The Old Blog in the Desert

It’s one of those rare days where you don’t think anything’s gonna happen, and then it does. I had an old red hat on and was walking along when this guy rushes from out of nowhere, full of piss and vinegar, slapping the damned thing off my head.

“Racist!” he yells, or maybe it was “fascist.” Hell, if I know. I know I heard “Trump.” Either way, it’s not something I have the patience for.

The hat goes tumbling into the street, rolling with the wind and sand like it has someplace to be. I start to go after the damned thing, but it gets run over.

And here, this bastard, the one who smacked it off me, screaming like a banshee, waving his fists, calling me names for wearing a hat. I tell the son-of-a-bitch to back off and take his tantrum elsewhere, but he comes at me again, all fists and flailing kicks.

So, I push him away hard enough to buy a second, losing my balance and nearly falling, where my hand finds a rock from some sad little garden display outside this storefront. I pick it up and strike him. Once, twice. He finally stumbles back.

But the Asshole’s not done. The prick starts to rise like some damn fool animal still looking for a fight. I see it coming, so I kick him–hard in his effing face. And that does it. He goes limp, just sprawled out on the sidewalk.

Some lady comes out of the business wide-eyed. “Are you okay?” she asks, and I say I’m fine. She glances at the guy lying there, then at me. “I’m sorry about your hat.”

I look back, my red hat still out in the street, flat and done for. It ain’t worth saving. The cops show up, the usual questions, the rigamarole. They take a report, and an officer grabs the red hat reading Marine Corps from the gutter, bagging it in plastic like its evidence.

In the end, maybe the DA’ll throw something at him, then again, perhaps not, ’cause, as one of the officers stated, “He might be high hallucinating.” The other adds, “Maybe he thought it was MAGA hat,” like it’s an excuse for violent behavior.

I shake my head in disgust, knowing some days you can fucking stand there, minding your business, and the world will still come for you, and help ain’t coming.

While walking last Saturday morning, enjoying the little things—birds singing, the sun shining, the faint smell of fresh coffee—I spotted a homeless man sitting on the curb. He looked a bit weathered but had a smile that could light up a room. I reached into my pocket and fished out some loose change and several one-dollar bills, giving it to him.

“Thank you,” he said, his voice rich with gratitude.

Curiosity got the better of me, so I asked, “How did you get to this point?”

He looked up at me, his eyes twinkling, and said, “Showing love.”

I was intrigued. “What do you mean?”

He took a moment as if pulling together the threads of his life. “I went through my whole life making sure everyone else was okay. No matter what was going right or wrong for me, I did for others. I never wanted to see anyone go without.”

I nodded, absorbing his words, before asking, “Do you regret it?”

“No,” he replied without hesitation. “But it hurt me to my soul that the very people I gave the shirt off my back to wouldn’t give me a sleeve off that same shirt when I was in need.”

His honesty struck me like a bell tolling.

Then he added something that lingered in the air like the last note of a beautiful song. “It’s better to build your own house and invite someone in for shelter than to hand them your bricks while you’re still building yours. Because if you keep giving away the bricks from the house you’re supposed to be building for yourself, one day you’ll turn around and find that the spot you planned for your house is just an empty lot. And then you’ll be the one looking for bricks.”

His words hung there between us, a gentle reminder wrapped in wisdom. I thanked him for his perspective, and as I walked away, I couldn’t shake the feeling that I’d just received a precious gift.

Supporters of abortion-rights ballot measures in Nevada and elsewhere have significantly outraised their opponents, accumulating nearly eight times as much funding, according to data compiled by Open Secrets and analyzed by the Associated Press.

With just weeks remaining before the Tuesday, November 5 elections, the groups have raised nearly $108 million compared to $14 million collected by anti-abortion advocates. However, the financial advantage may not be enough to secure victory in battleground states like Florida, where the campaign has become the most expensive of the nine state-level efforts to enshrine abortion rights into constitutions.

While abortion rights supporters hold a financial lead, Kelly Hall, executive director of The Fairness Project, cautioned that late-stage spending by opponents could still influence the outcomes. Hall pointed out that the large fundraising gap provides no guarantee against last-minute financial pushes by those against the amendments.

The push for these amendments comes after the Supreme Court 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. While there are no exact financial numbers for the state, abortion is legal in the State of Nevada, governed by NRS 442.250.

Any person in Nevada who is pregnant has the legal right to choose to have an abortion when performed by a licensed physician within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy and after 24 weeks, where the physician has reasonable cause to believe an abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant person. You do not have to be a Nevada resident to receive abortion care in the state.

Expanding on NRS 442.250, in 2019, then-Governor Sisolak signed into law Senate Bill 179, the Trust Nevada Women Act, which decriminalized medication abortions and removed antiquated informed consent laws and other barriers to accessing reproductive health care.

