More Tragedies

I know it has been a while since I written a blog post. I decided that I would not use this blog to just "vent my spleen" or grouse about the current state of politics, climate change, the environment, social justice, and the other issues I have attempted to address. I had originally intended this blog as a means to propose changes, either for individuals or groups to consider for improving or resolving a given situation.

The recent tragedies in El Paso, Texas and in nearby Dayton, Ohio are a painful reminder of just how dangerous life has become in the United States. There have been over 200 mass shootings in our country in 2019 thus far. Unfortunately, most experts anticipate more to follow.

As painful as these tragic losses are, the certainty that almost nothing will change to try to prevent future tragedies from occurring is almost as painful. Unfortunately, nothing except the usual rhetoric will likely emerge from Washington D.C., politicians have already made their "thoughts and prayers" known, and a weary population begins to accept mass shootings as the "new normal."

However, as I mentioned, I hate using this blog just to repeat my own personal talking points. I don't write these posts to get the majority of my friends nodding their heads in agreement and a few of them skeptical or even hostile. On a previous Facebook post where I espoused stricter gun control, I did have an interesting and thought provoking discussion with a friend who disagreed with me. I also had a few "friends" tell me to "go play in traffic" and to "just shut the f&%k up." Believe it or not, I am not trying to renew this debate. I am asking if another potential course of action is feasible.

During the ongoing opioid epidemic, many lawsuits were filed against Big Pharma. The article Are Pharmaceutical Companies to Blame for the Opioid Epidemic? - The Atlantic, Jun 2, 2017 describes just one of many examples of lawsuits filed against Big Pharma. "Some attorneys general and advocates are now asking in court whether the pharmaceutical companies who marketed the drugs and downplayed their addictive nature can be held legally responsible for—and made to pay for the consequences of—the crisis." (The Atlantic, 6/2/17).

Can similar lawsuits be filed against the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers? They too have profited by selling a potentially deadly product to an extent that many believe to be extreme. 

I am not pretending I know the answer (I don't) and I suspect Second Amendment advocates will want chime in (if any of them actually read my blog). However, I offer the following caveats: 1) I am NOT advocating taking any individual's gun(s) away by simply asking this question; 2) I don't believe that the Second Amendment gives gun owners immunity from Government regulation - Just like free speech (a First Amendment right) is and continues to be regulated (hate speech prohibition, yelling fire in a crowded theater...) the right to "keep and bear" fire arms CAN be regulated. If you actually read the second amendment, the word REGULATED does appear, though the word OWN does not; & 3) I acknowledge the cost of such a lawsuit would be astronomical. 

Perhaps, rather than debate this issue on Facebook (which would be fairly useless) we should ask one of the State Attorneys General who filed a lawsuit against Big Pharma: "... Ohio’s Attorney General Mike DeWine filed a lawsuit Wednesday against a handful of pharmaceutical companies..." (The Atlantic, 6/2/17). So, Governor DeWine, what do you think?

I do understand that these are frightening and polarizing times. We are all losing many of the very rights the gun lobby and the NRA claim to be protecting. However, most Americans agree that something must to be done to help prevent these senseless acts of domestic terrorism. Before anybody starts arguing for or against another individual's views or opinions, I suggest we take the words of big game hunter and gun owner Theodore Roosevelt to heart.

If we wait until the perfect solution prevents itself, we will continue doing the worst thing -- nothing.

-- Food for thought.

Living More Sustainably

Late last month, I had the honor of representing Friends of the Lower Olentangy Watershed (FLOW) as a guest speaker at the Ohio State Undergraduate Student Government (USG) forum titled “How to Live Sustainably.” I thought I would take a few moments to post some of the presentation topics.

For those of you unfamiliar with the concept of sustainability, I must warn you that a simple Google search will result in many different definitions, interpretations, and misinterpretations of this concept. To keep things simple, I will use the description from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency web page (as of 11/1/2017):

“Sustainability is based on a simple principle: Everything that we need for our survival and well-being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural environment. To pursue sustainability is to create and maintain the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony to support present and future generations.” USEPA Sustainability Web Page

Another way to look at sustainability is shown in the attached figure. This figure can be (and perhaps should be) applied to any decision that is made. Essentially, whenever you make a decision, whether it is a personal decision (making a purchase, deciding on dinner…) or a business or professional decision, that decision can be considered sustainable if it balances economic, social AND environmental needs. Unfortunately, many of our recent governmental, industrial, and personal decisions are (and have been) based almost exclusively on economic needs. Social needs, if considered at all, seem to be focused on the needs of only a few members of society, and environmental needs often don’t seem to be considered at all.

