Maasa

 When the Europeans got to America in 1492, they discovered that the local people had developed many new vegetables from the local plants.  While in Europe, the farmers had developed the brassica family (cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli etc), the Americans had concentrated on the Solanaceae family (Tomatoes, potatoes, Capsicums, egg plants and hot peppers) and from a scrubby little plant called Teosinte, (tea-o-sin-tay) they developed Corn.  Explorers took these back to Europe and Corn was a big hit.  When you plant grain crops like wheat, Rye, Barley and so forth, If all goes well, one seed gives you, typically, 25 seeds back.  Corn on the other hand gives you about 250 seeds per seed planted.  In addition it gives you large amounts of foliage that you can feed as-is to ruminants or make silage, also for feeding herbivores.

Corn (called maize in the UK) is a C4 plant while the members of the wheat family are C3 plants.  In C3 plants, Oxygen and Carbon dioxide compete with each other, in the chemical process of photosynthesis, limiting production.  C4 plants have somehow 'worked out' a system to diminish this competition and so fix far more Carbon from the atmosphere than C3 plants. (another notable C4 plant is sugar cane).  The explorers (or exploiters, if you like) brought back the plant but not the technology.  Corn seemed to be the ideal food to feed your workers but those that ate it to the exclusion of other crops, became sick.  Their skin roughened, they got diarrhea, dementia and died.  They had what we now call Pellagra which is a Niacin deficiency disease 

Sad, since Corn is actually rich in niacin but it is in a chemically bound up form which is not available to the human digestive system.  The Niacin is easily released and the Americans indigenous people had discovered how to do this.  They boiled the corn first in an alkaline solution.  They used wood ash which, once wetted, is rich in Potassium hydroxide. The precursor of niacin is tryptophan and the nixtamalization process releases this substance and the body turns it into Naicin.   At home we use Slaked lime which is Calcium hydroxide, also a strong base.  Just a quick diversion to describe how to treat corn for home use.

 

Nixtamalizatation

Take however many cups of corn kernels* you want to treat and weigh them.  Weigh out 2% as much Calcium Hydroxide.  Mix the corn and the lime (Calcium hydroxide) with lots of water in a large pot.  The corn is going to absorb a lot of water and expand.  

* Note we are not talking about the corn from corn on the cobb, which once dried is shriveled up but corn that has full rounded seeds when dry.  Flint corn is great for this. 

 

Do it in the morning and leave it to soak until the afternoon.  If necessary, add more water.  When cooked, the corn is going to expand even more and use up more water.  In the afternoon, boil the corn and lime mixture with occasional stirring to bring the lime up from the bottom of the pot.  Boil for at least half an hour or better still bring to a boil and simmer for one hour.  Add more water if necessary.  Stir, put on the lid and let it soak  overnight.

 

In the morning, rinse thoroughly until the water is clear and a much of the sloughed outer coat has been removed.  The outer skin of the corn will have sloughed off and the kernels will be a lovely yellow. Run the corn through your meat grinder with the finest holes you have. Package in plastic bags and freeze.  We find that 300g per package is a useful amount.  Now you can add a package to your bread, waffles, Pizza base, and best of all to a pot of Chilliconcarne that you want to thicken once  the beans have been cooked to tenderness.  

 

Why I say best of all is because the amino acids missing in corn are found in beans and vice versa.  Corn and beans together are a balanced protein but to be absorbed by the body, both must be eaten at the same time. A great meal for a vegetarian but you don't have to be a vegie to love a good pot of Chilli.

 

Masa is also made into tortillas and other favorite Mexican delicacies.  In some stores you can buy flour made from Masa.  It is called masa harina and is not the same as corn starch or corn flour.  These later have not been nixtamalized.  Note that another benefit of the process of nixtamalization is that phytotoxins have been removed, especially Aflatoxins.  Aflatoxins are highly carcinogenic compounds produced by a range of  molds.  They tend to contaminate seed crops, especially in warm, moist environments.

 

Anyway, I don't think the technology ever was used in Europe.  After all, what could a bunch of uneducated, pagan natives know.  Another example of  idiotic hubris. 

Increasing my electricity bill

To my power company

CC to government

 

You have seen fit to increase the cost of electricity to my  family when my former contract ended.  This is a scurrilous abuse of the privilege you have been given as a supplier of electricity in New Zealand.  Why do I say this. There are a number of reasons.

1.  Much of the electricity that we use in New Zealand is generated by our extensive hydro-electric dams (57%).  They were built sufficiently long ago that their capital costs should have been totally paid off.  Now all the cost is for running and maintenance.  The water you use belongs to the people of New Zealand.

 

2.  Another large portion of our electricity is from geo-thermal (20%), meaning that a total of three quarters of our electricity is generated without having to purchase any fuel. Our first geothermal plant was commissioned 68 years ago so the capital costs of that plant should have been long since paid for.  Another plant was commissioned 2 years ago.  The thermal resources of New Zealand belong to the people of New Zealand.

 

3.  We have been installing wind and solar power for some time now.  Both are, by far, the least expensive way of generating power today.  The wind over New Zealand belongs to the people of New Zealand and just as is the case with water and geothermal resources, you have been granted the privilege of being able to use them. Again, no fuel needed.

 

4.  The electricity from wind and solar, including the amount that is sent to you from private dwellings, is generated closer to end users, reducing, or at least delaying the need for you to invest in high voltage power transmission lines.  As wind and solar installations increase, both private and commercial, this tendency will continue and increase.

 

5.  As we, the people, install more and more solar panels and batteries, excess electricity is being sent to you at a discount, for you to sell at the full retail price.  This costs you nothing in capital costs.  We are bearing the investment costs and you reap part of the benefits. If you install your own mega batteries, you can purchase cheap and sell at a profit.

6. Up to the late 1980s, power generation and transmission was a government function.  The whole system was built and financed by the people of New Zealand.  Starting in the late 80's a misguided government agreed to privatization.  Now you generate revenue which has to be shared with share-holders instead of it being passed back to the exchequer and hence to the people. I would have thought that this would impose on you and the other power generation and transmission companies a duty of care to give the best prices possible to Kiwis and not just think of your share holders. Virtually all the fuel you use (water wind and sunshine) are free.   I think you have got the balance wrong. 

 

7.  With the electrification of our country in the form of, induction cook tops instead of gas, Heat pumps instead of burning fuel, and the uptake of EVs instead of ICE cars, your sales are  steadily increasing.  Your prospects for the future is a continuing of this trend, with some of the capital costs of generation being born by us as we install solar panels on our roves.  Your business is booming.

 

8.  As you find the need for more generation you now have the option of wind, solar and mega batteries.  These options are quick to install compared to hydro, geothermal, nuclear and pumped storage and all generate electricity with lower costs than any of the pre-renewable options.

 

At the core of the problem is the cockamamy system of pricing electricity.  In the  bidding that occurs every half hour, if the first and major bidder gives a quote for each mWh of electricity they will supply, that is not what they receive.  All bidders get the price of the most expensive bid.  Giving all the bidders the rate of the last and most expensive bidder  (often for gas generated electricity) is just dumb and makes a mockery of the bidding system.  I have heard that there are some disadvantages of paying what was bid, but I am far from understanding why.  This system must be reformed.

If you 'get with the program' and install wind, solar and mega batteries, there soon should be no need for a gas back up.  Is this possibly a reason for dragging your feet on installing such equipment.  With gas out of the picture, and even using the silly bidding system we now have, the highest price electricity might be what a mega battery can provide.  Batteries will be the 'peaker plant'.

By the way, the Hornsdale experiment showed that besides the cost benefit, mega batteries stabilized the voltage and frequency of the grid.  Electronic equipment, which we all have in ever increasing amounts in our houses, do not respond well to spikes and drops in voltage.  

Lets get on with the transition and stop charging us ever increasing costs for our electricity.  Costs should be steadily decreasing in our present technical climate.

Punctuated Evolution

 Punctuated evolution refers to a short (in geological time) period in which a burst of evolution occurred with either a species rapidly changing into a different species or a bunch of species evolving from one species.  It is stated that this goes against the theory of gradualism proposed by Darwin.  

To my mind, this is hardly surprising, and Punctuated evolution is happening all the time.  The real surprise, the thing we have to explain, is why species stay the same for long periods.  

The reason is that punctuated evolution is overlayed/restricted by natural selection and natural selection is much more involved in keeping species the same rather than creating new species.  Ever since Darwin we have been focused on the role of natural selection to create new species.  That is pretty understandable, as we advanced from a religious point of view (everything is explained in terms of a belief system, evidence to the contrary not withstanding.)  Examples of punctuated evolution are all around us.

