Sir Francis Bacon claimed that for any science to be worthy of the name, it needs to be mathematical. As such, Darwin was only a naturalist until George Mendel and his pea plants discovered genetics and inheritance. Until he discovered E=MC^2, Einstein was just a guy working in a Swiss patent office. So for all the claims that Climate change is scientific, I ask them for a simply and seemingly easy answer. Show us the math. How many tons of carbon pollution over what time period will result in what increase in the global temperature? Seemingly, this is something that should be as easy to show as F=MA? And until you can, then I would suggest that the Al Gore’s and other pundits of the world not say that the science is settled, for it is clearly not.

Recently, the Federal government introduced C-16, an act to amend the Human Code to add in to the protected classes, transgender, such that it will protect transgender persons from being discriminated upon. As well as adding this to the legislation for hates crimes. Something that made me feel proud to be Canadian. Helping these small minority groups be protected whereas in the United States they are looking for legislation to discriminate against them. So this was all good and great until it came to my attention that people were protesting this new bill. I was shocked yet intrigued to why they were upset. So of course, I studied their arguments. I found them to have one. This was a matter of free speech. They held that this new bill would curtail their freedom of speech in the things they were allowed to say. They are, of course, right in that. It is a limit on what can and should not be said. I waited for them to continue with more. Only there was no more to be had. This was their argument. The bill placed a limit on free speech and thus should be opposed. At which point, I understood all I need to know, which is, they do not understand free speech, freedom and or Canada. Said to say, but let me enlighten them upon this. The freedom of speech has always been to protect without limits the parts of speech that were political. So if the government passed a law saying that you cannot vote for party X then that would be a violation. Advertisers cannot lie to you in their ads and claim they have free speech. You cannot go into a crowded theater and start to scream “Fire!” Yet both of the latter two examples are speech that is curtailed. Why? Because the notion of free speech is not without its limits, and in this case, C-16 imposing rather limited extensions of speech. Not that this will stop conversation, or limit politic discussions. It will limit hate speech. Can we agree that hating is not speech we want to protect or even allow? Einstein did not write “E=mc^2, and die transgender die!” Why? It is because his argument only needed to rest on the physics of the matter, the science of this discovery, and upon the ideas themselves that needed no further elaboration. Sir Arthur Eddington who then was the first man to prove Relativity, happened to be gay, yet at no time did he mention that as part of his proof for major discovery at the turn of the last century. So then why should we allow for anything of the sort that we call protected classes to enter when discussing any issue. We limit hate speech because it is inherently not political; it is inherently not part of any discussion. It is an end to political speeches to gather support with arguments and words and the beginning of the call to violence, both verbal and sadly physical. Hate speech is a call to violence and attacks upon the person. So yes, C-16 does limit free speech, but is a narrowly construed limit that does not interfere with legitimate political speech. So the argument opposing C-16 on the grounds of free speech does not have merit. Freedom of speech is to be able to freely discuss ideas, not to be the siren song for discrimination. C-16 is a good law that needs to be enacted to protect a minority subject to violence and discrimination. Which is why we have subject classes in the first place, to protect minorities that have been discriminated upon in the past, but hopefully not into our future.

Here is a simply idea that governments are going to make too complicated. We have a carbon problem, which may or may not be the case. We have a solution; we tax carbon emitters, such as factories and cars. We cap their level of carbon they can emit and then lower each year. If they surpass they have to buy credit from someone else or pay more taxes on it. Those that reduce more are able to get a credit for their reduction of carbon and sell it to others who have not. Sound great except where again does this help us now? So we have less carbon in future. What about removing carbon from the world now?

They have not let us down, they have an idea. They will capture carbon and store it deep underground in aquifers to hold carbon. Never mind, just a few problems, like all that construction, or what if it leaks or just how much energy would it take to capture the carbon in the first place to store it under ground. Both ideas are bound to not work, and mostly cause more problems than they need to.

We need to capture carbon? Assuming this is true, how about we go old school on this. You know full retro, all the way back to nature. Yes, nature. What is the best carbon capture means we have? Plants and trees. Take a car using gas. It releases so much carbon per km. This is easy to test. Then figure out how much carbon a tree will use to grow over time. Compare how many trees are needed to absorb the gasoline released carbon into the air. Add in the cost to plant those trees, the purchase of land and the general in efficiency of government generally and you have a real carbon tax. That not only will beautify the world, trees grow into forests, and in future we can harvest those trees to reuse that captured carbon in a sustainable process. The best part is this, the tree start to absorb the carbon in the air now, as they are planted, so no hopefully future plan that will have to kick in, many, many years down the road. The cap and trade will simply be abused, go ask Volkswagen for their real environmental impact and compare to what they programmed their cars to report. The carbon storage is wasteful in additional energy and resources, not to mention the carbon is then lost and not reused.