I was asked, as a board member of FLOW, to address how students can live sustainably by volunteering with grassroots and other types of community organizations. Explaining that sustainability is about more than one thing I provided a top 10 list of things students (and everyone) can do to live more sustainability. Here is the Top 10 List, with minimal modification. These actions are intended to cost little or nothing and some can actually save money. This list should not be considered all encompassing as there are many sustainable other actions or activities you can do that are not listed:

1. Learn what you don’t know… about yourself - In the world of sustainability, you can't manage what you don't measure. Our individual impacts on the planet are no exception! There are numerous online calculators that can help you determine your carbon and water footprints. A few exampled include:

• Carbon Footprint Calculator from the Nature Conservancy
• Ecological Footprint Calculator from the Footprint Network
• Water Footprint Calculator from GRACE Communications

2. Learn how your community is addressing sustainability – Many communities have developed sustainability initiatives, and most have them published and available for download. If they don’t, contact your community and ask them why. I first got involved with developing community goals for the City of Kent (yes, believe it or not), Ohio in 1996.

3. Connect with your community leaders and/or community organizations. One of the best ways to understand what your community is doing, or not doing, to work toward their sustainability goals is to get involved and ask. Remember, elected leaders are supposed to work for YOU!

4. Read the news and be an educated decision maker - Stay on top of current events: Local, State, National AND International by choosing “less” biased sources of news and using multiple sources. Finally, VOTE in every election (special, primary, AND general elections). I have included a figure I have used before as a guide for selecting what news to follow and what to avoid.

5. Seek healthy, fresh, and local sources for food in your community – Whether you are dining out or shopping for groceries, sustainable food choices are not hard to find. To live more sustainably, you should consider eating “lower on the food chain” and with minimal processed foods. Livestock (especially cattle) requires vast amounts of water, produce approximately 1/3 of all greenhouse gases, and result in the clear-cutting of rain forests for the production of animal feed.

6. Be a smart consumer – Find alternatives to avoid single use products and anything “disposable.” Smart consumers also purchase products that are designed to last, since similar amounts of water, electricity, and labor are required to produce cheaper items that will wear out sooner and need to be replaced. Shopping in consignment or thrift stores can also be a sustainable option.

7. Learn to navigate your community without a car – Although this can be a challenge in some communities, consider using local bus services, a bicycle, or walking when possible. When you do drive, try to take care of several errands in a single trip to save gasoline.

8. Save water where you can – This should go without saying, and I have certainly addressed this many times before. Simple changes, such as taking shorter showers, not leaving the water running while shaving, brushing your teeth, or working in the kitchen, waiting for full loads before using clothes and dish washers, and adopting smart lawn and garden watering practices can save hundreds or even thousands of gallons of water per year.

9. Save energy every day. The simple graphic can show you a few ways to save electricity, most of which will save you money on your electric bill.

10. Volunteer! – Join a local organization, such as FLOW, that focuses on sustaining our natural resources. Activities such as combating invasive species, restoring wetlands, picking up litter in our parks and along our water ways, and planting native trees, rain gardens, and pollinator gardens are vital for sustaining our natural habitat.

Actually, at this point I must confess that I lied earlier. Sustainability is actually about one thing. It is about that one thing that you do in your life to make your own life more sustainable. Make just one change in your life and stick with it. Once you focus on it long enough it will become a personal habit that you will do without thinking. Once that happens, make just one change in your life and…

-          Food for Thought

“Dilemma of the American Constitution”

In the early 1960s, America was introduced to a new brand of British satirical comedy. Beyond the Fringe was a comedy stage revue written and performed by Alan Bennett (The Madness of King George, The Lady in the Van), Peter Cook (The Princess Bride), Dudley Moore (10, Arthur), and Jonathan Miller (The Body in Question). These four writer/performers have been credited with introducing Americans to a new brand of off-the-wall British comedy, opening doors to the stylings of Monty Python’s Flying Circus, The Secret Policeman’s Ball, and Faulty Towers, among many others.

So, why bring up an obscure British comedy? No, I am not an Anglophile. Okay, I enjoy a frequent British ale. And good Scotch… And gin… And I love fish and chips… And bangers and mash… And I drive an old Morris Minor… So maybe I am an Anglophile, but that isn’t the ONLY reason I mention it. There is an exchange during one particular routine that seems to address some of our current political troubles:

Moore: “Of Course you know the Americans must be frightfully jealous of our Royal Family.”
*mumbled agreement*
Bennett: “Except there is a sense where the President is the Queen and Prime Minister all rolled into one.”
Moore: “One what?”
Bennett: “Exactly, that’s the whole dilemma of the American Constitution.”

Perhaps, after over 50 years, we are finally realizing the dilemma Alan Bennett mentioned. Are we now finding a new answer to the question Moore asked? I believe we have.