Take the Wolf/dog situation.  If we were looking back on the fossil record from half a million years in the future, and looked at the most recent 30,000 years, when man has apparently being associated with the wolf/dog, we would say that the wolf had experienced a period of punctuated evolution resulting in a vast number of varieties of dogs.  30,000 years is just the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.  We would also be aware that, if any of these varieties had become geographically isolated (as may well be the case if we destroy our present technological society and have to revert to walking to get anywhere) then by simple genetic drift and the accumulation of different genes, genetic cross overs and flipping of sections of genes,  these varieties would no longer be able to produce viable offspring (in other words would have become separate species).  Looking at the fossilized skeletons of these varieties, a future paleontologist could be excused for positing that the skeletons of a Chiwwawa and a Great Dane were from different species

What this indicates is that the wolf species (and virtually all species) are throwing out sports (mutations) at a rapid rate*.  So, now we have the question, why hasn't the Wolf in nature radiated into a whole bunch of different forms.  This is where natural selection comes in.  Once a species is pretty well adapted to a reasonably unchanging environment, natural selection, will work against new 'sports' that are for the most part more poorly adapted to the environment than the dominant form.

*And the rate of the production of 'sports' is far larger than even the variety of dogs suggests.  Add to the apparent number of sports that man has selected for to produce dogs with characteristics different to the wolf, to the number rejected and it is amazing that Natural Selection has kept the Wolf pretty well the same over this period (and before) .

 

The fealty of the wolf to its body plan is less difficult to grasp when we realize that a female alpha wolf in nature can typically produce 5 cubs each year and typically she can live for 7 years.  That is 35 cubs produced during her lifetime.  But,we are not over-run with wolves.  Once population equilibrium in a new area has been achieved, a pair of wolves will leave, on average 2 offspring.  Thirty three have been culled by nature*.  Natural selection is a bitch.  Random accidents will kill some but basically, only the wolfiest cubs will survive to reproduce.  And almost every mutation to an already highly successful wolf will put that wolf at a disadvantage.  Mutations that have no effect on the phenotype of a wolf will, on the other hand, accumulate.

*Sorry, I have played fast and loose with Wolf biology.  In actual fact, in a pack, only the partner of the Alpha Male will produce cubs.  Let's say that an average wolf pack consists of 10 individuals.  Then you could say that 10 wolves produce 35 cubs over 7 years.  10 survive to replace the pack and 25 have been culled by nature. That is still a harsh level of selection against sports surviving plus the fact that the other wolves are likely to kill a less wolfish wolf. Note that wolves are able to have pups at 10 months of age although this is unusual.  But this adds to the potential number of wolves produced by the original pack of wolves and the principle still holds that on average, 10 wolves only leave 10 wolves to carry on the species.

 

Lets look at the somewhat trite example of the color pattern of the common pigeon.  The natural color pattern is that dun grey banded pattern.  Suppose a white pigeon is produced.  As soon as it can fly it is the target of every peregrine falcon in the area. It is far easier to focus on an animal of a different color in a flock.  Same for a stripe-less zebra in a herd of stripy zebras. 

 

You might ask why in the park when we feed the pigeons do we see all sorts of other colors.  This is because man has bred pigeons for thousands of years both for their meat (Squab) and for their homing characteristics.  And we love to save sports and breed from them.  When you have a flock of pigeons, you habituate them to a feeding time and then, after a while, release them to fly just before the feeding time.  These birds of different color patterns "pollute" the wild birds.  

There is another interesting wrinkle to this story.  A very successful animal (and pigeons and people are examples) can show a lot of variety since natural selection is hard pressed to keep the species invariable.

Suppose we went to an island far from the mainland and bred white pigeons.  Once we had a large flock established, we brought in Peregrines.  I bet they would cull any non-white birds that appeared.

 

  So when will punctuated evolution occur.  There are a number of instances but in essence it is when the environment changes. 

This could be when a species finds a new geographical area where its kind is not extant.  There is lots of room, for a while, for sports to get away from the flock/herd

Or it could be when a natural disaster has altered the environment by physically altering  the landscape or by eliminating many existing species.

A key thing is that a disaster has not altered the environment so much that it is outside of the ability of the species in question to survive.  So where do the variations come from that allow a species to branch out and survive.  If the change is too radical, a species will go extinct rather than evolving into a new form.

So where does the vairability come from to create new species.  Of course, there are new mutations but will one come along in time to save the species.  Undoubtedly this is possible and will have happened in the few billion years that organisms have existed on earth.  However there is another source.  

 

Any population will have been accumulating mutations over its existence.  They may have altered some members of the population within the envelope of survivability or they may be recessive genes.  That is to say, ones that are not expressed phenotypically (visibly) unless two of them come together in the same individual.  Very successful species have lots of variability in their genes (look at humans), other species  are very specific in the conditions they need (Panda and Koalas for instance).  Both need very specific foods, Humans can get along with almost anything organic as nutrient. This points out how some species are very vulnerable to a change in their environment while other species are far more robust.

The Galapogos Finches are an interesting example of very fast evolution from existing genes within their genome.  As we shift from El Nino to La Nina and back, some of the islands produce a lot of large hard seeds and then a lot of small easily cracked seeds and back again.  The beaks of one of the species of finches follows these trends with different beaks.  All this really means is that both variations of beaks are coded into the genome of these finches and year by year, the ones that have the greatest number of young with the suitable beaks survive in much larger numbers.  If one of these seed regimes lasted for a long time, pretty well all the less fit genes would be selected out and the finches would be 'fixed' in one state.

Sparrows give us an interesting example.  A successful pair of sparrows can produce 5 young, five times per year and live for over 5 years.  Yet we are not overrun by sparrows.  Their population remains about the same from year to year.  Just think what the attrition rate from natural selection is on sparrows.  Successful sparrows have to be top notch in all sparrowy characteristics to leave offspring.  Once many generations have gone by in a pretty much stable environment, I would take a pretty amazing new mutation to make a sparrow more able to pass on this genetic variation to its offsprings.  Again, natural slection has much more to do with keeping a species the same than to produce new forms.

The AMOC

 In a recent conference (Nov 2025) Jim Hansen opined that some of the so-called tipping points are simply reversable phenomenon which would reverse if we were to decrease the green house gasses in the atmosphere* However he did say that he thought that the AMOC shutting down would be a genuine tipping point.  So what would the consequences be.  It has often be suggested that Europe would become quite a bit cooler as heat was no longer transferred from the tropics by the surface current and that hurricanes in the south would be stronger due to the extra heat left in tropical waters.  Demise of corals and various other consequences are predicted.  But could anything positive happen?

* They might show hysteresis (going down a different path than on the way up) so to us it would look, on our human time scale, like a tipping point. 

Up to now, the temperature differential between the Arctic and the tropics has been decreasing as the Arctic heats faster than the rest of the world.  And scientists have attributed a number of things to this decreasing of the 'delta T' between the tropics and the Arctic.  Namely:

The slowing of the spin of the three Northern Hadley cells#.

The increased wobbliness, North and South of the Jet stream

Outbreaks of cold, polar weather further south than was usual

Outbreaks of warm weather further North than was usual

Stalling of weather systems, giving long periods of drought or precipitation to areas instead of the regular march of rainy and sunny weather systems around the world.

Creeping northward of agricultural zones

# There are three Hadley cells in the Northern Hemisphere.  The Equatorial Hadley cell is powered by the heating of the land at the equator by the sun.  The air rises, flows North and South at Altitude and sinks at 30 degrees North.  The Polar Hadley cell is powered by air above the Arctic, radiating heat into space, becoming dense and sinking.  Surface wind flow south along the ground and rise at 60 degrees North, returning north at altitude.  The Ferrel cell fits between these Hadley Cells, powered by the friction with rising air at its northern border and falling air at its southern border.  There are Jet streams at altitude where two cells meet. (very much simplified explanation)

 

 

With the heat differential re-established, due to the heat retention in the South and heat not transferred to the Arctic North, the Hadley cells should speed up to their previous intensity causing the  Hadley cells to re-energise, the jet stream to increase to its previous speed and to stop waving back and forth, North and South so much.  All the above mentioned effects should return to the situation that was usual many decades ago.

In addition the colder temperatures in the north should cause whatever snow falls on Greenland to stay there instead of melting and flowing to the sea.  If the effect is intense enough, it might even lead to the accumulation of snow on the high lands of Baffin Island (where the North American continental glaciers begin to accumulate)  Sorry, forget this last one.  It is pulling a very long bow.

The Sea Ice in the Arctic should form earlier, melt later and increase in thickness over the winter, allowing the native people to utilize the ice as they did before the present melting occurred.

Agricultural zones, which have been creeping North for a few decades, should return to closer to their historical position although they might be narrower than they were before the warming began.  

 

The more regular march of weather patterns, mentioned above, should favor dry land agriculture* as rain follows clear weather, follows rain, follows clear weather etc.

