Wednesday, June 17, 2020

Why I am

Many of you who have read my blog, “Been Franklin,” over the past few years have certainly formed various opinions about me and my character. Some have called me a racist, others just a monumental asshole. And other epilets to numerous to mention. Based on what I have written in the past, you could be right. I am not, however, writing this to defend my whiteness. I am white, or as white as my skin tone makes me unless I get into the sun for any length of time. I have to admit that it does a pretty good job of hiding my Native American Heritage. Which by the way is real, but has never been used to advance myself or my family, and is based upon a family history only two generations removed.

Also, I am not anti- LGBT, or whatever the anacronym being used these days. It changes so often it’s hard to keep up. I have a Half- brother who is Gay and a Half-sister who is Trans. I don’t know my brother all that well, but I understand he’s a fine fellow and quite happy with his lifestyle. My sister, on the other hand, is a pain in the ass. Not because she’s Trans, but because she just a pain in the ass. I also have two other sisters. One is a half-sister, and the other is my natural sister. My half-sister is a mother, and also quite an accomplished woman. My natural sister is a California Lawyer (need I say more?). I haven’t talked to her since the death of our father and mother. I wish her the best and have developed a genuine understanding of the Jewish Rabbi’s blessing, “May God bless her and keep her . . . far away from me. Needless to say, my family is not typical of the American Family, but hey, it’s mine.

I’m sure that some of you reading this are already asking; If you’re not defending your whiteness, what are you doing?

A reasonable question, I suppose, with a slightly complicated answer. Now that I am on the downward slide toward seventy, with piss poor health. I and running the daily risk of dropping with either a brain aneurism, a stroke, COPD, and a host of other possible ailments, I’ve been forced to reflect upon myself and the things that I have said and done over the years. Am I sorry for saying them? Not one damned bit. Am I selling out to the zanies that are suddenly cropping up all over the country to destroy homes and businesses that people have spent years building? Many of them being people of color. The very people they say they are protesting for. No, I’m not. I am, however, astounded that those government bodies that were elected by the ordinary people are copping out and giving in to these morons whose only purpose seems to be nothing more than to create utter chaos. And this scares me.

You see, I grew up in a time when on Saturdays you could go to the local theater and get in for a dime, and then spend a quarter for a drink and the biggest Dill Pickle you ever saw. If you were careful, the drink and pickle would last you through three coming attractions, two cartoons, a serial (usually a western or Flash Gordon), and a feature film. When mom’s and dad’s allowed you to skin your knees or get banged up because you were doing something stupid. When our heroes were John Wayne, Hopalong Cassidy, Sky King, or Flash Gordon. We were allowed to run around the neighborhood until the street lights came on. Which was usually around 8:30 or 9 during the summer. We, and our parents, weren’t afraid of child molesters, predators, and every kind of evil there is. I suppose it was there, but as a nation, we generally were unaware of it. It was a time when you could walk away from your home and not have to worry about someone breaking in and stealing everything. Every parent in the neighborhood knew which kid belonged to who and where they were at. Then the world changed.

The Vietnam War came, and those of us who were kids were suddenly thrust into carnage and the realization that America was no longer the Shining Beacon of Peace and Freedom on the hill. For those of us who returned, we returned to a country that spat on us, called us murderers and baby killers to the point where we were unwilling to admit that we had served our nation. Then years later, when the public’s attitude and thoughts changed when their children served at a time when America was attacked, they began thanking us for our service. So much so, that after a while, the thanks became meaningless, and we wondered why they bothered at all. During all of this, we attempted to make lives for ourselves. Move forward, have our own families and kids, only to find out that everything we did to raise our own children was all wrong. Most of us adapted, many didn’t, many came back broken suffering from PTSD or some other kind of mental disorder. Some committed suicide, many ended up homeless. But the one thing we all knew was that no one truly understood.