For years, many Americans have replaced the adoration of the British royal family with worship of beauty and wealth. In addition to Trump, many Americans have followed the exploits of Paris Hilton, the Kardashian family, and numerous A and B list Hollywood celebrities. This adoration of the rich and beautiful has permeated our nation’s elections.

Since the televised debates between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon (many attribute Kennedy’s win, in part, to his more polished appearance over that of Nixon), there has been a growing emphasis on the appearance of our Presidential candidates rather than their policies or integrity. After all, Trump is the second President who can attribute his election, in part, to his past celebrity.

So does this mean the worship of wealth has translated into the creation of an American monarchy? If this is not the case, then someone should have mentioned to our current President that he is, in fact, not a king. After just over 100 days serving as the President, Donald Trump has done his best to establish himself as a new American Monarch. Consider some of his actions since taking the oath of office:

• Executive Orders are presented with the fanfare of royal proclamations.
• The Presidential admiration of dictators such as Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-un.
• His staff and publicists have been contradicted and have contradicted themselves during numerous interviews--often within the same sentence.
• His first National Security Advisor was forced to resign, after serving less than a month, due to allegations of impropriety.
• The presentation of “alternate facts”.
• His daughter, (Princess) Ivanka, has an office in the West Wing and is a “special advisor.”
• He has fired high-ranking government employees for simply not agreeing with him or swearing loyalty to him, such as former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former F.B.I. Director James Comey. (I wonder if--in private--he yelled “off with their heads.”)
• The American tax payers are paying for the security of  Trump Tower to protect (Queen) Melania and (Prince) Barron who, at the time of this writing, have yet to move into the White House.
• His son-in-law, (Prince) Jared, has been assigned multiple tasks varying from making government run more efficiently to bringing peace to the Middle-east.  Prior to the Trump Presidency, Jared Kushner’s largest business deal, apart from being born into wealth, was the purchase of an office building for a record $1.8 billion that lost money and value following the 2008 crash.
• Oh, and did I mention alleged collusion with Russia?

Can anyone imagine a previous administration getting away with such action? In less than a year? Barack Obama had his very citizenship questioned by people who were unaware that Hawaii is a state. George H. W. Bush was criticized when he fell ill during a Japanese state dinner. Nixon resigned in disgrace because he attempted to cover-up the Watergate break in. Bill Clinton got caught lying about having sex with an intern and was impeached!

These offences seem to pale in comparison to the ongoing Constitutional clusterf*ck that is the Trump Administration. Americans are confronted every week, every day with at best, dishonesty, and at worst, treasonous behavior. Yet with all of this insanity, Trump still has an approval rating hovering around 36 percent. These Trump supporters, mainly conservatives, would have never supported a President with ties to Russia, an enemy. Is this simply "team loyalty," turning politics into a grotesque spectator sport? Or, perhaps, these Trump supporters are not supporting their President. Maybe they are devoted to their monarch, to someone they see as, dare I say it, as their heaven-sent King.

-- Food For Thought

A Geographic Election

Following the election and throughout the transition, many conservative and Republican voters, still basking in the victorious  GOP sweep, were patting themselves on the back and complimenting the Founding Fathers. After all, it was their "Genius" to create a system that prevented the dense population centers from "dictating" government policy to the rural regions. Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats were, once again, bemoaning the "obsolete" electoral college that, once again, allowed a Republican to win the White House without the popular vote (twice in the last 5 Presidential elections). Either way you look at it, you cannot deny that Donald Trump won the Presidency not by winning the most votes, but by a geographic anomaly.

United States Constitutional Convention - 1787

I do not disagree that the Founding Fathers were brilliant in the creation of this new nation and the revised Federal government in 1787. The original Federal Government, based on the Articles of Confederation, was ineffective. However, do not extend their genius to imply that they ever imagined their small republic would grow to 50 states. Nor could the Founding Fathers have ever imagined the financial strength and dominance of our current 2 political parties. Actually, the greatest measure of their genius can be found in Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. This Article describes the process to amend the Constitution.

It would require a Constitution Amendment or another Constitutional Convention to eliminate the Electoral College. Short of that, there are several measures we can do as a nation to ensure that ALL elections are fair and ensure that each person's vote is counted equally. Most have been discussed in the news and social media, and many have one or more organizations dedicated to fighting and soliciting for (or against) these issues. These issues include:

• eliminate gerrymandering;
• reinstate election financial reform;
• mandate Congressional term limits;
• eliminate the winner-take-all approach to awarding State delegates;
• mandate a minimum number of voting precincts in densely populated areas;
• eliminate intrusive voter ID laws to address non-existent voter fraud; and 
• make Election Day a Federal holiday.