* Agriculture without irrigation

With the accumulation of snow on Greenland, sea level might stop rising although if the new regime results in more melting in the Antarctic, that could overpower this effect. 

 

There is no way of telling if any of the above will come to pass until the AMOC shuts down and it does or does not occur. Models are prone to GIGO.

Chris Hayes and Bill McKibbin

 Chris Hayes, a most excellent MSNBC television host, has a podcast.  It is called Why Is This Happening.  In one of his latest podcasts Chris interviews Bill McKibbin, the creator of   350.org and Third Act.  Bill is one of the earliest and staunchest voices on Climate Change.

This is about the most uplifting Youtube item I have seen.  If I could summarize the message in a sentence or two I would say, The switch to renewable energy has really taken off over the last half decade and is now unstoppable.  It is now in a race to become sufficiently wide spread soon enough to save us from our sorry selves.  There are revelation after revelation in this Youtube item and I have described them below.  but if you want to watch the original (a well spent hour) here is the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9MmJkkv780&list=PLDIVi-vBsOEzArBz5VnChpoJEf4DQCgvG

Comments in order of their appearance in the Podcast:

1.  This is the most important, revolutionary change for the human race and is not covered hardly at all in the mainstream media.  The social implications are as profound as the physical implications.

2.  Bill McKibben's latest book is Here Comes The Sun A last chance for the climate and a fresh chance for civilization.  This podcast is based on this book.

3.  Over the past 36 months or so, the deployment  of renewable energy kit has gone exponential.

4.  Half a gigawatt,  is about the power of a coal fired power station.  This May (2025) the Chinese were installing 300 gigawatts per day.

5.  The Nuclear 'Renaissance' might provide half a gigawatt by 2035.

6.  California has reached a tipping point.  Now almost every day, more power is produced for long stretches of the day than is used.  The excess goes into charging batteries which extend the time that no fossil fuel has to be burnt.  California in 2025 is using 40% less natural gas to produce electricity than in 2023.

7.  Every tenth of a degree that we warm the planet, moves another 100m people out of a tolerable climate zone.

8.  California is being outdone by Texas in adopting solar and wind energy - Texas, the center of fossil fuel production and refining!!!  Solar is being installed in Texas at a phenomenal rate because it is so financially advantageous.  The Texas government tried to put a bill into place that if you installed 5mW of solar, you also had to install 5mW of natural gas development.  People started to appear in Austin (the capital) from all over Texas telling the government to back off.  This is how we finance our schools, elderly care and so forth they said, and the government backed down.   

 

9.  Pakistan is importing masses of solar panels from her neighbour, China who has excessive manufacturing capacity.  Staring about 18 months ago, the amount of energy been drawn from the grid began to decline.  Google earth gave the answer.  Solar panels were being installed like mushrooms coming up after a rain.  In an 8 month period, individual Pakistanis installed an amount of solar capacity equal to half the electricity from the grid. They found out how to install them from tick tock.  The biggest adopters were farmers who traditionally would use diesel generators to pump up their water from their wells.  Now they use electricity from their solar panels and the import of diesel oil has fallen by 35% in a one year period.

10.  We almost were launched onto this trajectory back in the early 1980s when the Democrat, Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House as a signal of his intentions.  In Carter's last budget he included research money to push the necessary research for the adoption of renewable energy.  Of course he was succeeded by Regan (the great orator), who ripped the solar panels off of the roof of the White House, signalling his intentions.  (sounds like Trump doesn't it) 

11.  Around 2000, the Greens held the balance of power in Germany and in return for their co-operation, insisted that people with solar panels on their roves were given good rates for the power they sent to the grid.  This really pushed the installation of solar in Germany*  and the increased demand allowed China to ramp up her production efficiency and research, bringing down the price of solar panels for Germany but also for the rest of the world.

 * The North of Germany averages one hour of 'peak solar' per day, the south, two hours.  A most unlikely place for solar power to really get off the ground.  The best solar areas of the world have about 6 peak hours per day.

12.  Every time we double the production of solar panels the price is slashed in half.

 

13.  About 5 years ago (2020) the line was passed in which electricity from solar panels and wind turbines was equal to the price of burning stuff.  From then on, it has continued down.  

14.  June 2023 was the month when since then, monthly temperatures have been great than at any time since the Eemian interglacial, 125k years ago. 

15.  As for an equivalence in planet degradation that the critics try to draw between fossil fuel and renewable energy, the mining of iron, for instance, remains about the same in either case.  We use iron for a huge range of uses.  Fossil fuel, we mine or drill for and burn it.  We then have to mine some more.  Resources such as lithium, Rare Earth Minerals and so forth, we mine and first off, they produce power for, say, 25 years.  Then they are recycled and used again and again and again.  There is no comparison.

16.  The volume of Lithium we will have to mine for the whole battery transition is less than the volume of coal we mined just in 2024. (ps. and coal mining is already in decline.  What would the comparison be if we looked at 'peak coal')

17. Picture a ship crossing the ocean carrying solar panels.  Over one life time (before they are recycled) these panels will produce 500 times as much energy as the coal that the same ship could carry.  

18.  Besides the health costs of burning fossil fuel which is about 20% of the deaths that occur, much of the nastiness of our present zeitgeist is due to the value of fossil fuels and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few countries and individuals.  Just think of the Koch Brothers and the way their wealth has polluted democracy in America for instance.  With energy generation dispersed and owned by all, this is no longer possible.

 

19.  Following the start of the war in Ukraine, Europe has suddenly realized that they must transition to Renewable Energy and stop buying fossil fuel from Russia which she uses to finance the war.  Trump is trying to pressure Europe with tariffs to buy American liquefied natural gas.  (quid pro quo for the American fossil fuel industry supporting his election.)  

 

20.  Indonesia has just announced plans to install 100gW of solar power over the coming 10 years.  Indonesia is the 4th most populated country in the world.  

 

21.  Batteries, of course, give us power when the sun goes down.  Wind turbines sometimes give power at night but on average less than during the day and we are not going to run out of Li.  There is lots of it.  But the new EVs from China are using sodium ion batteries and we have an ocean of sodium plus mineral deposits of NaCl all over the world. (ps.  Look at this site.  Batteries may not be the only solution.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-cOgrBIAuc&t=7s)

 

22.  The TEXAS, for heaven sake, the institution that is responsible for the supply of energy from their grid has announced that they don't believe there will be any black or brown outs over the coming year because they have now got enough renewable energy and batteries in the mix to mitigate this.  This from the fossil fuel state of the USA.

 

23. Half of the corn that is grown in the county were Bill lives  (Illinois) is grown to make ethanol which is used, along with fossil fuel, to power vehicles.  A farmer pointed out to him that in a single acre he can grow enough corn to power his Ford F150 pick up (the most popular truck in farm country) 25,000 miles.  If I cover that same acre with solar panels, I can power my Ford 150 Lightning (the electric version of the F150 Pick Up) 700,000 miles.  (I hate to say this but there is a bit of a fallacy in this argument.  See if you can spot it)

24.  In the field with the solar panels, half of the field is still usable and there is a new science developing called agro-voltaics - the science of growing crops under solar panels.  And there are surprises.  In France one study found that the yield of grapes increased in fields with solar panels.  And in Vermont, some areas with solar panels are being planted with wild flowers and the insect population is up 100 times.  Nearby orchards are getting much better fruit set because of the pollinating insects.  (ps. Have you oldies, like me, noticed that the windscreen of your car and your radiator no longer is splattered with insects when you drive on a summer day like it used to be around 1950.)  And in a warming world, a bit of shade is reducing the evaporation of water from fields with solar panels.  

25.  The whole supply chain of the supply of fuel to a vehicle is incredibly complicated and messy.  The supply of electricity from solar panels incredibly simple and clean.  You must do some extraordinary drilling and fracking, transport the raw fossil fuel to a refinery, apply energy and chemistry to the oil to produce the types of fuel you need, transport this fuel to a distribution point and put it in your tank.  Then only, at the best, 30% of the energy in this finished fuel, is transformed into work.  The rest goes off in unusable heat.  And at the same time it pollutes our air.  

With photovoltaics, the electricity is converted to Alternating current at the appropriate voltage, transported to your home or charging station by power lines and used to charge your car.  90% of this energy used to charge your battery and it is in turn 90% of the energy collected by the solar panels.  While plants convert one or two percent of the solar energy falling on them into chemical energy.  Solar panels convert about 20% of the energy falling on them into electricity.

26. The war by tRUMP on wind and solar power and his pulling out of COP30 that is taking place in Brazil this year, is the greatest gift that he could have given to China.  It will establish the technical superiority of China over America and her political influence in the world.  Trump's policies are monumental stupidity.  In his campaign for re-election he said to the fossil fuel industry, Give me a billion dollars and you can have anything you want when I am elected.  They gave about half a billion and Trump is giving them everything they want.