As time passed, we, the kids, started to take another, more serious look at America. What we realized was this, despite its failings, and the many pimples that pockmarked its history. There was the Civil War, which brought an end to the institution of slavery, Martin Luther King’s Civil Rights movement, which changed the Jim Crow laws and brought about a peaceful integration of Blacks and Whites. Desegregation, equal education, and the ability for people of color to change their lives for the better, instead of being forced to sit at the back of the bus or drink from different water fountains, and eat at black only establishments, interracial marriage. All of it was change, painful and frightening, but change, never the less.

As for me, I’m old enough now to appreciate how my grandfather and father felt as they grew older in a world that had become unfamiliar to them. I have watched as those Freedoms and Rights that were guaranteed us in the Constitution are very quickly evaporating like a puddle in the hot desert sun. I watch as people are ridiculed for speaking their minds or are forcibly attacked for even attempting to. Tech companies banning comments that they don’t agree with to include a President, who, in my opinion, shouldn’t even be using them to govern a nation.

I am afraid that when I do finally cash in my chips, my children and grandchildren will be forced to live in a nation that stupid people have taken control of, forcing them to live in fear. I am afraid that they will be forced to live in a country where murder and perversity are the order of the day, and law enforcement no longer exists to protect them. Yes, there are corrupt cops, and things need to change, but the good cops outnumber the bad ones, and they’d be the first to tell you that things need to change. But a nation with no law is a nation no longer, and someone needs to stand up and put a stop to all of this.

My biggest fear of all is knowing that when I do die, I will never know the future of this great nation or if it survives.

Thursday, August 9, 2018

An Old Citizens Thoughts

Over the past eighteen or nineteen months, I have watched closely as the media has waged an unprecedented war against President Trump. I have watched as the liberal left in the form of Robert Mueller has attempted what I would call a silent coup, to removed President Trump from office and replace him with Hillary Clinton.

As a citizen of the United States and a bit of a historian, I cannot help but see similarities between modern American and Ancient Rome. The liberal left seems to be doing everything they can to destroy America and the Constitution, while the Conservative right stands by and lets them. I believe in America, and I believe in the Constitution of the United States, yet I have come to realize that it is the liberal left that is using it to destroy America.

There was a time in America when the people knew their place in this country. They knew that it was their responsibility to see to it that our government met the wishes of the people and that America’s greatness came from the people and not the government. Over the years the government and its minions have slowly but surely gained in strength and power by allowing government officials to impose unneeded regulations that are treated and enforced as law, almost to the point of communistic socialism. Interestingly, if you look at it objectively, you see that as Communism has failed in Russia, it has grown in the United States.

While I do not necessarily agree with everything that President Trump has done during his administration, I am capable of seeing his successes, and realize that what he is doing is slowly but surely re-establishing the greatness of America. At the same time, I see the battles and failure of a Congress and Senate that lacks the intestinal fortitude to stand up and do the job the people elected them to do while figuring out ways of increasing their fortunes as quickly as they can while in office. To be fair not all of our elected officials act in this manner, yet if you compare Ancient Rome to America, these are the ones who will eventually end up laying in the figurative streets with their throats cut.

As a citizen of this great nation, I believe that it is time for the American people to stand up and fight for what is right. It is time for all of us to work together and stop the nonsense that seems to be prevalent these days. It is not necessary to label everyone a racist or talk of white privilege. Not only do black lives matter, but all life matters and it time we as a people realize it.

It is time for media to return to its original ethics and report the news dispassionately and objectively and not take sides politically. It is also time for the American people to stand and realize that only by observing the First Amendment through proper discourse without violence and an exchange of ideas that you may not necessarily agree with, but you can at least learn from.

I am an old man now, and the years have gone by quickly for me. I have traveled most of the world in my youth and seen things that not many have been fortunate enough to see. Throughout it all, I have been sure of one thing. America is the freest nation in the world. When my time finally does come, I would like to go with the knowledge that it still is.

Friday, June 16, 2017

An Open Letter to Congress

During the past forty-eight hours the horror that is now our country has reared its ugly head once again with the attempted assassination of members of the Republican Party at a baseball practice, and the wounding of several members, most notably Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise. What is interesting is the sudden unity that is being shown between the Democratic Party (with a few certain exceptions) and the Republican Party. The only problem with that is that within the next several hours that unity will cease and evaporate, and we will once again see a congress that is at each other’s throats with a vengeance. Already the Democrats are saying that it is the fault of the Republicans that this happened. Nancy Pelosi has already stated that it is the Republicans fault this happened. As an American Citizen I can only say that both Nancy and Maxine together have the brain power of a cumquat.