In most cases I concur with making these changes, in others I am a bit more skeptical. Term limits would not be required if people would just vote and if some of these other measures became law. Furthermore, term limits would result in a revolving door of lobbyists and legislators. You would need to use a score card to tell current legislators from the former ones who would lobby for a living. I have even heard of proposing mandatory voting (which should not be required in a "free" society). However, nobody has mentioned one way to make our elections more fair: overturning of the Apportionment Act of 1911.

Apportionment Act of 1911

The number of each state's electoral college delegates is established by combining the number of the state's U.S. Representatives and adding 2 (for each Senator) as established in the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2). While it is clear that each state has 2 U.S. Senators, the number of elected Representatives was first established in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution which reads as follows:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

It is clear from this clause that much of it is no longer valid. For example, the famous "three fifths compromise" was included to increase the representation of the southern states by counting each slave as 3/5 of a free white. However, it is clear that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to have representation based on population.

Obviously, we cannot maintain representation near the "number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" requirement, which would require over 10,000 U.S. representatives. However we continue to maintain the 1 representative minimum for each state requirement.

The number of Representatives continued to grow until the Apportionment Act of 1911 was passed. This act limited the number of Representatives in the House to 435, when it was amended in 1912. This number has been maintained since the 63rd Congress, with one exception*. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 provided the method to reallocate the number of seats as population changes occurred and the Apportionment Act of 1941 made this process self-executing after each census.

* - There were 437 representatives in the 1950's when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the union. The number was reduced back to 435 following the 1960 census and the 1962 election.

Although I am not a fan of increasing the size of Congress, this maximum number poses two issues associated with congressional representation as well as the Electoral College.. First, the population in 1910 was over 92 million. By the 2010 census the US had grown to over 300 million. Second, each state is still required to have a minimum of one U.S. representatives (or 3 Electoral College delegates).

As the graphic indicates, residents from rural states have greater congressional representation in the House than do residence in states with greater populations. By dividing the population of California (the most populous state) by that of Wyoming (the least), California should have 66 Representatives and 68 electoral delegates (rather than 53 and 55, respectively) to match the amount of representation Wyoming has in the House and Electoral College. Based on this approach, Ohio should have 20 Representatives, rather than 16.

Obviously, the hallowed halls of the House would swell if each state's representation were based on the ratio of its population with the least populated state's. So what? Can you honestly say that Federal gridlock would worsen?

Conclusion

So how can we prevent another geographic Presidential election? There are many ways to balance representation in the House and improve our Presidential election process. Some of these ideas (eliminating the Electoral College or the minimum 1 Representative per state requirement) would require a Constitutional Amendment. Overturning or passing a new Apportionment Act would not require a Constitutional Amendment, but given our current Republican dominated government, it is unlikely to be introduced, let alone discussed.

Of course this is all moot when you consider that over 40 percent of eligible voters did not cast a vote during the past election. Off year and midterm elections consistently show even worse voter participation.

I have often heard it said that Americans deserve a better government. Based on that percentage of non-participation, I disagree. Americans have the government they deserve. we will only deserve a better system when more Americans start taking part in our government and actually voting.

-- Food for Thought

Moving Forward

I tweeted the following observation recently:

I made this tweet, in part, to get people to start thinking. I am not sure what I expected. I did received a few comments concerning the lingering fears from 9/11, even though the country where 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists originated is not among the countries listed in the executive order. However, one comment in particular made a very important point:

“…I think both sides need to at least try to understand the perspective of the other. We have to do something to re-unite ourselves. Otherwise the terrorists will have succeeded in dividing us and their ultimate goal of us destroying ourselves will be accomplished.”

I am not sure just the terrorists want to see us divided. I have read discussions that alleged the wealthiest “1 percent” of the US population want to keep the “working class” members divided, because if the 99 percent stay divided, the uber-wealthy can continue to fleece the country.

Whether it is the oligarchs, overseas terrorists or some other force that has our country divided, one thing is certain: we cannot continue down this path if our nation is to survive.

Here are my thoughts on some of the hurdles we must overcome to start the "reunification" or our divided nation. I realize that my thoughts are at best, reasonable, and at worst, just the rants of a liberal, straight, white, privileged, Midwestern male. I have no special training that lead me to these conclusions, but in my humble opinion, our current dilemma boils down to several major points. Granted this is oversimplification but here goes:

Blame Game

People love to blame other people for their troubles... that way they do not have to admit fault and/or take responsibility. I can acknowledge the fear/paranoia associated with 9/11 and other incidents. One such incident affected me directly, though minimally.