Sent to art.acevedo@austintexas.gov as part of the right to seek redress from government and free speech to tell government officials they are acting dishonorably.

Police Chief Art Acevedo

City of Austin, Texas

I would like to bring your attention to the video tape of Philip Turner from YouTube on Saturday night. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFxMnOmzGNw&sns=tw) Which you have called on your Twitter account to be: “Actions on this video aren’t reflective of our policy or our values & are under investigation.” These blatantly aggressive and frankly provocative actions on the part of both officers involved, particularly Officer Maufrais 7432, are nearing criminal in their outrageous conduct. While the video does not show any overly racist comments, those white officers all but acted in a racist fashion to African American Turner. However, unable to prove such an assumption, I would point out that there are grounds for a Federal lawsuit for acting under the colour of law, such as illegally issuing orders with regard to limiting his free movements and not allowing him to get to his car. Not to mention the blatantly violating Turner’s rights to videotape the proceedings. Why did Officer Maufrais 7432 say that some of your officers were afraid of being photographed and recorded? Surely the only reason for such a fear would be if they were doing something wrong, as Officer Maufrais 7432 did on Saturday night. I would point out that in 19 out of 20 cases where police have been videotaped or used body cameras, police are exonerated by such recordings. These actions take on Saturday night should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. Swift follow up is needed by you and your department. Why? You have 5000 police officers at risk of being tarnished by the same brush of dishonorable conduct that this officer and his partner has done. Police are not above the law, not above department regulation. They are supposed to be guardians of the community not overlords to the inferior citizens. You have a city that is depending on you to lead your men and women to protect the city’s good name, reputation and uphold the laws of the community, the state and the nation. Not create their own on the spot as they see fit to do on mere whim. Police have been the victims of bad press all over America this last year because of the actions of a few racists officers who had no business being on the force, let alone allowed to carry weapons capable of harming citizens. When I was a child, police where whom you turned to for help, not those you flee from as more dangerous than the criminals themselves, as is often the case with this bad press and poorer public relations. Building bridges, does not use Molotov cocktails to burn them down around us all. While I think this incident is minor, no one was hurt and no lasting damage has been done, if this is allowed to continue then what is next to happen? Just how out of control would Officer Maufrais 7432 be? False arrests? Physical assault? Or as we have seen on too many other videos, police officers illegally take human life without just cause? The city of Austin pays a salary to each officer to uphold the law. Can you honestly say those officers did so Saturday night? Whose law where they upholding? The police Department have internal policies, rules of conduct. Can you say with a straight face those offices acted within those guidelines or anywhere close to them? The US Constitution has the 1st Amendment allowing for the Freedom of the Press. Did your officers shower you, your police department and the City of Austin in the Great State of Texas of the United States of America by their actions this weekend to uphold this one citizen his right to be a citizen journalist? I would say they have not. My question thus can be put to you in a very simple fashion; what will you do about it as the leader, their commander and to whom the city has entrusted to lead their police force, make no mistake the police is owned, funded and fully under citizen control. What then will you do about this incident for it will be how the citizens judge you for your ability to uphold the law, their codes and their peace.