If this trend was to continue, America would become a back woods theme park in which people from around the world would come to see how they did it in the olden days with internal combustion engines.  Joe Biden did his best to set in place measures that would allow America to catch up to China.  Trump has and is destroying all those efforts. (ps.  When are Republicans going to wake up to the fact that at least for one election, they have to switch allegiance and vote Democrat.  Otherwise their country is finished in any form that they would like it to be.)

27.  Sun Day is going to be on Sept21 when all over the USA, people will be demonstrating for the use of renewable energy instead of fossil fuel.

28.  40% of the households in Australia have solar panels on their roves.

29.  Much of Europe has balcony solar.  You buy a panel, hang it on your balcony and plug into the nearest plug point.  This is illegal in all but the state of Utah which has legislated that this is legal.  

Arctic - Antarctic tipping point

 There is a tipping point in both the Arctic and Antarctic that is not much talked about that would result in the rather sudden disappearance of sea ice with various unpleasant results.

For instance if there was no sea ice formed over the respective winters, then as soon as the sun returned, the water would begin to absorb all the impinging solar radiation.  At present, even in the worse case, at the beginning of the 'light-season',  there is a lot of sea ice reflecting light back into space  and  solar radiation is progressively absorbed, throughout the spring and summer, as the ice cover decreases.

 

In the Antarctic, land-glaciers would flow more quickly into the ocean, increasing the rate of sea level rise.  At present, sea ice acts like a 'cork in the bottle', slowing down the flow of land glaciers.

 

In the arctic, with the increased heat in the  water, Walker cells* could well establish themselves between the ocean and the ice of Greenland, accelerating the melting of her ice sheet. Snow reflects solar radiation back into space.  Clear ice must be heated to a considerable depth before melting occurs.  But warm winds are a different situation all together.  If they persist for any length of time they carve away at the surface ice

*Air rising over the ocean, flowing toward Greenland where the ice cools it, extracts its heat and moisture making it denser** and it flows along the ice, back down to the ocean. As it flows down in a density current, it heats by compression giving it even more ice melting capacity.

**Note that contrary to expectations, dry air is heavier than humid air.

The tipping point I am talking about depends on a bit of well established physics and while I don't say it is guaranteed to happen, there are indications that it is already heading that way at both poles.

 

First, the behavior of sea water and fresh water as it cools.  In both cases the density increases but with a couple of differences.  First, water with salt dissolved in it is denser than fresh water and the more salt, the greater the density.  No surprises there.  Second as water cools it contracts and gets denser (heavier per unit volume if you like).  But there is one difference between fresh and salt water.  Salt water gets more and more dense right down to it's freezing point and its freezing point is a degree or two below 0⁰ C depending on how salty it is.  Fresh water on the other hand gets denser and denser down to 4⁰ C and then gets less dense as the water molecules begin to link up. It freezes at 0 degrees Centigrade.

 

All this results in a curious effect.  In a deep body of sea water (the ocean) sea ice can not form unless you have a halocline (a layer of fresher water floating on the deeper denser full salinity sea water.  Note I didn't say fresh water but rather fresher water.  

 

For instance, a halocline is formed in a sea where melting land ice has added a lot of fresh water to the ocean, which mixes with the sea water, and creates a layer of less salty water which floats on the deeper water.   Or can occur in an ocean in which rivers from the surrounding land are pouring fresh water into the ocean. So why is a halocline needed for the production of sea ice.

 

In a deep ocean, with no halocline, as the surface layer cools, it becomes denser and sinks down into the depths.  Warmer salty water comes up to replace it and the cycle continues.  You would need a far longer cold period than the ~half year 'dark period' during the winter in the Arctic or Antarctic to cool this whole depth of water to the point where ice could begin to form.  Once it started to form, the situation would change dramatically since as sea water freezes, it expels much of its salt which then dissolves in the remaining sea water making it really dense. This denser water would then plunge into the depths.   But this could only occur if the world got really cold for a long period, so that the whole depth of the ocean was severely cooled.  This may be what happened during the period known as snow ball Earth, but I digress.

When there is a sufficient halocline, the cold air above the ocean only has to cool the upper layer.  It is still sea water, albeit fresher than deeper water and the convection cycle with denser water sinking, only occurs in this limited layer of fresher water.  Even at its greatest density, just before the freezing point, the surface water is not dense enough to sink through the deeper, more salty water.  An important point here is that both layers don't have to be exactly at the same salinity for freezing to be stopped.  It only requires that the density is different enough that the surface water at its freezing point isn't denser than the deeper water.  If for any reason, the salinity of the surface water increases sufficiently, the creation of sea ice would stop.  I'll leave the maths boffins to work out at what combinations of salinity of the surface and deep water that this would occur.

 

 

While the above graph gives the over all situation, unfortunately for the lowest line - the one showing fresh water, it is incorrect.  It should show the density of fresh water decreasing below 4 degrees centigrade. 

Note that open ocean water is generally about 35 ppm.

Let's do a wee thought experiment using the above graph.  Assume that the underlying deep ocean water is at 35 (probably pretty close to the true situation) and the upper, fresher layer was at 30.  Could it ever sink into the lower level.  Looking at the graph, the maximum density of salt water containing 30kg of salt per ton of sea water is about 1.024.  Going across the chart at this level, we don't hit the 35kg/ton curve until we get to about 22⁰C.  Since the deep water is somewhere under 5⁰C, 30 water could never sink through 35 water.  It looks as if the salinity of the upper layers would have to get very close to the salinity of the lower layers before mixing, caused by the cooling of the surface layer, could occur.

 

 

 Here is a better graph of the cooling of fresh water.  Note when it actually freezes , the density of ice is 0.917 grams per cc. (the density of ice at 0 degrees C.).  As ice cools below 0 C, it contracts a little.

 

 

So, what we are looking for is any mechanism that would increase the salinity of the surface layers of  sea water enough to stop ice formation in the winter.  Remember if this happens, and there is open water when the 'light season' begins then solar radiation would be absorbed by the ocean for the whole of the light period and not just as the ice melts, exposing some open water.

Note also, that  the intensity of radiation per square meter of ocean surface, is not as intense as it is per square meter directly under the sun.  The radiation over the area around the poles comes in at a slant, and so the same amount of solar radiation is spread over a greater area.  However, the sun shines for longer and longer, during the 'light period'. Close to the poles, the light shines 24 hours a day.

The second bit of physics we need is the Coriolis effect.  On earth everything that moves in the Northern Hemisphere is veered to the right by Coriolis.  You can look up many excellent items on YouTube, which explain why this is.   Everything moving in the Southern Hemisphere is veered to the left.  The effect, for obvious reasons, (Obvious, once you have looked up why Coriolis occurs) gets greater and greater the closer you are to one of the poles. 

Let's start with the Antarctic.  

It has been observed over the past couple of years that the salinity of the surface water has been increasing.  This was something of a surprise since, with the warming of the Antarctic, more ice is melting and flowing out on to the ocean.  This is simply an observed fact and if it is the beginning of a trend, we could get to the point where sea ice can not form in the winter. Here are a couple of speculations, suggesting why the surface water is becoming more salty.

If you look down on the Antarctic from space, the winds go clockwise around the coast.  This pushes on the water and makes it flow in the same direction.  Remember if something is at rest, Coriolis has no effect on it but when it moves it is veered to the left and the faster it moves, the greater the effect.  In a clockwise rotating body of water in the Southern Hemisphere, to the left is away from the coast.  Perhaps the fresher surface layer is being pushed more strongly toward the North, bringing up more salty deeper water.  It has been reported that these winds have been getting stronger.

Another possibility is that storms are getting stronger with bigger waves that mix the surface layers more deeply.  If more deep water is mixed with the surface water, its salinity will increase*.

* One additional effect is that if any of these effects increases the depth of the halocline, there is more water to be cooled before sea ice formation can start.  Remember, you have to get this surface water down to the freezing point before ice will begin to form.

And one more possibility.  The sea ice has shown a dramatic decrease over the past few years after a long period in which it was slowly increasing.  When there is a good cover of sea ice, it suppresses the effect of winds on the underlying ocean.  As the sea ice decreases, even the same amount of wind has an increased effect of mixing surface layers.  A very negative, positive feed-back mechanism.  Less ice and more wind is doubly effective in mixing surface layers with deeper water.

Whatever the cause, observations over the past couple of years show an increase in surface salinity.

So how about the Arctic. 