Since 9/11 Muslims have been a convenient group to blame for almost all terror based problems in our country. It is easy to blame one group for current and even imagined problems. Donald Trump plays the blame game constantly. Although I hate the comparison, Hitler also played the blame game masterfully during his reign.

Anybody who reads and understands the history of the Middle East must acknowledge the many mistakes we in the west have made and continue to make in this region. “Western” aggression has been present in the Middle East since ancient Rome and the Crusades. More recently, the Ottoman Empire had their claims on the Middle East until World War I, and the U.S. and others in the west have installed various puppet dictators – some of which lead to the rise of Islamic republics, such as Iran. Finally, the current troubles and destruction associated with the recent wars help create ISIS.

We are also playing the blame game against immigrants. Immigration records have shown that there is no great influx of Mexican or other Latin American people into the US. Yet we are building a wall to keep out the “hoard” of immigrants that simply do not exist… or arrive by plane.

Perhaps it is time to eliminate the blame game and begin addressing our mutual problems in a constructive manner.

Admitting Mistakes

People do not want to acknowledge their own mistakes, no matter if they were honest mistakes or ones based on false perception. Rather than acknowledge errors, many people "stick to their guns" or "double down" when confronted with facts that are contrary to their own beliefs. For this reason, there will always be people who will support the President they voted for, regardless of his or her actions or consequences.

One of the challenges to admitting mistakes concerns the variety of news sources available. It seems there is always a media outlet that will support a mistaken premise, no matter how misguided or destructive that premise might be.

Unfortunately, people generally prefer media that share their own prejudices or bias, hence the popularity of Fox, Breitbart and similar news outlets.  There are equally bias news sources on the left as well. How much better would we be if we all selected news from sources considered mainstream, or at least less bias, as the following chart indicates:

My primary sources for national and international news are all within the “Mainstream” on this chart, including the New York Times, Washington Post, (both of which use Reuters and AP), BBC and NPR. I also occasionally read the Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, and the Huffington Post. Unfortunately, there are dozens of similar charts, all of which draw the line between bias and partisan news in a different position. I guess we cannot even agree on bias.

To make matters worse, our President and his cabinet began their term developing conspiracies, discrediting the media, and trying to inject “alternate facts” into our national dialog. Apparently, to be a “true” American (in Trump’s mind) you should only get your news from his administration. Many of his followers seem willing to do just that. The left leaning and most of the mainstream media have fought against Trump’s war against the media. Even the conservative Fox News has begun to question Trump and his spokespeople more thoroughly. I never knew facts could be partisan.

It is going to be a monumental challenge to hold constructive and healing conversations between members of our divided nation when we have become so divided that we cannot even agree on facts, credible sources of information, and reality.

Short Attention Span

Many people have short attention spans. Whether this is because of our technological revolution, differing education levels, or just the ever-growing chaos of life, who can say? Trump won many votes by keeping his message simple. Liberals should not assume that providing more detailed information and encouraging people to "go to our website" will have much influence, let alone win elections. 

U.S. Coal Mining Production
Source: U.S. Energy Information Agency

Lies are simple and apparently easy for some. Telling the unemployed coal miners "I will reopen the mines" is an example of a lie that Trump used to win votes. It is also one lie that can be addressed. Coal production has not declined as much as politicians have implied. Furthermore, regulations had little to do with the loss of jobs, except in cases of safety violations. Often mine owners use regulations as an excuse. Miners lost more jobs to automation, mines that closed for safety reasons, or mines being closed because they were unproductive. Finally, other sources of energy replaced coal, primarily Liquid Natural Gas, which burns cleaner and at one time was less expensive.

These lies can and should be addressed. However, the miner and others who are unemployed must be willing to change professions.

Resistance to Change

In the discussion above, I cited an example of how one political lie turned economic decisions and mineral depletion into a promise to “go back” to better times. In spite of what was promised, we have to reach out and help mining families move forward. Just this week, Republicans kicked off their drive to roll back Obama-era environmental regulations by repealing a "Stream Protection Rule" meant to keep coal mines from dumping waste into streams. Allowing coal mining companies to contaminate water resources will not reopen unsafe mines, nor will it increase mining employment within mines that have been automated. It will simply save mine owners money by allowing them to discharge their waste rather than treat it.

Change is enviable. It can also be frightening, especially to the families who have seen their prospects for employment diminish, in coal mining and other industries.  This is similar to the manufacturing history of my home: During the late 19th century, the City of Columbus, Ohio had a comparatively large manufacturing sector. The city became known as the "Buggy Capital of the World," thanks to the two dozen buggy factories—notably the Columbus Buggy Company, founded in 1875 by C.D. Firestone. However, during the early 20th century, technology offered a new mode of transportation and eventually, Columbus’ buggy production collapsed. Workers were forced to change their profession as the buggy market dried up. Perhaps many of the buggy workers did not want to change jobs and leave the buggy manufacturing profession. But changes in technology and the market often doesn’t not allow that choice.