How I understand Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. There is a lot of head scratching and wondering as we awake to the world of President Elect Donald Trump. Small hand Donald, “grab’em by the Pussy” sexual assault prone, trice divorced accused rapist will soon have his hands on the button. What button? THE Button, you know that button, hat start World War Three. And yet with all of that, people still voted for him. Why? Why we scream into our nightmares, why, why, why? I think of all the answers put forward, it comes down to family. What? The Donald, has been in more failed marriages, treats women with disrespect, flirts in a lecherous fashion with his daughters (Cause not all fathers are in touch with their feelings enough to be able to say “I love You” to their daughters, so rather than that, they make up comments to tease, bother and annoy. Some outrageous and some rude, but all of them are expressions of love. By all accounts, Donald Trump is a moral degenerate, yet his daughters are not bother by his comments, or bothered by his actions, because they know what he is saying when he says outrageous things to them both in public and in private. Hilary has been married once, never divorced, has a daughter in good standing with the world and plenty of grand children. Shouldn’t she be the idea of family itself? Keep it real. The idea is to have that one marriage for life, the kids and grandkids and all that. Except it is some sort of fairy tale. Some fantasy. The real world is filled with broken homes and broken families, where awkward dads make stupid jokes about their daughters trying to find some ground to meet them half way into who they have become when all grown up into maturity. Where in the back rooms, the “boys” make rude jokes about girls, and if overheard, mother would go “tut, tut, tut” as they make the family supper. Where we the guy across the street says “you stink.” Them’s fighting words and you tell him so. Even in New York, you get in my face, I get into yours. That is real. There is one in every family, and if you don’t know who it would be in your family, it’s probably you. And yet, through it all, for the good, not much good if any, the bad and that is really, really bad, and the ugly, let’s face it, it does not get much more uglier then Trump’s comments. Through all this, one thing stands out, the guy is family and that makes all the difference. Hilary for all her ability and smarts and social stability, is unapproachable. Not real and not family. She is a winner, she won the family lotto, she won the job lotto, and she is the exception. Not the rule. Donald Trump has screwed up more business then you can imagine, because he is literally stupid. And yet so has that one guy in the family. All in told, this emphasis on family might sway one out of a hundred voters to vote Trump’s way and that is what he won by. The horrible, rude, imbecile or the Miss “I am too perfect to believe?” Who would you vote for? Americans voted Family by about 1% ahead of Clinton where it counted.

After 15 years of await for answers from the 9-11 hijacking terrorist attack, it seems then as now, merely asking questions results in cries of “Conspiracy nuts”. Well I beg to differ, as such I offer you five questions, Who, What, When where and why of the 9-11 Terrorist Attack.

1) Who? Who were the hijackers? We have their names from the manifest; we have in one case, a passport that escaped the destruction of the plane. No conspiracy here, stand things like that just happen in real life that is simply beyond imagination. Yet we do not know who they were. All of the people in the manifest, or at least the names on their passports, have turned up alive and well in the Arabic world with the strangely similar tale of losing their passport to it was stolen. Not to mention the names are fairly common. Fair enough, then who were the hijackers?

2) What? What where they doing on the planes. The reason we know the name of the hijackers is because in 2000 the Millennial Bomber was caught coming over the border from Canada with the intent of attacking the West Coast. In the evidence gathered from his car was a list of names. The same names appeared on the flight manifest of the 9-11 planes. So what were they doing on a plane when their names should have been on a no fly list? There should have been some sort of warning built into the system? As if, hey we have all these names on a flight should we call security? George W. Bush, President did not want an investigation into the events, but even a simple car accident will get one from either the insurance company or the police, or both. We use investigations to find out what went wrong and more importantly to fix it. So what went wrong?

3) When? When was the planning done for the NORAD test that involved hijacked planes on the American East coast being used to attack civilian targets? And did they use the TV Show ‘The Lone Gunmen’ pilot episode play a part in the planning of this scenario. Or perhaps better put, where did they plan to stage a drill on 9-9-9 in London. England UK involving three bombs in the ‘Tube’, their subway, and on a bus? Or yet again, the planning for the Oklahoma City Bombing, where ATF agents were drilling on scenario of a car bomb in front of a federal building set to explode. One is a surprising coincidence. But by round three if you are not scratching your head going, “Boy is that weird.” So again, we must ask when where these drills planned and who knew about them?

4) Where? Where are the tapes for the Pentagon cameras? All told it is rumored that some 87 cameras were able to capture some or all of the attack on the Pentagon that morning. Including the gas station right across from where the plane hit. Immediately after the attack, agents rounded up all tapes of the event from all the cameras they could find. They were all classified and hidden away. Only 2 images were ever released which are grainy, blurry and after the fact. If there is nothing on those images then why after 15 years are they still classified? Does the intelligence service think that by classifying those tapes, the enemy won’t know they hit the Pentagon? They don’t want to show to some other third power the weakness involved in an attack up the headquarters of American military might? Or is it some other reason, as yet unexplained. So again where are those tapes?