In the 'classic' Arctic, sea ice completely covers the ocean even well into summer.  The ice reflects most of the light impinging on it.  In the rest of the world, solar radiation goes right through the atmosphere to be absorbed by the land.  The heated land heats the air in contact with it, causing it to become less dense and rise.  In the Arctic, when there is complete ice and snow cover, there is very little heating from below.  The air radiates heat into space* and cools, becoming more dense.  The air falls, spreading out to the South as it hits the land.  Coriolis veers this land-surface wind to the right resulting in the Polar Easterlies.  The air flows to about 60 degrees North, heating as it goes and rises and returns  North at altitude.  This circulation is called the Polar Hadley cell. 

*Anything that is above 0⁰K radiates heat.  If heat is not coming in from somewhere it cools.

So you have the classic high pressure, clockwise rotating system in the Arctic.  In a clockwise rotating system in the Northern Hemisphere, to the right is into the center.  Look at the Beaufort gyre in the Arctic.  It retains floating ice and the fresher layer of water and in fact is slightly higher in the middle than surrounding water.  I think that you see where this is going.

 

 

If we melt enough ice in the Arctic with our output of Green House Gasses and particulates, the Arctic as it absorbs more solar radiation could flip to rising air rather than falling air.  This might be most likely to first be observed in the fall when the land is cooling quickly while the sea is still heating the air above it from its greater accumulation of heat.  This would be a classic low pressure counter clockwise rotation.  In a counter clockwise rotational system, to-the-right is away from the center.  In other words, If the Beaufort gyre reverses direction, it would be expelling ice and floating water away from the center to be expelled through the Bearing and Fram Straits.   

As in the Antarctic, thinner or no ice allows the winds to mix the layers more easily, and more deeply, increasing the salinity of the surface layers and deepening the halocline which is now saltier than previously.  As in the Antarctic, a deeper halocline has to be cooled to the freezing point of water of its salinity before sea ice formation can start.

A summer of deep drought one year in the catchment that provides fresh water to the Arctic ocean, could also decrease the salinity of the ocean's surface layers.

One other effect, out of left field, which could occur is an underwater earth quake which causes a Tsunami to race back and forth across the Arctic Ocean.  Waves don't occur just on the interface between air and water.  They also occur between layers of different salinity and hence density.  And they break as they reach shallower water, just as air-water waves do.  This might mix the layer sufficiently to flip us into a new mode in which the halocline is sufficiently disrupted to stop the formation of sea ice.

A man made effect is also possible.  The Halocline in the Arctic is created, largely by the influx of fresh water from North American and Russian rivers.  If this water was diverted to the south for agriculture, this could also weaken the halocline.

So in conclusion, if the surface layers get sufficiently salty in both the Arctic and Antarctic to stop the formation of sea ice in the winter, then all the sun energy for the whole light period would be absorbed, making it unlikely that sea ice would ever form again and providing much more heat to melt both Antarctica and Greenland glaciers.  Talk about tipping points!!

 

 

Iran's nuclear ambitions

 

As of the middle of 2025 with the military hit that Iran took on her military and nuclear capacity, it is interesting to look at some of the details of nuclear bombs and what Iran intends to do with them.  My underlying premise for this blog is that if a dictator or would be dictator says he is going to do something and it is a bad thing, we should take their word for it and act accordingly.  Hitler's Mein Kampf was the classical example.  He laid out what he intended and did his best to carry it out.  If, on the other hand a dictator say that he is going to do something good, wait and see.  It is likely that he is trying to disarm your suspicions and to buy  time to do the bad thing. 

Let's look first at some nuclear technology.  

Uranium consists of two isotopes.  U235 and U238.  The difference is how many neutrons it has in its nucleus.  Of course  both have the same number of protons.  An atom with a different number of protons would be a different element.

Many elements have different varieties(Isotopes) and some of them are radioactive.  This means that they break down into other elements, giving out particles (neutrons, protons, electrons, helium nuclei) and radiation in the form of very high energy electomagnetic gama rays. 

The heaviest ones are not necessarily the most unstable.  There are 'sweet spots' in which a certain number of neutrons and  protons are stable and others are less stable.  Uranium is a case in point.  The half life of U235 is 703million years while the half life of U238 is 4.5billion years,  6,400 times as long. That is why there is more U238 in a sample of natural Uranium than U235. 

If you want to run a nuclear power plant or make a nuclear bomb, you must concentrate the U235.  For a power station, you need U which is between 3 and 5% U235.

 

You can separate out the U235 from the U238 in a couple of ways.  Both depend on first turning the U into a gas by reacting it with F (fluorine).  The U238 gas is slightly heavier than the U235 gas.  Then you can run it through pipes with barriers containing tiny holes.  The U235 gas diffuses more readily through these battiers and is slightly enriched.  You use cascades of these to enrich the gas more and more.  The other way is to use ultra-centrifuges.  This does basically the same thing and you use cascades of these also.

A bomb can be made from Uranium with as little as 20% U 235 but the richer it is, the less of it you need for a bomb.  Roughly speaking you need 50kg of U235 so if your Uranium was only 20% U235,you would need 5 times as much (250kg) than if you had highly enriched Uranium.

In a power plant, the U238 is bombarded with neutrons which they capture in their nucleus and through a couple of radioactive disintegrations,  in which one of the neutrons gives out an electrons and turns into a proton, Pu 239 is produced.  You can make a bomb from U239 and only need under 10kg of Pu239.  The half life of Pu239 is just over 24,000 years.

Incidentally, the shorter the half life of an isotope, the more radioactive and hence the more dangerous it is but the quicker it disappears if produced in a pile or bomb.  This is not altogether true as it also depends on which sort of radiation it emits and its biological interaction with organisms.

Making a bomb like the first one dropped on Hiroshima is child's play for an engineer.  You use the rapid assembly method in which half the needed nuclear material to make a critical mass, in the form of a cannon ball, is fired into the other half in the form of a 'catchers mitt'.   This first bomb use highly enriched Uranium with some as much as 89% and some of it 50%.  It used a total of 64kg of Uranium.

The second bomb dropped on Japan used Plutonium, which was produced in the nuclear pile that the scientists were running.  It only used 6.4kg of Pu.  It used the compression method in which shaped charges of conventional explosives all go off at the same time, compressing a sphere of Plutonium.  It is much more sophisticated to build but not a problem for a society in which there are explosive experts.  The Plutonium is purified from the waste nuclear material from a civilian power plant.

In light of all the above let's look at Iran.  She only needs Uranium which is enriched to between 3 and 5% for her power plant.  So why has she, reportedly, already enriched to 60%.  Duhhhhh!!  She doesn't need to go to 90% as has often been indicated in various reports.  If she has saved any of the 60% Uranium from the military hits, she might need, say, 90kg of this material to make a bomb.  Does anyone doubt that a regime that perpetrated Oct7 would shy away from using it on Israel (the little devil) and Europe and America (the big devils).  As for delivery mechanisms, a rocket is possible but I can think of a whole raft of other ways of delivering a nuke to anywhere you want.   

 

In addition, as I said, Iran has a civilian (yehh right!!)  power plant.  This power plant is making Pu as we speak.  Iran must never be allowed to refine this waste.  You need much less Pu than U to make a bomb.  

 

It would appear that Israel and the USA only just struck Iran in time.  In fact at the last possible moment.  And the danger is not over.  To anyone in the rest of the Middle East, in the Far East, in Europe, in Asia or the Americas that thinks this is over, think again.

Democracy

 The Greeks started the idea and modern society improved on it.  It is the best guard against the collapse of societies.  It is called Democracy and its main purpose is to throw the rascals out before they become too attached to their seats.  

 

It's companion is 'The Rule of Law' and both are needed to work in concert for a successfull, enduring society.  

 

The further we stray from 'one man one vote', and 'The Rule of Law', the greater the chance of collapse.  America is straying further and further from Democracy with her denial of voting registration, obstruction of voting, reduced voting stations, location of the remaining few voting stations in 'favorable locations', gerrymandering and the ridiculous delegate system. And the rule of law has always favored the rich over the poor.

  

She augments the rot by a)allowing vested interests to buy politicians by financing their elections, b)making them rich while in office and c)giving them 'sweet jobs' when they leave office.  Trump almost trashed the most important, totally vital aspect of Democracy which is the peaceful transition of power following an election. This is the last aspect of democracy that still exists in America.

 

Look at 'Mickey Mouse' states around the world.  They never have a peaceful transition of power.  And there is a  fear is that the  rot could spread to other countries which at present are Democratic.  Potential despots exist in all societies and memes - both good and bad, spread.  If tRUMP and tRUMPISM  (sorry, my cap lock got stuck)* is not defeated in America, the example will spread to other countries and we will sink into a very ugly world. 

*tRUMP did announce that world leaders were lining up to kiss his rump.

 

If Trump and the Republican party succeeds, other so called right wing parties around the world  will be taking heart and trying it on for size.  If Trump is jailed for a good long time and the American election system is reformed, this will also provide an salutary example for other would be despots.