            As an ersatz representative of the American people, I feel it is necessary to state the following with the hope that one of you morons listens. I say morons simply because that is the way you are acting.

            If I were to have the opportunity to stand before Congress, this is what I would say to all of you.

            First of all, whether you like it or not Donald J. Trump was elected the President of the United States. We the people elected him. It wasn’t the Republican Party nor was it the Democratic Party; it actually was members of both parties. The reason is because the Democratic Candidate ran a shit campaign, and to be perfectly honest the American People aren’t so stupid that they couldn’t see what was going on. Trump may be inexperienced, but the fact is, he was telling the American People what we wanted and needed to hear, and as hard as he seems to be trying, all of you people seem to be intent on keeping him from doing what needs to be done.  STOP IT!

            The majority of us are fed up with your childish baloney. The Democrats need to start telling those who would resort to violence and the violations of the Constitution by rioting and protesting the First Amendment to stop. Discourse is an exchange of ideas that you can either agree with, or disagree with but generally you can learn from one another or not as it pleases you. You don’t even have to go and listen. But it is not an excuse to hurt people, burn and destroy businesses that in many cases took years to build up, or generally act like animals. This applies to you Republicans also.

            Despite the terrible wounding of Congressman Scalise, this could be the pivotal moment when both parties can look critically at the situation that has over taken our country, put aside party politics and work together to solve the problems that are plaguing our nation and its economy. Ignore who has the majority in the House or Senate and start working together. If a Democrat has a good idea then he should find a Republican with a similar idea and work with him or her to flesh it out and make it a bill that has enough merit that both would either vote for or against it.

            As an American Citizen, I can tell you that we are getting pretty pissed off with all of the time wasting you people are doing with trying to prove the President is a smuck and continually coming up with nothing. What is it? If you tell a lie long enough and hard enough it suddenly becomes the Truth?  You people have work to do, quit wasting time and our money. If this continues you are in danger of this nation’s government collapsing all together, leaving us open to attack from our enemies.

            The one thing that all of you have forgotten is the fact that it does not matter who voted you into office, it does not matter what state you are from, and it does not matter what party you belong too. Once you take the oath to serve and take your seat in either the senate or house, you not only represent the people who elected you, but you also represent every American Citizen in this Great Nation.  Stop playing games and get to work. We demand it!

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Climate Accord??

Over the past few days President Trump has been catching a great deal of heat from the leftist Liberals for pulling America out of the Paris Climate Accords. Problem is that these dorks have absolutely no idea as to what really happened, or why it happened. Instead they decided that they would attack Trump harder than ever in an effort to force him to either retract his decision or at the very least make his administration ineffectual.

As such I went and found out for myself what the Paris Accord really was, and I can say without doubt that Trump not only saved our economy, but our asses. If you don’t believe me then I invite you to read what the Paris Climate Accord truly is. I also point out that as you read this you’ll be struck by the fact that it seems like all of a sudden, the United Nations is speaking as the authority for those countries that signed the agreement. It wouldn’t be the first time that Obama has tried to sign away American Sovereignty, and it’s beginning to look like those who are remaining a part of the agreement are doing the same. Trump’s not stupid, and whether you believe it or not he may have just saved America.

The aim of the convention is described in Article 2, "enhancing the implementation" of the UNFCCC through:[8]

"(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."

Countries furthermore aim to reach "global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible". The agreement has been described as an incentive for and driver of fossil fuel divestment.[9][10]

The Paris deal is the world's first comprehensive climate agreement.[11]

Nationally determined contributions and their limits

Global carbon dioxide emissions by country (US EPA)

The contributions that each individual country should make in order to achieve the worldwide goal are determined by all countries individually and called "nationally determined contributions" (NDCs).[5] Article 3 requires them to be "ambitious", "represent a progression over time" and set "with the view to achieving the purpose of this Agreement". The contributions should be reported every five years and are to be registered by the UNFCCC Secretariat.[12] Each further ambition should be more ambitious than the previous one, known as the principle of 'progression'.[13] Countries can cooperate and pool their nationally determined contributions. The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions pledged during the 2015 Climate Change Conference serve—unless provided otherwise—as the initial Nationally determined contribution.