5) Why? Why building 10 was was pulled? It was not hit by a plane and fire should not have destroyed it. The response is that while not being struck by a plane the World Trade Center did fall around it and that might have weakened it. True enough. The why did the owner say the New York Fire Department told him they were going to pull it on a PBS special? And if the Fire Department did indeed pull the building, an industry term for a controlled demolition, why could not that have been said upfront? Why the secrecy? Perhaps at the time, it might have been needed? I say again, after fifteen years, I think everyone knows that 9-11 was a “thing.” So why was building 10 pulled down?

There you go. Five questions and nary a yo-yo out of place, a screw loose, or a full moon rising, just questions. All of them could be answered easily enough I think. For example question 4, on the location of all those tapes? They could answer it by simply releasing the tapes. Saying why they cannot release the tapes. But in the absence of a credible answer, the mind will fill in the gaps with conspiracies or phantasmal alien lizard me. For each of these questions we can only turn to government for answers. And that is no conspiracy theory either.

Hilary Clinton seems to be destined to win the Democratic Party’s nomination. Where she will then be out-classed and out-flanked by Donald J Trump. This classic definition of hubris shows that even though Bernie Sanders is in the lead over Trump in national polls and would win the election if the poll numbers hold up, she will not let him do so. For her very own Greek Tragedy is not to be denied. This is her last chance to be the first female in the oval office, come hell or high water she is going to beg, borrow and steal every vote she can. Sadly, voters everywhere know it and will vote accordingly. Yet, one thing is clear, once she fails, like Icarus tumbling from the sky in a flaming trail of feathers and wax, she will turn to cast off any blame upon herself and point her fingers directly at Bernie Sanders for not dropping out of the race long ago. He is the one who has hurt her chances by staying in so long. Except for the simple fact that she is the second most hated politician in the USA with Donald Trump being more hated. Go figure why anyone would want to stay in the race to force real issues into the debate?

In order to qualify this election, we have created a list of best to worst results that we can expect. Note this is not the best possible results, as that would require Bernie Sanders to still be in the race and win the presidency. As that will not happen, we have to face reality and that means Clinton or Trump. The two most hate politicians in the records of polling such questions.

Best Clinton wins and Democrats win both the House and Senate. In which case for the next two years they might, just might get something done in the passing of progressive legislation. They might fill in their nominations for the courts and they may stumble on some good policies to help working and the poor.

Next, Clinton wins but they lose the house to Republicans but win the Senate. This means the Iran deal is safe but little will get done. Paul Ryan is but a shadow of real leaders in the House, where what the speaker would say would become law. Now his speakership is merely cardboard cut out they use to toss rotted fruits at.

Next Clinton wins the Presidency and loses both House and Senate. What might likely occur? This result will means four and possible eight more years of ideological gridlock and posturing. Little would be done and even less would be accomplished.

Last, Trump wins, in any combination. He does not know how to rule, how to work with, or how to create anything. The man is a shyster as can be seen in his so called “Trump University scam.” At this point despite the incompetence at the top, the transition team will find good people if ideologically bent to take up the offices in Washington and may even figure out a way to work with Tea Party enthusiasts to get something worked out. For example, Money out of politics would be nice. But I won’t hold my breath. Four years of trump, will the republic still be standing? For surely it is greater in its summation and grandeur then even he can destroy… not that he won’t try his best to do so.

Donald Trump being elected President, Brexit and the Columbian Peace plan, now if I added all walked into a bar… You would see the joke involved. However three major upsets, some claim defeats of the powers that be and I think all can be traced back to the same cause. Or rather group of causes. In the case of The Donald, people who voted for him were White males above the age of 30 without any education or only some, the hinterland for him, and the cities on the coast against him. The same can be said of Brexit, where the young voted to stay in the EEC, as did Scotland and the big cities like London. The older, rural folks voted to get out. The last of our troika is the peace plan. Again it failed by people who were not in the thick of the fighting. In this case, peace was mostly in the cities, whereas the war was fought in the rural farmlands. The young were also ignored. But there is one last thing to remember for each of these. The turnout was low, lower than expect and lower then needed. Without a clear and overwhelming turnout the voice of the people is drowned out by the voices of the motivated. Most people don’t want war. They don’t want an economic collapse and they certainly do not want ‘The Donald’. Yet they also don’t want to vote even more. In the age of wedge politics, where you only need s a small sliver of the pie, 25% who are motivated to vote, the rest will have to fall in line behind those small, vocal voters, whereas the rest of us have to pay that price for their voting behavior.