 

If the Democrats get in, in the November elections*, they will have the chance to reform the system.  This will be their one and only chance.  If they don't codify reforms in law, the Trumpists will be elected in some future election and will destroy America and the small remnants of democracy that she still has.  It could be just enough to save America from becoming a kleptocratic dictatorship by Oligarchs.

 

Jan1, 2025 - clearly Trump won the election# and the only hope now is that it will be so bad under his administration that people will finally wake up, elect a huge Democratic majority in the mid terms, and demand true democratic reform. Perhaps the situation must get so bad that  the abysmally  ignorant half  of the American public will finally wake up.  I doubt it.  I have almost unlimited faith in the mind numbing  ignorance of  vast swathes of the American public.

 

#Or did he.  I have seen an analysis that the election was won by an egregious level of discarding votes on the most spurious of reasons by partizan election officials.  This analysis showed that there was a high probability that Harris actually won the election.  Perhaps there is a silver lining in all this - an unexpected consequence that acts in our favor.  If Harris had won, it would have been by a small majority.  Certain aspects of American policy require a super majority to change.  A simple majority is not enough.  Perhaps it will be so bad% under Trump that the Democrats will get the needed super majority needed to reform the system.

 

%Bloody hell!!  As of the first of May, the first 100 days of Trump's presidency has been so bad that I couldn't have even imagined in my worst nightmare that he could have been this bad without all the Republicans rising up against him.  He latest action has been to invoke marshal law along a strip of land next to the Mexican border.  Any American who sets foot in this area can be arrested by the military.

 

So what measures must be taken.

 

1.  First and most important all financial connection between members of the government and people who finance them must be severed.  We think we are gaining some sort of benefit by someone else paying for the election of our president, Senators and Representatives but it is costing us vast amounts in ways both obvious and  subtle. 

If we want our government to serve us and not to serve the Oligarchs, we must pay for their elections from the exchequer.  https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2018/01/wasted-effort.html  This must include stopping the various ways of making our elected officials rich while in office and giving them 'sweet jobs' when they leave office.

 

As long as the present system of financing elections, making Senators and Representatives rich while in office and giving them sweet jobs when they leave office, politics will attract the wrong sort of people to the job, especially to the Republican party.

 

2.  The delegate system must be scrapped.  It simply results in more layers of corruption. We could say it was a noble experiment but the delegate system degraded democracy rather than making it stronger.   The basic requirement of Democracy is one man one vote.  The popular vote must be what elects all elected officials. THE FURTHER A SOCIETY STRAYS FROM ONE MAN ONE VOTE, THE MORE VULNERABLE SHE IS TO COLLAPSE

 

3.  A set of principles, codified in law, must be developed to determine voting districts.  This disgraceful gerrymandering must be stopped.  It will be very difficult to achieve such a system and it is unlikely to be perfect but it can be much closer to the ideal than it is at present.  The basic criteria to aim for is that the vote of every citizen has equal weight in electing government officials.

 

4.  Vastly more polling stations must be set up and specifically set up in less privileged areas.  It is now somewhere between difficult and impossible for many Americans to get to a polling station.

 

5.  If someone is waiting in line to vote before the official close of the voting station, they must be allowed to vote even if the polling station has to stay open all night.  Using delaying tactics to keep people from voting and then refusing to let them vote is not democratic.  With vastly more polling stations this problem will disappear.

 

6.  Voting must take place on an existing public holiday or a public holiday must be declared for voting.

 

7.  Mail-in ballots must be allowed for overseas service men, for people in remote areas, for overseas tourists and for overseas government employees.  Alternately, polling stations must be set up for these folks.  Just look at his effort by a Republican state government to disenfranchise voters.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HfXI4d1byk&t=825s

8. Denial of registration must be stopped.  If you can show a birth certificate, naturalization papers, passport  or any other photo ID document that shows you are a citizen, you must be registered.

 

9.  We must go back to paper ballots.  Electronic voting in this modern age allows too many opportunities for the 'tech Bros' to hack the system and warp it to their own interests.  Look who supported Trump.  The main oligarchs who supported Trump are very computer savvy and have teams of expert hackers in their employee.  Remember how tRUMP said "don't bother to vote.  I already have all the votes I need".  What do you think he meant by this?  Duhhhh!!!

This may be the last chance that the Democrats have to bring democracy to America.  If they fail, we are going to experience a very nasty world.

Post Script Monday, May 12 2025

Trump's economically stupid measures have now driven the American airplane manufacturer, Boeing, to threaten to close her factory in Seattle and move elsewhere.  I would suggest to their CEO (who incidentally supported the election of Trump!!!!) that he should up-stakes and move to British Columbia.  A lot of his people would love to move with him and physically, BC is much like the Pacific North West of the USA but nicer.  The stability of the Canadian economy is far better.  Here we see the effect of autocracy on business.  Business only really thrives under a liberal democracy.  There are so many examples of autocracies which are economic basket cases around the world that I am surprised that a presumably, very intelligent man such as the CEO of Boeing couldn't predict what would happen.  Perhaps these tech folks need a few more courses in world history and in civics.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny

 Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny

There is a wealth of information concealed in those three little words.

Ontogeny is the development of an individual animal from a fertilized egg and on to the birth of that individual.

Phylogeny is the evolution of life from single cells which floated around in the oceans up to the animals we see around us today including ourselves.  Many of you will have come upon this concept in courses in embryology.

If we look at the early stages of a human fetus, for instance, at a certain point we see wee gill slits on the neck, at a later stage we see a wee tail, both of which are later absorbed and disappear before birth.   At least usually they do.  Occasionally an individual is born in which you can just see the trace of gills and occasionally with a wee vestigial tail.

It is interesting how this occurs.  Take as an example a species of monkey that lives in the tree tops of the jungle.  They have developed a prehensile tail which is of great help keeping them from falling to the jungle floor where they might damage themselves and where there are a range of animals that would look very favorably on monkey for breakfast.  

 

Occasionally in certain individuals, mutations occur which make their tails less effective or in an extreme case that they have no tail at all.  One way this can happen is if the gene that initiates the sequence that leads to the development of a tail, does not switch on because of some mutation.  This sort of monkey is much more likely to fall.  We usually think of natural selection developing new valuable chracteristics which help an animal exploit new environments but natural selection has much more to do with keeping and animal which has evolved to exploit a certain environment, unchanged.

Look at another example.  Take the Wolf and the Dog.  Wolves have remained pretty much the same for a few hundred of thousands of years.  They are well adapted to their wild environment and the vast majority of mutations would make them more poorly adapted to their environment.  However look at the dog.  Under the influence of the humans who feed and care for wolves and who select some of these mutations because they are valuable for humans or  just from some misguided fancy, dogs have radiated in a huge number of different forms, which based on their appearance would be considered different species if we didn't know that all can breed with each other.

So let's go back to the jungle monkey.  It is getting crowded in the jungle and some of them have to venture out into the surrounding plains to make a living.  A group evolved that make a pretty good go at plains living.  A tail is of much less value to them. In fact it costs them resources for them to grow this useless appendage. Some of them get a mutation that reduces the ability of the tail to grasp a branch,  In fact some of them have a mutation to the gene that initiates the growth of a tail such that  they are born without one.  Since they don't need the tail now, there is no selective pressure against not having a prehensile tail.  But here is the rub.

The longer they are on the plains, the more mutations they accumulate in the sequence that produces a tail.  The occurs even in monkeys that have the switch at the beginning of the tail sequence shut down.  Now if the switch gene gets another mutation that turns on the tail growing sequence, the tail that the animal will grow will be a sorry imitation of the original magnificent tail.  Hence the very rare occurrence of a wee tail in a newly born human.  (also remnant gills).

Geneticists believe from the evidence, that we shed our tails suddenly rather than over a long period so this points to some gene that started a sequence, being shut off suddenly.

An open letter to Kamala

Hi Kamala

You have to win the coming election in 2024 or we are finished, not only in America but the effects on the rest of the world will be disastrous.  However I believe that you will win with a good majority in both houses.  This letter is predicated on you winning.  

 

I have heard you say that you will support Israel against her enemies and I hope this help is full and unconditional.  All sorts of people and groups are calling for a cease fire and they are either ignorant or willfully against Israel.  I'd like to present a few facts for your consideration.

 

Israel has never initiated a war or terrorist acts against any other nation or group.  She has only retaliated when attacked.

 

The Moslem nations and organizations have, again and again initiated war and terrorist acts against Israel, against each other and even against their own citizens. 

 

But here is the crux of the matter.  Any chance of a lasting peace, in the Middle east  depends on Israel weakening or destroying the terrorists and this includes the Theocrats of Iran who are holding their own people in thrall.  There are two reasons for this.