Miners, in this example, have to understand that we are in an energy situation that is not sustainable. Fossil fuels are not renewable and Americans need to conserve these and other resources as well as continue to develop new, sustainable sources of power. Unfortunately, that leads me to my final point. 

Simple, Easy Solutions

People want simple solutions. No matter how complex the problems, many people want an easy out. Climate change and the depletion of fossil fuels are examples of complex problems. Unfortunately, many politicians are all too willing to offer their constituents simple solutions (that are often ineffective) or dismiss entire problem as a "liberal hoax," in the case of climate change. Those of you who know me know my opinion of that.

However, if we are ever going to reunite our nation, we must also understand that many people believe they cannot afford to think and plan beyond our next paycheck. How are we going to get those on the far right to take climate change and energy consumption issues seriously? Humans cannot directly feel or experience climate change on a day-to-day basis. Many news sources and politicians still deny what most of the world has already acknowledged.

Perhaps we need to take a very different approach. Simplify the message. In the case of climate change, perhaps, if we can agree that fossil fuels are a limited source of energy, maybe we can get people to acknowledge that we need to begin finding new sources. That does not mean a complete shutdown of the fossil fuel industry. As these figures show, the three largest sources of energy both in the U.S. (and in the world) are fossil fuels. There is no way we can simply mothball all fossil energy sources immediately, 

Current and Historic Energy Utilization in the United States by source.

Conclusion

So does any of this ring true? Did I hit the mark; miss it entirely; or at least come close? I will let the readers decide for themselves. Can we come together and reunite our country? Can we find common ground upon which to build a new constructive American dialog to replace our current situation of verbal snipes and social media jousting? Who can say? It will take open minds and a great deal of compromise, two things that seem to be in short supply these days.

All I know is that, we cannot continue as we have in the past. We can not approach our mutual problems thinking that we have all the answers and the other side is just wrong. Maybe folks much more prominent and important than me should plan to listen more and try to understand opposing points of view before trying to solve the situation.

Obviously, this list is hardly all-inclusive. It certainly does not address the problems with our election system. Perhaps that is a topic for another blog post.

-- Food for Thought

So...Now What?

(I took a brief hiatus from my blogging because I simply didn’t want to be an extension of the campaign noise by repeating information that was already being heard far too often. I was sure the 2 or 3 people who actually read my blog didn’t miss it too badly.)

President-elect Donald J. Trump

The election has become a memory as America and the world continue to react to the success of Donald Trump, President-Elect of the United States. Furthermore, the House remains in the hands of the GOP Leadership as does the Senate.

Sen. Mitch McConnell - The Oracle of Obstruction

In her concession Speech, Secretary Clinton urged her supporters to keep an “open mind” and give President Trump an opportunity to lead. Part of me understands and perhaps agrees with her statement. However, the other part of me wonders why we liberals and democrats should bother, given the obstructive and belligerent reaction the GOP had to President Obama’s election, as expressed by Mitch McConnell, before Obama was inaugurated: Youtube video of Mitch McConnell. Top priority? Not running the government, doing the business of the American people? Not serving as a member of the U.S. Senate while representing all of the American people and the citizens of Kentucky? Our tax dollars paid his salary so he could focus on his party’s bullsh*t? And don’t get me started on the right wing media! Our government requires cooperation and compromise. Any achievement credited to the Reagan administration would not have been possible without the cooperation of House Speaker Tip O'Neill, However, if that is how the modern GOP reacts when their opponents are in the White House, why in the Hell should the left be “open minded” or give Trump a chance?


Before I can possibly consider being “open minded” I need to have one very important question answered:

“If America isn’t great now, when was it ever great?”

I am asking this question seriously, since Trump’s campaign slogan was “Make America Great Again.” What is Trump’s vision of greatness? Is he going to take serious action to reinvigorate the middle class? Address income inequality? Tackle climate change? Raise the minimum wage? Nothing in his campaign rhetoric leads me to believe these are even a remote possibility.

So, it is fair to ask what is greatness in Trump’s, and by extension, the GOP’s eyes?

Great American Family?

• 1950s Sitcom world, complete with stay-at-home mom, family dinners, (Christian) church on Sundays, and married couples sleeping in separate beds?
• The war years with the tragic cost in human life… as long as the corporations make healthy profits?
• Prohibition? Talk about corruption and organized crime!
• If I go any further back we will have to repeal a few Constitutional Amendments, specifically nos. XIII (Abolishing Slavery), XV (granting voting rights regardless of race, color, or previous servitude), and XIX (granting women the right to vote). Everyone knows slavery is bad, but corporate profits will soar with the free labor.