The financial muscle has translated into more extensive advertising campaigns in Missouri and Montana.

In Missouri, abortion-rights groups raised over $5 million and spent $11 million on ads supporting their measure to overturn the state ban on abortion. Meanwhile, opponents spent less than $50,000. The same trend is evident in Montana, where pro-amendment groups lead in ad spending by a similar margin.

In Nebraska, while abortion-rights groups have raised more money, opponents have spent slightly more on advertisements. Notably, Nevada and South Dakota have yet to release their contribution totals for this election cycle, which could shift the dynamics in these states.

Supporters of these ballot measures face additional costs that their opponents do not, particularly the expenses tied to signature drives and legal battles to get the questions on the ballots. In many instances, pro-abortion rights groups have had to spend on legal fees defending their initiatives, as anti-abortion groups, like the Thomas More Society, have filed legal challenges without being required to disclose their campaign finances.

Florida stands out as a particularly challenging battleground. In addition to requiring 60 percent voter approval for the measure to pass—higher than in most other states—the Florida Republican Party has been actively opposing the amendment.

While abortion-rights groups have raised over $60 million, the state GOP has spent $9.6 million on ads urging voters to reject the measure. Although the spending by the two sides seems lopsided, ad-tracking data suggests that anti-abortion ads have reached a wider audience, putting opponents in a strong position.

Adding to this, Florida has used taxpayer money to maintain a website warning that the abortion-rights amendment “threatens women’s safety.” Despite lawsuits from abortion-rights advocates to take down the site, a judge recently ruled that the state could continue using it, delivering a setback for the pro-amendment side.

On a national scale, the abortion-rights side has far more donors, with more than 94,000 compared to fewer than 2,600 for their opponents. Contributors include Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, and The Fairness Project.

The largest individual donor is Marsha Zlatin Laufer, who has given over $9 million to support the Florida measure. Conversely, anti-abortion efforts have seen contributions from figures like U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts and his mother, Marlene Ricketts, each donating at least $1 million in Nebraska.

In Nebraska, the ballot measures have resulted in nearly even fundraising on both sides, with between $3 million and $4 million raised for each campaign. The state has two competing measures—one would expand access to abortion, while the other would enshrine the current ban on most abortions after 12 weeks.

General Motors has pledged $625 million in cash and credit toward constructing a lithium mine in Nevada’s Humboldt County, marking a significant financial boost for the project. The Thacker Pass mine, operated by Canadian company Lithium Americas, is set to increase the country’s stock of lithium batteries essential for electric vehicles (EVs).

The Bureau of Land Management approved the project in January 2021, despite opposition from local tribes who lost a legal battle to block the mine on the site of an 1865 Native American massacre about 25 miles from the Nevada-Oregon border.

The investment represents a crucial step for GM, which seeks to secure critical materials for its EV supply chain.

Jeff Morrison, GM’s senior vice president for global purchasing and supply chain, stated, “We’re pleased with the significant progress Lithium Americas is making to help GM achieve our goal to develop a resilient EV material supply chain. Sourcing critical EV raw materials, like lithium, from suppliers in the U.S., is expected to help us manage battery cell costs, deliver value to our customers and investors, and create jobs.”

GM will own a 38 percent stake in the Thacker Pass project as part of the deal. The investment has already driven up the stock value of Lithium Americas, which benefits from increasing interest in domestic lithium production.

Out of GM’s $625 million pledge, $430 million will be a direct cash payment to support phase one of construction, while the remaining funds will serve as credit and collateral. This backing is expected to help Lithium Americas secure a $2.3 billion conditional loan from the U.S. Department of Energy, with final approval expected in the coming weeks.

Once operational in 2028, Thacker Pass will join a small but growing list of functional lithium mines in the U.S., including Albemarle’s Silver Peak mine in Esmeralda County. The project promises to create jobs and strengthen the domestic EV market, but it also faces criticism from local Native communities who see the site as sacred ground.

After years of expanding voter access, Nevada may soon shift toward imposing new restrictions in its election process.

In the upcoming general election, voters will weigh in on Question 7, a proposal that would amend the state’s constitution to require voters to present government-issued photo identification before voting in person. Additionally, mail-in voters must provide the last four digits of their Nevada driver’s license number, Social Security number, or a voter ID number issued by their county clerk.

Because Question 7 originated from a signature petition, it will require approval from voters twice—first in this election and again in 2026, for final confirmation.

Supporters of the measure argue that it is a necessary reform to protect the integrity of the state’s elections and restore public trust in the democratic process. David Gibbs, chair of Repair the Vote Nevada, which sponsored the ballot initiative, calls it “common sense election reform.” He added, “You need an ID to do almost anything… People have them.”