The level of NDCs set by each country[7] will set that country's targets. However the 'contributions' themselves are not binding as a matter of international law, as they lack the specificity, normative character, or obligatory language necessary to create binding norms.[14] Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force[6] a country to set a target in their NDC by a specific date and no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met.[7][15] There will be only a "name and shame" system[16] or as János Pásztor, the U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, told CBS News (US), a "name and encourage" plan.[17] As the agreement provides no consequences if countries do not meet their commitments, consensus of this kind is fragile. A trickle of nations exiting the agreement may trigger the withdrawal of more governments, bringing about a total collapse of the agreement.[18]

The negotiators of the Agreement however stated that the NDCs and the 2 °C reduction target were insufficient, instead, a 1.5 °C target is required, noting "with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least-cost 2 °C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030", and recognizing furthermore "that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 °C by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5 °C".[19]

Although not the sustained temperatures over the long term to which the Agreement addresses, in the first half of 2016 average temperatures were about 1.3 °C (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average in 1880, when global record-keeping began.[20]

When the agreement achieved enough signatures to cross the threshold on 5 October 2016, US President Barack Obama claimed that "Even if we meet every target ... we will only get to part of where we need to go." He also said that "this agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change. It will help other nations ratchet down their emissions over time, and set bolder targets as technology advances, all under a strong system of transparency that allows each nation to evaluate the progress of all other nations."[21][22]

Global stocktake

The global stocktake will kick off with a "facilitative dialogue" in 2018. At this convening, parties will evaluate how their NDCs stack up to the nearer-term goal of peaking global emissions and the long-term goal of achieving net zero emissions by the second half of this century.[23]

The implementation of the agreement by all member countries together will be evaluated every 5 years, with the first evaluation in 2023. The outcome is to be used as input for new nationally determined contributions of member states.[24] The stocktake will not be of contributions/achievements of individual countries but a collective analysis of what has been achieved and what more needs to be done.

The stocktake works as part of the Paris Agreement's effort to create a "ratcheting up" of ambition in emissions cuts. Because analysts have agreed that the current NDCs will not limit rising temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, the global stocktake reconvenes parties to assess how their new NDCs must evolve so that they continually reflect a country's "highest possible ambition".[23]

While ratcheting up the ambition of NDCs is a major aim of the global stocktake, it assesses efforts beyond mitigation. The 5 year reviews will also evaluate adaptation, climate finance provisions, and technology development and transfer.[23]


The Paris Agreement has a 'bottom up' structure in contrast to most international environmental law treaties which are 'top down', characterised by standards and targets set internationally, for states to implement.[25] Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets that have legal force, the Paris Agreement, with its emphasis on consensus-building, allows for voluntary and nationally determined targets.[26] The specific climate goals are thus politically encouraged, rather than legally bound. Only the processes governing the reporting and review of these goals are mandated under international law. This structure is especially notable for the United States—because there are no legal mitigation or finance targets, the agreement is considered an "executive agreement rather than a treaty". Because the UNFCCC treaty of 1992 received the consent of the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to take effect.[26]

Another key difference between the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol is their scopes. While the Kyoto Protocol differentiated between Annex-1 and non-Annex-1 countries, this bifurcation is blurred in the Paris Agreement, as all parties will be required to submit emissions reductions plans.[27] While the Paris Agreement still emphasizes the principle of "Common but Differentiated Responsibility and Respective Capabilities"—the acknowledgement that different nations have different capacities and duties to climate action—it does not provide a specific division between developed and developing nations.[27]

Mitigation provisions and carbon markets

Article 6 has been flagged as containing some of the key provisions of the Paris Agreement.[28] Broadly, it outlines the cooperative approaches that parties can take in achieving their nationally determined carbon emissions reductions. In doing so, it helps establish the Paris Agreement as a framework for a global carbon market.[29]