Firstly, the people of most of the surrounding Moslem countries are being oppressed by these monsters.  They deserve a better form of government and it just may be possible, if the Terrorists are weakened sufficiently, the people can rise up against them and create a better form of government and hence a better life for themselves.

Do you realize that a few decades ago, before she was taken over by religious extremists, Lebanon was called the Paris of the Middle East.  My mother in law was a stewardess with British Airways and she tells us of what a wonderful place it was.

In addition, again, a few decades ago under the Shaw, the Jews and the Persians were great friends.  Once again this was before the Theocrats took over Iran.  

The second reason that lasting peace in the Middle East depends on the destruction of the Terrorists is that all the countries that were about to sign the Abraham Accords are watching.  If they see that Israel has the will and the staying power to deal a decisive blow to the terrorist organizations (which are more of a danger to these Moslem countries than to Israel) they will sign up.  If Israel is forced to sign a cease fire, allowing the Terrorists to rise again, they will not sign up.

Some years ago, I didn't think that it would be possible for Israel to have anything like a normal relationship with any Arab country but look at Egypt and Jordan.  It is possible for Israel and Arab nations to get along.

Kamala, the worst thing you could do is to use the considerable influence of the USA to make Israel sign up to a cease fire before they finish the job.  It will only lead to more and more conflict in the future.  As it is, there is finally a reasonable chance of peace in the Middle East for the two reasons I mentioned above.  However if you don't win the coming election, all bets are off.  I really can't understand the half of your population that would vote for a criminal, sexual predator con man instead of yourself.  You have carried out a great campaign and deserve to be the next president of the USA

Written on the  9th of October.

The call for an end of the war and for a two state solution

 

 Just looking at the war in the Middle East, as a casual observer, as most people do, anyone would call for a cease fire for the poor poor people of Gaza and Lebanon that nasty old Israel has no regard for.   Anyone would ask for a state for the Palestinians so these poor people could live in peace and harmony with their Arab neighbors and with Israel.  Sadly the reality precludes such a solution.  Let me put down some bullet points for you.  You probably don't follow the situation in the Middle East as and anyway it is not your fight and you have other things to think about.  You could read these out to any of your friends that are up in arms about Israel.  Pretty well any of these points can be confirmed by a simple google search.

 

1/  Israel has never, not once, not ever started a fight with any of her neighbors.

 

 

 

2/ Arab countries and their proxies (terrorist organizations) have attacked Israel again and again and again (how many again's would you like)

 

 

3/ The Arabs have been offered a two state solution at least 5 times, the first time in 1948 and have rejected it each time.  Presidents of the USA have wasted great tranches of time working on this only to have it rejected by the Arabs.

 

 

4/ Then finally in 2005, Israel decided to create a two state solution unilaterally.  She pulled out of Gaza  and said to the Arabs, administer yourselves.  Vast amounts of money were poured into Gaza from Arab and Western countries and water and electricity was provided from Israel.  This should have made every citizen of Gaza rich.  I assume you have at least enough knowledge about what she did with this wealth that I don't have to detail what it was used for.

 

 

5/ The terrorists, Namely, Hamas in Gaza, Hisbollah in Lebanon, The Revolutionary Guard in Iran, the Hooties in Yemin, Isis in Iraq, are a far greater problem for the people of each of these countries than they are for Israel.  They have their boots on the necks of their people and treat them abysmally up to and including murder not only if any dissenter but also their families.

 

6/ The same terrorists are a threat to every regime in the Middle East.  The kleptocratic Theocracy of Iran has taken over Iran and wants to take over these neighboring countries.  They are often oil rich nations so they pay the terrorists to leave them alone.  This money comes back to Israel in the form of rockets.

 

 

7/ Many of the Arab countries have realized that Iran under her present regime is a threat to all of them. They are watching this war closely.  If Israel has the staying power and the ability to wipe out the terrorists, they will sign the Abraham Accords.  If she doesn't, they won't.  If they do, countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others will have relationships with Israel similar to the relationships with Egypt and Jordan.  To put it bluntly, the road to peace lied through the destruction of these terrorist organizations.

 

 

8/ There are very positive signs that the Lebanese government (such as it is) and people from all over the Middle East are rising up against the terrorist organizations as they are made weaker and weaker by Israel.

 

 

9/  Of course there is the often made point that the terrorist organizations make it a policy to put their bunkers and weapon stores under UN facilities and hospitals.  It is clear what the results will be.

 

 

10/  And finally, in my opinion (the above points are simple, easily confirmed facts) one would have to be gullible to the point of being a simpleton, to believe any of the mortality figures coming out of Gaza. Do you really think that an organization that promulgated Oct7, would shy away from inflating mortality figures when they depend on the 'useful idiots' of the west to stop Israel from destroying them.

 

 

 If you even listen to the news occasionally, you may well have heard of the Two State Solution. Since the Israelis already have a state and the Palestinians don't, just the phrase 'two state solution' implies that somehow the Israelis have been blocking the Palestinians from getting a sovereign state.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The first time Palestinian Arabs were offered a state was in 1948 when the UN declared the land that was owned by Jews as a state and the most recent was in 2005 when Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza and left it to the administration of the Arabs that remained there.  The only time a two state solution came about, was in 2005 and it was forced on the Palestinians.

It was most disappointing that  in Sept. 2024 that so many nations at the UN called for the cessation of the war in the Middle East.

 

It seems like a great move on the face of it.  After all, who wants a war to continue.  That is until you realize the true nature of the conflict.  All that is necessary to stop the war is for Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis to stop firing rockets at, and carrying on terrorist acts against Israel, return the civilian hostages that they kidnapped, and the war will be over in that hour.  In contrast if Israel stopped her military action against the terrorists, they would continue to carry on just as they have been doing for years, firing rockets at the civilian population of Israel and carrying out various terrorist acts.  The phrase 'from the river to the sea' should be enough  to cause  anyone to realize the truth.  The river is the Jordan, the sea, the Mediterranean.  It is a call for the genocide of the people of Israel.  

 

 

Incidentally, if the Moslems ever succeed in conquering Israel, the Arab state they create would rapidly slide into the same sort of kleptocratic theocracy that is found in all the surrounding states. Women and all minorities in the new state would be persecuted and would loose all their human rights that we, in the west, take as our god given right.

Of most importance, the two state solution has been tried and failed.  Israel did it unilaterally in 2005 when she pulled out of Gaza, lock, stock and barrel and left the Arabs to manage their own affairs.  If the Arabs had used the immense amount of wealth they were given to develop, instead of arming Gaza, it would now be the Beirut of the Middle East (Before Iran and her terrorist proxies took it over, Beirut was known as the Paris, and the pearl, of the Middle East) 

Israel is accused of apartheid, most recently by Ramaposa of South Africa.  Whatever you think about Israel, it certainly does not practice apartheid.  Jews of all persuasions, Christians, Bedouins and, yes, Moslem Arabs all have the same rights in Israel and something over a third of the population of Israel are Arabs.  And all are represented in the parliament (Knesset) in proportion to their population.  For heaven sake, a Moslem judge recently sent a corrupt Jewish member of the government to jail for his crimes.  By contrast, in Arab countries, all minorities, even including fellow Arabs of a different sect are heavily discriminated against.  There are no Jews in Arab countries.  All have been expelled.  Every Arab state has conducted 'Ethnic cleansing'  (and a bit of attempted genocide).  The only state in the Middle East where Arabs have the rights, we in the west consider our birth right, is in Israel.

 

Israel has also been accused of genocide by some equally ignorant folks.  When you look at the increase of the Arab population of Israel from its inception in 1948 to the present??? show me where there is genocide.  Quite to the contrary.  Other countries in the Middle East have tried to commit genocide against the Armenians (Turks 1915-1916), the Kurds (Turks 1930 and Iraq 1988), the Yazides (Iraq 2014) and of course Jews again and again. I could go on but you get the picture.

 

The nations of the world should stop pussy footing around the subject and say it the way it is. Call for the terrorist organizations to cease fire, for Iran to stop financing them and to return the Israeli civilians back home.

  

Incidentally, if you think the ambitions of the religious fanatics who lead the Arab states ends with Israel, think again.  You only have to look at the UK with the Moslems they  have so easily let in.  The immigrants are calling for the establishment of Sharia law which would be the end of all the freedoms the common people have won in the UK over the centuries, with blood sweat and tears.  If the UK doesn't smarten up, she is going to be a very different place in a few years and it won't be pretty.  Other European countries are getting so fed up with their Arab immigrants that they are talking about sending them back to where they came from.

 

Sorting out the American System of government

 With the recent developments (Kamala the Dem's choce), it is virtually guaranteed that the Dems will win the election in Nov 2024 with a good solid majority in all three branches of government*. 