Forgive me Madam Secretary, but without some reasonable idea of where President Trump and the GOP plan to lead this country, all I have to guide me is the campaign rhetoric. So it is reasonable to assume the following are at least going to be strongly considered:

Will the GOP repeal the Clean Air and Water Acts?

• Repeal of, rather than revision or improvement to, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with no alternative yet being proposed or even discussed. So the poor will again be forced to wait until an ailment becomes so devastating that a trip to the emergency room is required.
• Reduction or even elimination of environmental regulations that the polluters feel are “too expensive.” If you think the pollution is a problem now, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Hope you enjoy those algal blooms on Lake Erie, Lake Okeechobee, the Ohio River, and many other fresh water bodies.

Recent Algal Bloom on Lake Erie

• Speaking of water, I hope the citizens of Flint, Michigan and other communities enjoy the lead and other contaminants in their drinking water. I am in the process of developing a cocktail consisting of Flint Water, Bourbon, Sweet Vermouth, and pickle brine. Now that’s a real lead cocktail (though it still needs work)!
• The defunding of Planned Parenthood, which means women who are poor will have no place to turn to for routine health screenings simply because a small portion, approximately 3 percent of their (non-Federal) funds, has been used to perform abortions in the past.
• Women’s rights, the rights of minorities and the LGBT+ community, or what I like to call human rights, will no longer be a primary concern once Trump nominates Scott Baio to serve on the U.S. Supreme court. So much for a Woman’s right to an abortion, marriage equality, and the ongoing discussion of our systemic racism.
• Ongoing and increased subsidizing of fossil fuel companies, big pharma, agribusiness… and the approval of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines and similar projects.

So what can we liberals do to help insure that the issues of greatest concern to us do not get swept under the figurative political rug? Joining both local, grass root organizations as well as regional or National organizations can help, but protests and similar efforts rarely have a sustaining impact. It simply takes too much energy to maintain a protest and often once the protesters leave, business as usual returns. Remember “Occupy Wall Street?” Neither does Wall Street.

So I am proposing a radical approach. Join a group or groups that focus on those issues of greatest concern to you. However, in addition to the groups usual agenda (planting trees, protesting at government centers, providing services to underprivileged), propose that the group and all of its members attack the opposition in the most effective way possible… in their wallet!

Make a pledge to support only those businesses that support your causes. I no longer buy Yuengling beer because they supported Trump. We shop at Costco and Weilands Market (local grocery store) because they both pay a living wage to their workers (and Weilands has a top notch liquor store!). To reduce our carbon footprint, we purchase electrical power from a supplier using only wind power (Arcadia Power) and I walk far more than I drive, although if you saw my two vehicles, you might think I walk primarily because of safety concerns. These are just a few of the many purchasing decisions that we have made in an effort to support those firms who promote the ideas that are important to us. But we are only one household… imagine if groups of thousands made similar pledges:

• Spending your consumer dollars at woman and minority owned businesses
• Supporting corporations and establishments that contribute to the Gay Pride Parade and other LGBT+ community programs
• Making purchases from boutiques or galleries that support fair trade
• Shop at that small business in your neighborhood
• Refuse to support sponsors of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh…
• Research the charitable contributions of the companies where you typically shop. If they support causes contrary to yours, change your shopping habits and let the business know why you have done so.
• When you do make more informed consumer decisions, it is just as important to tell businesses why you decided to shop with them.

Finding companies that support your interests is only an internet search away. I believe that this would prove to be a far more effective tactic because it uses the one weapon all people possess to some degree… their purchasing power. It also hits your opponents exactly where it will hurt the most, in their pockets.

Just imagine how effective your efforts would be if your organization agreed to develop a list of preferred businesses, published it, and have members agreed to follow the list as much as possible. Maybe, once corporate profits began to take a hit from these monetary protests, positive, progressive changes just might re-enter the political discussion. After all, I recall hearing that we are “Stronger Together.”

-- Food for Thought

Scary words during the “Silly Season”

Ah, the silly season is in full swing. This is a phrase a former colleague used to describe an election year. A city employee, he used it to describe the mayoral and other local elections. I like to use it to describe any major election, and it seems more than appropriate for this year’s election. As with most silly seasons, the 2016 Presidential candidates are using their full arsenal of scary words and phrases (*cue ominous organ music*) intending to scare the voters into believing some political sleight of hand and hopefully garner some votes they might have missed otherwise.