Linkages and ITMOs

Paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 establish a framework to govern the international transfer of mitigation outcomes (ITMOs). The Agreement recognizes the rights of Parties to use emissions reductions outside of their own jurisdiction toward their NDC, in a system of carbon accounting and trading.[29]

This provision requires the "linkage" of various carbon emissions trading systems—because measured emissions reductions must avoid "double counting", transferred mitigation outcomes must be recorded as a gain of emission units for one party and a reduction of emission units for the other.[28] Because the NDCs, and domestic carbon trading schemes, are heterogeneous, the ITMOs will provide a format for global linkage under the auspices of the UNFCCC.[30] The provision thus also creates a pressure for countries to adopt emissions management systems—if a country wants to use more cost-effective cooperative approaches to achieve their NDCs, they will need to monitor carbon units for their economies.[31]

Sustainable Development Mechanism

Paragraphs 6.4-6.7 establish a mechanism "to contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gases and support sustainable development".[32] Though there is no specific name for the mechanism as yet, many Parties and observers have informally coalesced around the name "Sustainable Development Mechanism" or "SDM".[33][34] The SDM is considered to be the successor to the Clean Development Mechanism, a flexible mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, by which parties could collaboratively pursue emissions reductions for their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. The Sustainable Development Mechanism lays the framework for the future of the Clean Development Mechanism post-Kyoto (in 2020).

In its basic aim, the SDM will largely resemble the Clean Development Mechanism, with the dual mission to 1. contribute to global GHG emissions reductions and 2. support sustainable development.[35] Though the structure and processes governing the SDM are not yet determined, certain similarities and differences from the Clean Development Mechanism can already be seen. Notably, the SDM, unlike the Clean Development Mechanism, will be available to all parties as opposed to only Annex-1 parties, making it much wider in scope.[36]

Since the Kyoto Protocol went into force, the Clean Development Mechanism has been criticized for failing to produce either meaningful emissions reductions or sustainable development benefits in most instances.[37] It has also suffered from the low price of Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs), creating less demand for projects. These criticisms have motivated the recommendations of various stakeholders, who have provided through working groups and reports, new elements they hope to see in SDM that will bolster its success.[30] The specifics of the governance structure, project proposal modalities, and overall design are expected to come during the next[when?] Conference of the Parties in Marrakesh.

Adaptation provisions

Adaptation issues garnered more focus in the formation of the Paris Agreement. Collective, long-term adaptation goals are included in the Agreement, and countries must report on their adaptation actions, making adaptation a parallel component of the agreement with mitigation.[38] The adaptation goals focus on enhancing adaptive capacity, increasing resilience, and limiting vulnerability.[39]

Ensuring finance

In the Paris Agreement, the developed countries reaffirmed the commitment to mobilize $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020, and agreed to continue mobilizing finance at the level of $100 billion a year until 2025.[40] The commitment refers to the pre-existing plan to provide US$100 billion a year in aid to developing countries for actions on climate change adaptation and mitigation.[41]

Though both mitigation and adaptation require increased climate financing, adaptation has typically received lower levels of support and has mobilised less action from the private sector.[38] A 2014 report by the OECD found that just 16 percent of global finance was directed toward climate adaptation in 2014.[42] The Paris Agreement called for a balance of climate finance between adaptation and mitigation, and specifically underscoring the need to increase adaptation support for parties most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States. The agreement also reminds parties of the importance of public grants, because adaptation measures receive less investment from the public sector.[38] John Kerry, as Secretary of State, announced that grant-based adaptation finance would double by 2020.[26]

Some specific outcomes of the elevated attention to adaptation financing in Paris include the G7 countries' announcement to provide US $420 million for Climate Risk Insurance, and the launching of a Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems (CREWS) Initiative.[43] In early March 2016, the Obama administration gave a $500 million grant to the "Green Climate Fund" as "the first chunk of a $3 billion commitment made at the Paris climate talks."[44][45][46] So far, the Green Climate Fund has now received over $10 billion in pledges. Notably, the pledges come from developed nations like France, the US, and Japan, but also from developing countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, and Vietnam.[26]