Opponents, however, criticize the measure as a “solution in search of a problem,” pointing to studies that show minimal voter impersonation in the U.S. They argue the new rules could disenfranchise voters who lack proper identification and complicate the mail-in voting process.

“Voting is a right we all have to choose our leaders,” reads the official opposition argument. “We shouldn’t stop anyone who can vote from voting.”

Under Question 7, eight government-issued IDs would be accepted, including driver’s licenses, passports, and tribal photo IDs. Voters over 70 would be exempt from expiration date restrictions on their identification. However, the proposal does not specify how to handle voters without a proper ID.

Nevada’s debate on voter ID laws reflects a broader national trend. Since 2020, several states, including Nebraska and Missouri, have adopted voter ID requirements, while others, like Arizona, have rejected similar measures. Currently, 36 states have laws requiring or requesting identification at the polls, while Nevada is among 14 that do not.

The financial backing behind Question 7 has drawn attention. Repair the Vote Nevada raised over $307,000 from donors, including a nonprofit in Virginia and Nevada-based businesses. The Nevada Voter ID Coalition, which supports the proposal, received $1.4 million from the Las Vegas Sands Corp through a political action committee aligned with Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Mississippi’s current mail-in ballot law, which allows counting ballots postmarked by Election Day received within five days after the polls have closed.

The decision, affecting Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, aligns with the Republican argument that federal election laws mandate ballot receipt by Election Day. The court’s decision is currently on hold as it heads back to a lower court, with further challenges likely leading to a U.S. Supreme Court appeal.

Republican representatives argue that the integrity of Election Day is compromised by extended counting periods, which disproportionately favor Democrats, citing that more Democrats vote by mail. The lawsuit is one of many initiated by the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign to bar late-arriving ballots nationwide.

Opponents, including the League of Women Voters, argue that such restrictions disenfranchise military personnel, disabled voters, and others who rely on mail-in options. Legal experts such as Joyce Vance emphasize that cutting off counting on Election Day would ignore the modern demands of early and absentee voting.

With Nevada among the states offering grace periods, the implications of this case could impact its mail-in ballot policies. Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar has not commented, as Nevada’s laws allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive by 5 p.m. on the fourth day after.

Nevadans are fucked now that the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that mail-in ballots without a discernible postmark can be counted by clerks and registrar of voters three days after Election Day.

The interpretation stems from a statute enacted during the pandemic by the Democratic majority, allowing ballots to be received up to the fourth day after Election Day but requiring a postmark on or before Election Day. However, even if a postmark can’t be verified, ballots arriving within the first three days post-election will be deemed timely and counted.

The court’s ruling hinged on an interpretation of the statute that both plaintiffs and some legal experts have found controversial. In its decision, the court dismissed the case due to the plaintiffs’ lack of “standing,” a procedural hurdle that has posed a significant barrier to election-related lawsuits in Nevada.

An anonymous election lawyer remarked, “The standing requirement has prevented most Nevada election laws from being challenged on their merits, giving state judges broad discretion that often aligns with legislative intent.”

Beyond standing, the court interpreted the statute’s ambiguous language to include ballots with missing postmarks. The ruling refers to 2021 legislative discussions where Democratic Assembly leader Jason Frierson clarified that ballots arriving without postmarks or with unreadable marks were to be counted if received in the designated period.

In his dissent, Justice Douglas Herndon argued that the statute requires a postmark, stating, “A postmark cannot be indeterminable unless there is a postmark to begin with.”

Herndon emphasized that any deviation from requiring a postmark dilutes the statute’s text, contradicting principles of statutory construction. Justice Kristina Pickering, concurring in part, argued that the statute’s plain text requires a postmark for any late-arriving ballot but ultimately concurred with the court’s decision due to proximity to Election Day.

Vet Voice Foundation, a defendant in the case, welcomed the decision.

CEO Janessa Goldbeck stated, “Today’s decision is a resounding victory for troops and veterans voting by mail, honoring their service by upholding accessible election standards.”

It is unclear whether the plaintiffs will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

One crisp autumn day, Jack decided to tidy the home by dusting his wife’s fall decorations, including a pumpkin, affectionately dubbed “The Head” from Sleepy Hollow. He accidentally knocked it off the side table, causing it to crash to the floor and shatter on one side.

Determined to fix his mistake, he grabbed the Crazy Glue and got to work. To his horror, the pumpkin began to melt.

Jack watched in shock as the beloved decoration transformed into a gooey, sticky mess. The glue reacted to the acetate, creating a scene straight out of “The Wizard of Oz” meets “The Thing.”

Trying to salvage the situation, Jack noticed his hands had become a casualty. The glue had adhered to his skin, creating a layer that seemed impossible to remove.