 

* Boy, did I get that one wrong.  What chance did the Dems have against the egregious vote fixing by the GOP and the computer expertise of the boffins working for the tech-bros.  The only hope is that it will be so so bad under tRUMP (remember his comment on ass kissing) that the vote in the mid terms will go so much against him that he will be neutralized and impeached.

The Democrats will then have at worse, 2 years to repair the American way of governance, possibly 4 years but at the very best 8 years.  With the oft demonstrated record of the American people to vote in a way which is diametrically against their own best interests, they should only count on 2 years.  If the Dems don't, sort out the American government during this window of opportunity  the forces of evil, authoritarianism and gross, ugly venality(I don't think I exaggerate) will rise up again and America will take a nose dive into anarchy.  Worse still, would-be-dictators in the rest of the free world will take heart and try it on for size themselves.  The world could sink into a dark age like we haven't experienced for a long time.

 

Note that in July and August, (election is in November) Trump was preaching to the faithful that they should get out and vote this time and they will never have to vote again. Then he came up with an even more traitorous comment.  He said don't bother voting.  I have all the votes I need.  Any idea what he meant by this??   Duhhhh.  To top it all off, on the Rachel Maddow show it was reveled that in some 70 counties, mainly in swing states, MAGA Republicans have been appointed to be the main polling officers and that they will not certify the election results, no matter who wins.  Some of them were already involved in the recent federal voting debacle.

 

It is most important that the government establish the following changes in  their system, in whatever way makes it hardest to reverse. (written into the constitution??)

 

Biden, in his swan song, said we have to perfect our union.  Just saving it would be a good start.

Following is a check list of what needs doing in America.  In no particular order:

1. Polling stations.

There should be massively more polling stations.  Use schools and public meeting halls.  They are everywhere.  No one should have to wait more than 10 minutes to vote and no one should have to travel more then 10 minutes to a polling station.  Best of all is if you can walk to your local polling station.  All  polling stations must have CTV cameras.  Some must be focused on the official who checks the ID of each voter and some outside where people are lining up.  The recordings from these cameras must be forwarded, well labeled, to Washington so if there are any complaints of being hassled during voting, the appropriate record can be checked to substantiate or deny the allegations.  Any interference in the voting system must be met with jail time and public shaming.

2.  Voter registration

A much simpler and effective system of voting registration must be put in place.  There must be a clear criteria of what is needed to register and this must be followed.  Attempts to interfere with the system must be met with jail time. Voter registration locations must be monitored by CTV cameras and if unlawful obstruction are being observed being put in the way of American citizens - jail time.

3. Voting denial

When someone comes to vote, the polling officer often subjects a voter who is believed to be about to vote for the other candidate than the polling officer would prefer, to delay after delay.    They are subjected to endless  questions while letting through people who they think will vote their way.  All polling stations should be covered by CTV cameras and the flash drives from these cameras delivered with the ballots to the central voting station.  Again jail time for obstructionism.

 

4 Time and conditions in line

This is as egregious as the rest of the American voting system.  People have to wait in long lines.  To add insult to injury some states have put in a ruling that no one can bring food or drink to those waiting in line.  What an absolute joke.  Do you have democracy or not. What a mickey mouse system. And there must be portable toilets in any location where toilets are not available.

5. Delegate system

The delegate system is so un-democratic that it boggles the mind that a country that calls itself not just democratic but a beacon of democracy to the world has not already scrapped it.  Real democracy is one-man one-vote and if you want to claim the title of a democracy, the vote of someone in one part of the country should have exactly the same weight as anyone else in the country.  Republicans are of course all for this totally undemocratic system.  It is the only way they win elections.  They haven't won the popular vote in ages.

6. Gerrymandering

This is a hard one to solve.  An objective system that neither party can muck with is needed.  As with all the other changes, it must be put into the strongest form of legislation possible so that it is very hard to break.  It's object should be, in so far as is possible, to give each voter equal influence on the outcome of elections.  It would take people far cleverer than me to work out such a system.  Good luck on this one

7. Money in politics

While sorting out Gerrymandering will be a technical nightmare, sorting out the influence of money in the American political system will be a political nightmare.  Politicians get funding for their election campaigns from donors, rich and not so rich, some politicians are  made rich while in office (certainly not from their salaries) and some politicians are given sweet jobs when they leave office.  Then you have the complete corruption of some of the judges of the Supreme Court by rich billionaires.  Trying to sell to the American public that any financing of a public official must come from the exchequer will demand a superb job of public education.  The public think they are getting some sort of benefit by someone else financing the elections of their politicians but they are loosing in so many ways.

 

8. Vote certification

Clearly there is a need to be able to address any form of corruption in an election.  Else why have an official who certifies the votes in each district. But certification must not be  held hostage by such an official.  Some set procedure must be put in place when the district voting officer doesn't want to certify the results of voting in his district.  It will be pretty complex to work out a fair, fool-proof system.  For instance, the officer could be compelled to fill out a standard form which clearly states his or her reasons for not certifying.  It must be filled out and sent by messenger to the supreme court chief  justice on the day after voting is closed.  The head supreme court judge must convene the same day, all the members of the court.  They must hand down a ruling the same day.  I'm sure it will be more complicated than the above but something must be done so that the results of voting are not delayed. 

 

9.  Proof of citizenship

The Democrats must promote citizens having a proof of citizenship plastic card, the same size as a credit card, with a picture of the person.  They must then pass a federal law that this card is sufficient proof of citizenship to allow the holder to vote in any election.  The card should be renewed, say, every 10 years in order to have an up-to-date photograph.  Responsible parents should make sure that their children have this card and there must be an easy rout to taking an original birth certificate and getting one of these cards.  A good option would be to use the location where you go to get and renew your driver's license.  They have the facilities to issue plastic drivers licenses and a wee tweak would allow them to issue birth certificate cards. 

I'm sure that people in the know will find other measures that must be taken to make the American system fair.  If it isn't done, at some time in the future, Trumpism under some other would be dictator will arise and there may not arise someone who can save America from going down the googler. 

The criminal Supreme Court

Taking bribes and making laws that reward the bribers is peanuts compared to what the Supreme Court is up to now.  The moves the SC is attempting now will destroy what little democracy still remains in the USA and it ain't much.  America has:

*the delegate system, 

*denial of voting registration, 

*denial of voting even when you are registered, 

*placement of polling stations to make it as difficult as possible for some folks to vote, 

*a lack of polling stations, 

*closing polling stations when there are people who have been waiting all day to vote,

*and a gerrymandering system that would embarrass an 18th century lord in a rotten English borough.

What little democracy remains in America is under threat by the Supreme court.

Anyone who is not part of the Trump cult realizes that to get him elected in November would put an end to the American way of life.  That is what the Supreme court is about to try and the fools don't realize that if successful they become   Trump's bitches.  One false move and he will come after them too. 

 

The decision by the supreme court to examine whether or not a president can be held criminally liable for 'Official acts'  carried out while in office, is equivalent to Trump paying off a porn star. Both are designed to hide information from the American public that could well affect the way they vote and that is the least of it.

 

 The members of the supreme court should be charged with exactly what Trump was charged with when he paid off Stormy to hide the fact that he consorted with a prostitute, and they should also be charged with  anti-democratic, anti-constitutional and anti-American activity.

The wording of the question that they are prepared to examine, the timing of when they are going to start deliberations, the verdict they will deliver and, most importantly, when they will deliver the verdict are all criminal activities.

The Question they are prepared to examine is whether or not a president can be held criminally liable for 'official acts' carried out while in office. It is a trite question and just kicks the can down the road. Of course a president can not be held criminally liable for 'official acts'. The question then becomes what are official
acts. Is falsifying business records, not paying his taxes, paying off a porn star, threatening witnesses, fraud, giving government secrets to a foreign country, fomenting insurrection and so forth - are they official acts. Of course not, so they are not affected by the question.

And it gets far worse. I will make a prediction. The Supreme court already knows exactly what they will find and when they will announce their verdict. That is why they phrased the question as they did. 

They will release their findings a short time before the coming election in November and they will, of course, find that a president can not be held criminally liable for "Official acts". They will phrase their finding in all sorts of confusing legalese gobbledygook.   But Trump supporters will crow from the roof tops "Trump Innocent" "Trump Exonerated" when the SC finding says nothing of the kind.  This will affect the way many people vote and especially amongst the large, politically ignorant portion of the American public that might not vote for a convicted felon.

The Supreme court is corrupt far beyond anything exposed to date. Destroying the little democracy that still remains in America is far more serious than them accepting bribes from rich donors and making laws to enrich them.

Besides being fiscally corrupt, the four Republican members of the Supreme Court are anti-democratic, anti-constitution and anti-American and should be treated as such.