Loss and damage

A new issue that emerged as a focal point in the Paris negotiations rose from the fact that many of the worst effects of climate change will be too severe or come too quickly to be avoided by adaptation measures. The Paris Agreement specifically acknowledges the need to address loss and damage of this kind, and aims to find appropriate responses.[47] It specifies that loss and damage can take various forms—both as immediate impacts from extreme weather events, and slow onset impacts, such as the loss of land to sea-level rise for low-lying islands.[26]

The push to address loss and damage as a distinct issue in the Paris Agreement came from the Alliance of Small Island States and the Least Developed Countries, whose economies and livelihoods are most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change.[26] Developed countries, however, worried that classifying the issue as one separate and beyond adaptation measures would create yet another climate finance provision, or might imply legal liability for catastrophic climate events.

In the end, all parties acknowledged the need for "averting, minimizing, and addressing loss and damage" but notably excludes any mention of compensation or liability.[8] The agreement also adopts the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, an institution that will attempt to address questions about how to classify, address, and share responsibility for loss and damage.[47]

Enhanced transparency framework

While each Party's NDC is not legally binding, the Parties are legally bound to have their progress tracked by technical expert review to assess achievement toward the NDC, and to determine ways to strengthen ambition.[48] Article 13 of the Paris Agreement articulates an "enhanced transparency framework for action and support" that establishes harmonized monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements. Thus, both developed and developing nations must report every two years on their mitigation efforts, and all parties will be subject to both technical and peer review.[48]

Flexibility mechanisms

While the enhanced transparency framework is universal, along with the global stocktaking to occur every 5 years, the framework is meant to provide "built-in flexibility" to distinguish between developed and developing countries' capacities. In conjunction with this, the Paris Agreement has provisions for an enhanced framework for capacity building.[49] The agreement recognizes the varying circumstances of some countries, and specifically notes that the technical expert review for each country consider that country's specific capacity for reporting.[49] The agreement also develops a Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency to assist developing countries in building the necessary institutions and processes for complying with the transparency framework.[49]

There are several ways in which flexibility mechanisms can be incorporated into the enhanced transparency framework. The scope, level of detail, or frequency of reporting may all be adjusted and tiered based on a country's capacity. The requirement for in-country technical reviews could be lifted for some less developed or small island developing countries. Ways to assess capacity include financial and human resources in a country necessary for NDC review.[49]


The Paris Agreement was opened for signature on 22 April 2016 (Earth Day) at a ceremony in New York.[50] After several European Union states ratified the agreement in October 2016, there were enough countries that had ratified the agreement that produce enough of the world's greenhouse gases for the agreement to enter into force.[51] The agreement went into effect on 4 November 2016.[2]


Within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, legal instruments may be adopted to reach the goals of the convention. For the period from 2008 to 2012, greenhouse gas reduction measures were agreed in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The scope of the protocol was extended until 2020 with the Doha Amendment to that protocol in 2012.[52]

During the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the Durban Platform (and the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action) was established with the aim to negotiate a legal instrument governing climate change mitigation measures from 2020. The resulting agreement was to be adopted in 2015.[53]


Heads of delegations at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.

Main article: 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference

At the conclusion of COP 21 (the 21st meeting of the Conference of the Parties, which guides the Conference), on 12 December 2015, the final wording of the Paris Agreement was adopted by consensus by all of the 195 UNFCCC participating member states and the European Union[3] to reduce emissions as part of the method for reducing greenhouse gas. In the 12 page Agreement,[46] the members promised to reduce their carbon output "as soon as possible" and to do their best to keep global warming "to well below 2 degrees C" [3.6 degrees F].[54]

Signature and entry into force

Signing by John Kerry in United Nations General Assembly Hall for the United States

The Paris Agreement was open for signature by States and regional economic integration organizations that are Parties to the UNFCCC (the Convention) from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017 at the UN Headquarters in New York.[55]

The agreement stated that it would enter into force (and thus become fully effective) only if 55 countries that produce at least 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions (according to a list produced in 2015)[56] ratify, accept, approve or accede to the agreement.[57][58] On 1 April 2016, the United States and China, which together represent almost 40% of global emissions, issued a joint statement confirming that both countries would sign the Paris Climate Agreement.[59][60] 175 Parties (174 states and the European Union) signed the agreement on the first date it was open for signature.[50][61] On the same day, more than 20 countries issued a statement of their intent to join as soon as possible with a view to joining in 2016. With ratification by the European Union, the Agreement obtained enough parties to enter into effect as of 4 November 2016.