His hands felt like they were morphing into something entirely non-human. Panic set in as he realized his skin was peeling, and he feared the worst– had he started a monstrous transformation?

With his wife taking the pumpkin massacre in stride, Jack spent the next few hours battling the sticky situation. Armed with patience and a bit of fortune, he freed his hands from the adhesive disaster.

Determined to salvage the pumpkin fiasco, a friend suggested turning it into a display with gnomes, so he went to the store and bought a family of them. Returning home, he imagined the scene: a happy, cozy family bringing life to the now mangled pumpkin.

But as he opened his front door, Jack froze, finding the pumpkin occupied. His old, small green army soldiers—relics from his childhood—had taken over, transforming the pumpkin into a military outpost.

The gnome family–newly purchased and bewildered–became relegated to the humble paper bag they came with.  Homeless and out of place, their serene lives turned topsy-turvy by a militant green army.

His wife walked in on the scene, shaking her head, “Only you could turn a glue disaster into a miniature commentary on society.”

A study by NumbersUSA has confirmed that federal immigration policies, both legal and illegal, are the leading drivers of urban sprawl in the U.S., with Nevada ranking at the forefront of this issue.

The study, which analyzed federal data from 1982 to 2017, found Nevada to be the fastest-growing state in terms of population and sprawl, leading to significant losses of natural habitat and farmland, all while being the driest state in the nation. During the 35-year study period, Nevada experienced a 153 percent rate of sprawl, expanding by nearly 500 square miles or more than double the U.S. average of 61 percent.

The state population growth during this time was 237 percent, nearly twice as fast as the next highest state and six times the national growth rate of 40 percent. The NumbersUSA report attributes 39 percent of the population growth to post-1982 immigration policies.

Over 800,000 residents in 2017 were either foreign-born or the descendants of those who immigrated after 1982. According to the study, this population would not have been in Nevada but for federal immigration policies, which accounted for nearly 90 percent of national population growth.

Meanwhile, urban sprawl in Nevada has consumed farmland and wildlife habitats, raising concerns among residents. A NumbersUSA poll revealed that Nevadans strongly oppose the transformation of natural habitats for urban development. There is also opposition to local efforts by cities like Reno to focus on vertical development rather than expanding outward, a strategy designed to accommodate the growing demand for housing.

The study also suggests that the ongoing housing crisis is made worse by rapid population growth driven by immigration. According to the report, Nevadans favor reducing or limiting immigration to reduce the strain on housing, land, and resources.

The study noted that state and local governments have increased spending on education, healthcare, and housing more than they have gained in revenue due to immigration. According to reports by FAIR US, illegal immigration alone cost Nevada taxpayers $2 billion in 2023, or nearly $2,000 per household annually.

Leon Kolankiewicz, a director at NumbersUSA and the lead author of several studies on urban sprawl, commented on the unsustainable nature of exponential population growth,

“Our biggest misunderstanding is not being able to understand exponential growth because it can come on so suddenly… anything that grows exponentially is unsustainable in nature.”

As Nevada continues to face challenges related to population growth, resource sustainability, and urban development, the NumbersUSA report suggests a reevaluation of federal immigration policies as a solution to protecting natural and economic resources.

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee (RNC), the Nevada GOP, and Nevada voter Scott Johnston, who alleged that voter rolls in the state were inaccurate and violated federal law. The plaintiffs claimed that several counties had more registered voters than eligible adult citizens, heightening the risk of voter fraud ahead of the November election.

In a ruling issued on Friday, October 18, U.S. District Judge Cristina Silva sided with Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and county election officials, dismissing the case due to lack of standing. Silva found that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a concrete injury under Article III of the Constitution, which requires an actual or imminent injury for federal courts to intervene.

“To have standing under Article III, a plaintiff must allege an injury in fact that is ‘concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical,’” Silva wrote. She concluded that the plaintiffs’ concerns about vote dilution were “generalized and speculative.”

The lawsuit, filed in March 2024 and amended in July, argued that Nevada had violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by failing to maintain accurate voter rolls. It highlighted voter registration rates in counties like Douglas (106 percent) and Storey (115 percent) that allegedly exceeded the number of eligible adults, fueling concerns about potential voter fraud under Nevada’s universal mail-in voting system.

The plaintiffs sought a court order requiring stricter voter roll maintenance before the 2024 election. However, the state defended its practices, describing Nevada as a leader in list maintenance, and argued that the lawsuit used misleading data.

Silva’s ruling dismissed the claims with prejudice for Scott Johnston, meaning he cannot refile. However, the RNC and Nevada GOP still have the option to file an amended complaint by Friday, November 1, to address legal standing issues.