Take the word “Socialism,” which has seen more than its fair share of use during the primaries and will likely keep cropping up during the general election. Let’s define this term for the record:

Socialism (n): a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. (www.dictionary.com)

Socialism (n):  economic and political system, aiming at government or public ownership of means of production. (Webster’s Encyclopedia of Dictionaries 1978)

There are alternate definitions as well:

Socialism (n):  (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. (www.dictionary.com)

Socialism (n):  to make social. To transfer industry from private to public or government ownership. (Webster’s Encyclopedia of Dictionaries 1978)

These are obviously two somewhat different definitions, and depending on the source of its use, it can mean anything from more government oversight to government confiscation. Bernie Sanders used this term to describe his programs to help the poor and middle classes. However, ever since the 1980 election, when then Republican candidate Ronald Reagan said, “Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem,” many on the right have expressed their disdain for all things governmental.

So the big question is, are government programs, government oversight, and actual governmental activities always a bad thing? Here is a list of things to consider, and to lighten the mood, I will try to emulate Jeff Foxworthy.

“You might be a Socialist if…”:

• You have ever used a computer or smart phone.
• Much of our computer and smart phone technology is based on research from the U.S. military, NASA, and other public sector sources. Steve Jobs did not sit on the toilet one morning and shout “Eureka! I have a great idea!”
• You have ever driven on the interstate highway system.
• Thank the Eisenhower administration.
• You have ever landed safely at a commercial airport within the United States.
• Thank the Federal Aviation Administration.
• You have ever driven on a public road.
• Thank your State and local governments.
• You enjoy fire and police protection.
• Thank your local government.
• You support the U.S. military and believe that the Veterans Administration needs to do a better job caring for our vets.
• You ever had loved ones, or you yourself have ever benefitted from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, or other social safety nets.
• You have ever lived in a community with a neighborhood covenant/homeowners’ association that limits how you can treat your own property.
• Neighborhood associations ARE a form of government, governing your abilities to use your own property (no weird paint colors, no 8’ fences, no livestock…) for the betterment of all homeowners (the public).
• You enjoy comparatively low prices for gasoline and other energy (when compared to other nations).
• In part you can thank the Federal government subsidies and tax abatements to the energy sector that exceeds $50-$70 billion annually (source: OMB and NPR).

This list is just a sample of how our government spends our tax dollars. Our Federal government spends between a quarter to a half of a trillion dollars (yes, that is spelled correctly) subsidizing profitable corporations in this country. That number does not include the billions of dollars for food stamps and other Federal subsidies that go to the employees of Wal-Mart and other companies who refuse to pay their employees a living wage. If you want to eliminate socialism from our government, how about we cut these corporate giveaways and raise the minimum wage?

A poorly timed survey I received in the mail has many other examples of the gross misuse of our language during a highly contentious election cycle. This survey was erroneously sent to me by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and was received on Friday, June 10th—a mere two days before the Orlando tragedy at the Pulse nightclub. The survey is titled 2016 National Gun Owner’s Action Survey (I am not a gun owner). Some of the questions (which can only be answered YES, NO, or NO OPINION) are great examples of how a survey can manipulate the audience’s responses. Here are a few choice examples, with my personal reaction to the questions:

• Do you support laws that protect your fundamental right to use a firearm to defend yourself and your loved ones from a violent criminal attacker?
• Would such laws increase the number of gun related deaths similar to George Zimmerman’s killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin (who was unarmed)?
• Do you oppose any United Nations treaty that strips the U.S. of its sovereignty and gives the U.N. diplomats the power to regulate every rifle, pistol, and shotgun you own?
• In what imaginary reality is this even possible? This is a scare tactic similar to the “Obama wants your guns” tactic from the past. Well, if he wants them, he had better hurry.
• The U.N. holding sovereign authority over the U.S. is an unrealistic situation for the following reasons:
• No U.S. President, no matter which party they represent, would consider giving up U.S. Sovereignty to the U.N.
• The U.S. Senate would never approve such a treaty.
• The U.S. has veto power in the U.N., so this measure would NEVER make it to the General Assembly.
• Would you vote to reelect a member of the U.S. House or Senate who supports the gun-ban agenda?
• Where is this so-called agenda? I have occasionally been called a bleeding-heart liberal, and yet I have no desire to ban all firearms. I have heard of registering guns and banning assault/military style semi-automatic rifles, but only an extremist left-wing organization would ever attempt to ban all guns. Besides, such a ban would never be supported by even the most left member of the current U.S. House or Senate.  

To be fair, I am certain that there is equally manipulative propaganda

from the left, like today's headline from the New York Daily News. My sincere advice is to always consider the source and do a little reading of some objective material, if any can be found. Research the issues that matter to you before you cast your vote this November.

Food for Thought