Here's a little bit of good news. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which we highly recommend attending, there is a move afoot to plant a trillion trees.
There used to be 6 trillion trees. Now there are 3 trillion. By 2030 the goal is to have 4 trillion, which scientists estimate would significantly stabilize global warming and maybe even slightly reverse it, because trees capture and store carbon.
Now trees don't stop people from chanting "drill baby drill", unless they fall on them, which isn't a bad idea, but trees, who do not as a policy carry hand guns or pray, could still help with global warming. We haven't seen a response, but our guess is Senator Cruz and the former President #45 are against it for a myriad of reasons, including it's fake, trees are fake, and global warming is fake. And for that matter Davos, Switzerland is fake.
In fact, if you want a great website and movement mocking the fake news movement, go to the Birds Aren't Real website here and read the NY Times article on the Gen Z Conspiracy everyone loves here.
Several countries including China and the US have made commitments to planting over a hundred billion trees, which is a great start.
The websites are here (1T.org) and here. (trilliontrees.org).
The start of summer is here with the long holiday weekend- unless you're a Republican and don't believe in summer or seasons. Then it's just a long weekend. Either way, enjoy the sunshine and the day off before we get back to the grind.
Finishing with trees, if you haven't read it, here is the single greatest appellate opinion of all time courtesy of the Michigan Court of Appeals
Fisher v Lowe by Anonymous PbHV4H on Scribd
21 comments:
Love the Trees decision. Use it frequently. Prime example of strict construction of a law. The last line denying relief "flora lovers though we three" is the perfect example of judges personally wanting a decision to help the tree, but recognizing that the law prevents them from ruling that way. I've often said Judge Gillis should have been on the Supreme Court.
Rump, the Heat CHOKED!.
Don't ya love it?
Oh yeah....93-80 and it wasn't that close. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha
Grab some Shumie macanudos like I did and your GF or bf or both and head off to the keys for an early start to the holiday weekend.
Those babies go well after a steak and nice red wine. The cigars do too lol.
Start TODAY buying stock Rumpole. Buy the dip. I’m calling a bottom.
Ray Liotta DEAD!
Buying today. Appl. Always appl. Alphabet (google). Voov index fund. Cboe and Nucor. We like cboe because of all the options activity used to protect portfolios and Nucor as a player on the Biden infrastructure deal. We are also nibbling on China stocks. China will be back.
I’m in the Keys and my young hot girlfriend doesn’t know who Ray Liotta is. She doesn’t know the movie Goodfellas. That’s compelling reasons to drop her. On the other hand ….
Goodfellas is the #1 movie. Ever. Right Rumpole?
Rumpole - what do you consider responsible gun control legislation that would be consistent with the US Supreme Court’s 2022 interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Are you a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment? My feeling is that no citizen under 21 should be allowed to own a firearm. I think that no citizen should be allowed to own more than 1 revolver (not a semi automatic capable of more than 6 bullets) … one hunting rifle (not any semi automatic rifle like an AR15 or Ak47 capable of magazines containing up to 100 rounds) … and one shotgun. That’s it. Thoughts?
Nah it’s not the best movie but it’s damn good.
Gun control means no guns in people’s hands. Because guns and people kill children and I have yet to see one yahoo with a gun stop one of these nuts from killing people at a mass shooting event. Idiot Ted Cruz just tweeted that he’s been advocating more school safety for years. That’s like advocating for more testing for people who smoke to lower lung cancer rates. He’s a moron. And we do not need all these guns. I don’t see these mass shootings in any other country but this one.
The second amendment deals with a militia which was needed at the time. It’s archaic and I can now think of more than two dozen children who would still be alive if it didn’t exist.
Rumpole - in light of your thoughts … is a repeal of the 2nd Amendment (by Amendment!) the only way to accomplish this “no gun” policy? Is it too late for America? Are we at a point of no return to a civilized “Great American” society? I dream of the days when I was an innocent 4th grade child and the country was like a “Leave it to Beaver” episode - and NOT the “Call to Duty” insanity that it is … forever more. SAD.
Can women who are survivors of rape or domestic violence have a firearm? Or would you tell then to fight back with their fists next time?
You can imagine a million scenarios where you think a gun would help. It’s not a useful exercise. For example you want someone who is a victim to have a gun for “next time “. How about someone robbed ? How about someone burglarized. Here is what I would say. Having spent a lifetime in crime I have seen very little scenarios where “If only someone hid a gun” it would have been different. By definition domestic violence involves people who live together. Many victims of sexual assault are attacked by people they know. The scenario of a stranger attacking someone, while it does occur, is less frequent. And adults have other ways to protect themselves. Almost none of them are as helpless as a five year old in a classroom painting or listening to a story until a bullet ends their life.
Basically your question says “I’ll take the death of innocent children so long as a rape victim can sleep with a gun under their pillow. “.
I’m sorry but I won’t make that trade.
Okay, man.
Interesting discussion but allow me to put a period on it: We are not giving up our firearms no matter what.
Thank you.
Here are some stats I found- 4.5 women in the US report being threatened by their partner with a gun. The ownership of a firearm triples the risk of suicide.
I am just not seeing all these heroic uses of firearms to save victims, children at school, the people in prayer at a Temple in Pittsburgh, the people in Buffalo.
All the gun people keep arguing that they want to have their gun when a shooter starts shooting. And yet all these shooters successfully kill dozens of people, and many times law enforcement with a gun is running the other way.
Here is my logic- if guns in the hands of people are killing children and innocent people, then the two choices are 1) more guns or 2) less guns, and some how conservatives find logic in more guns.
As Jimmy Kimel just said, you need a license to catch a rainbow trout in Texas, but not to buy an AR 15. It's harder to get permission to catch a fish in Texas then shoot up an elementary school. Something is wrong with that.
Sorry that should read "4.5 MILLION women..."
If we simply swept the forests like King Trump had suggested we wouldn't have this problem. Sadly the woke mob just rejects even common-sense solutions from the right.
Btw all those people talking about if more people had guns these shooters would be killed quickly - have you seen the reports of the local Texas police department including the swat team standing by outside for close to an hour while this maniac killed children? Their explanation- they were under fire.
So how does that fit with the “ if more people he guns” argument ?
I found out they banned guns when trump is speaking at the NRA event in Texas. Why? Isn’t the whole point the more guns people have the safer everyone is?
Post a Comment