of the coal industry have not acted to provide better employment in realizing the ever shrinking number of employees. The unions and lawmakers should be advocating for their people to receive training for real jobs with real salaries that support families. The current coal mining employees can easily be absorbed into the USA economy. What needs to be advocated is the pay they will receive and their quality of life. Coal mining does not bring quality of life to those people. There are schools covered in coal ash because it is in the air. That is not quality of life. 

So, the rhetoric needs to end. Instead, the electorate in Kentucky and West Virginia and other coal states needs to be engaged to realize their best interests are no longer in the mine. The future holds better quality of life and potential than the coals mines. 

That is the problem with the political rhetoric of Mitch McConnell. It traps people in unreal focus on their best interest. The last thing Mitch McConnell should have done is place a mine worker in the seat next to him, because, it was a lie. 

"...80 years since the last lame duck President chose a Justice to the Supreme Court." is a deliberate attempt at propaganda AT the public and electorate. It is another dog whistle.

February 14, 2016
By Amy Sherman

...The Senate confirmed (click here) Kennedy 97-0 on Feb. 4, 1988. That was about 28 years ago -- not 80.

Kennedy replaced Justice Lewis Powell, who retired, and was Reagan’s third nomination for the opening, after Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg. Powell announced his retirement in June 1987.

Reagan, who was in his second term, nominated Kennedy in November 1987. Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988. In November 1988, Reagan’s vice president George H.W. Bush won the presidency....

Rubio is wrong and this is the best example to prove how a candidate(s) simply dummy down the Republican electorate. We are right back to Etch-a-Sketch. The designer responses to simply signal the electorate rather than ENGAGING the electorate. 

I have been furious for as long as I can remember, about Republicans that treat their devoted electorate as idiots that need signals and minimized intelligence and rhetoric to MANAGE THEM. The Republican electorate has every right to be treated with esteem rather than being talked down to. I hope this is the beginning of a DIALOGUE with the electorate and not simply managing the public vote.

When the electorate is managed they are giving up their rights and acting in their best interest. It has to end.

Ben Carson needs to stop counting questions and instead only speak to unfair practices when they occur. It is unbecoming of him to bring up the subject when he has no objection to his treatment. It somehow seems vindictive.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia will be missed. Who else would be so thoughtful as to recognize good nutrition?

United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1 — The Flag (click here)

§7. Position and manner of display
(m)The flag, when flown at half-staff, should be first hoisted to the peak for an instant and then lowered to the half-staff position. The flag should be again raised to the peak before it is lowered for the day. On Memorial Day the flag should be displayed at half-staff until noon only, then raised to the top of the staff. By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory. In the event of the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to Presidential instructions or orders, or in accordance with recognized customs or practices not inconsistent with law. In the event of the death of a present or former official of the government of any State, territory, or possession of the United States or the death of a member of the Armed Forces from any State, territory, or possession who dies while serving on active duty, the Governor of that State, territory, or possession may proclaim that the National flag shall be flown at half-staff, and the same authority is provided to the Mayor of the District of Columbia with respect to present or former officials of the District of Columbia and members of the Armed Forces from the District of Columbia. When the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, or the Mayor of the District of Columbia, issues a proclamation under the preceding sentence that the National flag be flown at half-staff in that State, territory, or possession or in the District of Columbia because of the death of a member of the Armed Forces, the National flag flown at any Federal installation or facility in the area covered by that proclamation shall be flown at half-staff consistent with that proclamation. The flag shall be flown at half-staff 30 days from the death of the President or a former President; 10 days from the day of death of the Vice President, the Chief Justice or a retired Chief Justice of the United States, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives; from the day of death until interment of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a Secretary of an executive or military department, a former Vice President, or the Governor of a State, territory, or possession; and on the day of death and the following day for a Member of Congress. The flag shall be flown at half-staff on Peace Officers Memorial Day, unless that day is also Armed Forces Day. As used in this subsection—

In this interview on C-Span, Justice Scalia stated every student should read "The Federalist Papers." He believed The Federalist Papers showed insight to the Founders reason for the text of the US Constitution. He also stated, of all law students coming out of law school only 6 percent even heard of "The Federalist Papers." I thought that statement was particularly unique of the Late Associate Justice Scalia. So, if anything can be included in his legacy, the mandatory reading of The Federalist Papers by law students certainly is among them.

Within this interview there was considerable insight to his disconnect from political fervor in the right wing Republican party. He was sincerely dedicated to his interpretation of the US Constitution. I thought that was important. He dispels many myths about him. I thought this was an exceptional interview including the subject of what topics were off limits to journalists.

There were power plays behind his back he knew nothing about.

The Supreme Court hearing room will never, ever be the same.

July 19, 2016

Justice Antonin Scalia discussed his book, (click here)  Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, co-authored by Bryan Garner, that makes a case for a return to a more scrupulous and attentive approach to the words of legal texts. He defined the meaning of textualism as it relates to interpreting laws and the meanings of the words originalism and strict constructionism as they apply to constitutional law. He cautioned that individuals should read entire judicial opinions before reaching any conclusion about a particular judge’s fairness. In this interview he discussed his opposition to cameras in the Supreme Court chamber. He responded to video clips and talked about criticism from the press, saying that he responds by not commenting or by writing letters to the editor and throwing them away.

Antonin Scalia was nominated by President Reagan to the Court and approved in the Senate by a vote of 98-0 in September 1986. He was a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

A four to four Supreme Court would mean the decision would uphold the lower court.

Donald Trump proved last night he was willing and could take on the GOP in it's rhetoric. It was a very good move.

Why be a parrot for the GOP obstructionist agenda as President of the United States of America?

Mitch McConnell came out as soon as the announcement of Justice Scalia's death to demand the next President make this decision. That is illegal. If Donald Trump was President he made it clear he would not be toeing the line with another Republican simply because it was the party's answer to our country's problem. That is leadership. He was fearless, quite frankly. Every other candidate was nervous about doing nothing but take the party line rhetoric.

As in past debates, once again Donald Trump set himself apart from everyone else.