European Union and its member states

Both the EU and its member states are individually responsible for ratifying the Paris Agreement. A strong preference was reported that the EU and its 28 member states deposit their instruments of ratification at the same time to ensure that neither the EU nor its member states engage themselves to fulfilling obligations that strictly belong to the other,[62] and there were fears that disagreement over each individual member state's share of the EU-wide reduction target, as well as Britain's vote to leave the EU might delay the Paris pact.[63] However, the European Parliament approved ratification of the Paris Agreement on 4 October 2016,[51] and the EU deposited its instruments of ratification on 5 October 2016, along with several individual EU member states.[63]

The head of the Paris Conference, France's foreign minister Laurent Fabius, said this "ambitious and balanced" plan is a "historic turning point" in the goal of reducing global warming.[64] One year on, the ratification of the Paris Agreement was celebrated by the Mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo by illuminating the Eiffel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe, Paris' most iconic monuments, in green.[65]

Parties and signatories

As of December 2016, 191 states and the European Union have signed the Agreement. 148 of those parties have ratified or acceded to the Agreement, most notably China and India, the countries with three of the four largest greenhouse gas emissions of the signatories' total (about 42% together).[1][66][67]

Party or signatory[1]

Percentage of greenhouse

gases for ratification[56]

Date of signature

Date of deposit of instruments

of ratification or accession

Date when agreement

Tuesday, May 23, 2017


As I sit at my desk and watch the desert doves through the window as they build their nests and coo at one another, I am having a difficult time digesting the barbarity that has taken place in Manchester, England.

            So many children, young people and their parents murdered because of a sick and twisted ideology that purports to be the word of God, but in fact is nothing more than a lie. How could it be anything else but a lie? The God I know, the one true God, or Allah if you wish, would not sanctify murder and carnage such as this. It is the dogma of man that supports this kind of thing. As far as I know there are two versions of the Koran’, the one for the Sunni and the one for the Shite. One speaks of peace and love for his fellow man, and the other speaks of conversion to Islam or death. I find it difficult to believe that God, or Allah would encourage the murder of children.

            Over the past few months, President Trump has created a great deal of controversy with his Executive orders banning immigration from certain Muslim countries. Is it unfair? Of course, it is, but in light of what we are seeing, perhaps it is prudent.

            I lived in England for several years. I have visited Manchester, and many other parts of that wonderful Island, and I can tell you that as a people they were kind, curious, and friendly toward me. They did not deserve this. And most especially the children, young people and parents did not deserve what has taken place. Is England perfect? No, it’s not. But as the years have passed things have changed and so have people. The British most of all I think.

            I think that it is time for us to consider what must be done to stop this tragic blood shed by a people who honestly believe that when they die they will go to paradise. It is time to show them the error of their way and that God, Allah, or whatever you conceive the deity you worship will send you to rot in hell for taking the lives of the innocent who know nothing of politics, or the darker side of mankind.

            In the past I have spoken about the eradication of these animals, but now I have to wonder how we can stop and convince them that this is not the answer. My heart goes out to the survivors, and to the victims. It goes out to those who have spent the past many hours trying to help them, and to those who have opened their home to those in need of help. To the Doctors and nurse who are trying desperately to save lives and often times failing. To all of them, you have my prayers for what they are worth, and the hope that God hears me and will finally bring peace to all of us.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

First One Hundred plus Days of the Trumpster

Well, out of fairness I gave him his first one hundred days just to see what would happen. Not, of course out of fairness, but because I wanted to see if he could actually pull it off or come out of it looking like the obvious idiot that he is. He had a few moments when he did relatively good, such as with the Syrian debacle, which in my estimation may be a little questionable. So far he’s been pulled into court twice with his immigration policy, The Obamacare repeal and replace has turned into a cluster f-ck, and his big mouth is giving away classified information to our adversaries. Jesus! What a Yob.

On many different occasions, I have stated that he could at least act a little more Presidential, and so far, he seems to be getting closer to the deep in of the pool. He also seems to be running the White House like he ran his reality TV Show “The Apprentice”, firing people left and right. Not to mention that somewhere in the White House someone is leaking everything he says and does on a regular basis. Which of course is designed to do everything it can to discredit his administration. And of course, the media and press is eating it up like a wolf goes after a piece of raw meat, making sure that the public knows everything that’s going on whether it’s true or not. I trust the press about as much as I can throw their collective asses, and frankly there are times when I trust myself even less. But hey! This is my blog and these are my opinions so it doesn’t really matter, I guess. I do try to get it right, but occasionally I screw the pooch.

Throughout it all, I can’t help but wonder what would happen if those damned Democrats and those moronic Republicans would finally get their shit together and stop the silliness that is going on in both the House and Senate. It’s obvious that these asswipes on both sides of the isle have absolutely no interest in serving the people who elected them. They certainly aren’t doing us any good, and all they seem to be doing is towing the party line. Which, as it turns out is nothing more than an anchor around our necks where we ultimately pay the price, either financially or even our lives. I’ve written this blog for years in the hope that someone would listen, but in reality its turned into a monumental session in self stimulation, if you know what I mean.

Despite all of this I would still be willing to give Trump a chance if the media and those turkeys in the Congress would back off and start doing the job they were actually hired to do. However, with North Korea, ISIS, and Russia after our butts, he had better get his own stuff together, stay the hell off of Twitter, and gain a true understanding of what it means to be a President. You don’t run a country on social media, and you certainly don’t make arbitrary decisions without thinking about what you are doing. If you continue to do so, you, yourself might hear those words you have made so famous. “Your Fired!”

Sunday, February 19, 2017

When did News quit being News and start to be Propaganda?

Having been in Journalism for nearly thirty years in one form or another, I write this blog to vent my spleen and from time to time make people think a little bit.

Back when I first started for a local paper in Brookneal, Virginia, I was taught, often the hard way, that when you reported the news you were required to get facts. If the facts weren't there you didn't make up facts. You reported the news straight. You didn't add personal opinions, you just reported the event whatever it was and that was it.

As the years went by I discovered that there actually was a collection of volumes of what was known as Journalism Law, which very clearly stated what was or was not acceptable when reporting the news. These were compiled from court cases and other incidents that had taken place over the years. The crux of  the matter was that while the First Amendment did indeed apply, if the content was not true and damaging to an individual or organization the reporter or news organization responsible would pay a price.

In short, the news was reported impartially and as humanly accurately as possible. There was no slant to it, there was no double meaning, and there was no personal bias. Now it seems that most of the major news organization are doing everything that they can to destroy President Trump, or at the very least make his policies or attempts to solve this nations problems problematic. It's clear that when the man calls these news organizations out for printing or broadcasting "Fake News", they go into meltdown mode and go on the attack. Frankly there is only one News organization I trust, and to be honest there are times when I question their impartiality. But they seem to do the best job of broadcasting the news, while the others start pitching fits like two years old.

What pisses me off more than anything is that fact that these morons deliberately broadcast news that is twisted and inaccurate driving the American people into a frenzy over bullshit, and the American people are stupid enough to believe it. But then it seems there is now a certain segment of the American people who are looking for any excuse to riot and destroy anything they can. It doesn't matter that in many cases it took other people years to build up a business that is destroyed in just moments. And if you look at it carefully you can trace it all right back to the feet of the news organizations printing and broadcasting lies or as El Presidente calls it, "Fake News". 

As a journalist, this type of news reporting is disgusting and makes me sick to my stomach. How dare they take a profession that is supposed to keep the people informed, tell the truth, and above all be impartial and pervert it like this. Edward R. Morrow must be spinning in his grave.