The mission to come

There is a great deal to be done now that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will become our new administration in Washington. We must somehow attack the pandemic more aggressively and begin to restore some level of normalcy to our economy. Along the way we need to restore relations with the rest of the world, especially our long standing allies. That will be very difficult in the face what happened in the last four years and what remains of Trump’s supporters. Beyond those vital issues are hundreds of Trump executive actions that have weakened environmental concerns and given away land to business interests as well as grossly weakened our National health system. 

In the longer term, there is much to be done to repair our government. Trump has done things that we never expected a legitimate president to do. There is work to be done in the Constitution in order to protect us from something like this every happening again.

Black Lives Matter

After the Minneapolis Police murdered George Floyd the country has been in a constant state of protest — almost two solid weeks now. But beyond the protests, there is a great deal of reform needed. The question is really What can we do to stop these killings?

The usual target is more training of police and better supervision. But does this ever improve the situation? I think not.

The fact is that it is almost impossible to convict police for wrong doing. DAs do not want to arrest or indict. Judges don’t want to try these cases. Juries refuse to hear clear evidence and convict. In other words, the whole justice system is aligned with the police and refuses to hold them responsible for horrendous acts. I see no way that the situation will improve until this road block is removed. Police simply know that whatever they do they will not really be held accountable.

So the Big question is How do we reform the judicial system? Does anyone know an answer?

On Socialism

In the ‘50s, when I was in high school and college, the big threat was “Communism.” Today, Conservatives and other denizens of the Right Wing see “Socialism” as the big threat, though I also think they conflate Socialism and Communism. Virtually everything the Democrats favor is branded “Socialism.” So what is the reality of socialism in our time?

A friend of mine has written a very nice little book on this subject. Check out “Has the Democratic Party Become Socialist?” by Merrill Ring on Amazon. So what I write here is something of a digestion of Merrill’s discussion. One of the messages that Merrill puts forward — and I had not really thought about this — is that Capitalism came into the modern world before Socialism. Indeed, Capitalism grew out of the ancient system of Feudalism — first as Agrarian capitalism, then as mercantilism, and finally as industrial capitalism. As it evolved in the late 18th Century in England, Capitalism as an economic system and Democracy as a political system grew up more-or-less together. Capitalism meant that a single person who owned some means of production, hired wage laborers to create products, sold his products in a free market, and kept the proceeds in excess of his expenses as his “profits.” Democracy meant that government was responsive to the will of the population, usually through elected representatives.

As Merrill observes, Socialism appeared on the scene as a criticism of Capitalism. But why should Capitalism be criticized? Well, when we were talking about agrarian capitalism, we were pretty close to Jeffersonian democracy —- land owning farmers who shared common interests. But the age of industrial capitalism turned out very differently. A small minority owns the means of production and there are no longer “common interests.” Indeed, the Capitalist’s interest is his own wealth (accumulated profits), and the road to making profits is to charge a high price for your products and pay low wages to your wage earners (including, of course, colonizing remote places in order to buy resources at very low cost). Corporate capitalism simply replaces the individual Capitalist with a CEO and a large group of investors, but the interest in profits remains.

The question that hangs over the capitalist ideal even to this day is whether the Capitalist can act with a moral sensitivity when it comes to his wage earners, the quality of his products, and his treatment of those who provide resources. If the Capitalist were a truly moral agent, it would likely be an ideal economic system. Unfortunately, while there are some exceptions, history generally demonstrates greed and a lack of humanity rather than moral agency. Hence, capitalism has been criticized and other economic systems have been proposed. Here is where things get really tricky. Socialism is one of the economic systems proposed. No Democrat that I am aware of has ever proposed Socialism for America. So what turns the Right Wing hysterical is anything that sounds “socialist.” In his book, Merrill Ring takes apart a vast number of “socialist proposals,” all with the advice that we should be cautious. What Democrats strive for is an economy where all people are respected and have opportunities to live productive lives.

Consider the good old corporate practice of firing employees when they get too old.Why should a person who has worked productively throughout his or her life be dropped into poverty. Well, Social Security tried to solve that problem. But that is “socialism” to the Right Wing.

Is the Economy So Great?

Trump supporters like to crow about the great economy that Trump has given us. But let’s not go quite so fast.

First of all, it is not at all clear that Trump is the one who has given us this economy. If we follow the data from Bush’s depression (2008) onward and through Obama’s planned recovery, it is clear that the economy has been recovering on a smooth track ever since Obama took office.

Second, it is not clear that we have a great economy right now in spite of the fact that certain measures try to confirm it. Unemployment figures and the stock market are the chief trumping points. But while the unemployment figures are amazingly low, another measure shows that the quality of employment is decreasing. Sure many more people are working but they are also earning less and working more jobs.

The stock market is super high but what does that really mean and whom does it benefit. I suppose it means that investment is strong, which is good, but strong investment does not necessarily mean good jobs for employees. What we have is a corporate culture that sees maximizing profits for investors and CEOs as its only true goal. That does not translate into good jobs, good working conditions, or quality products.

What Trump has done for the economy is to head toward unrestricted and unrestrained Capitalism, meaning that food safety and environments are at risk in ways they have not been in a century. He has also enabled a gross acceleration in the widening of the wealth gap. Indeed, perhaps the very best test of any economy is to examine the wealth gap. The best days in the American economy were, in my opinion, when there was a healthy middle class and, hence, a more-or-less smooth distribution of wealth. That is far from true today.

The Green Thing

The following little story was posted on the internet.

“Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment. The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days." The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations." The older lady said that she was right our generation didn't have the "green thing" in its day.”

“The older lady went on to explain: Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.”

“Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But, too bad we didn't do the "green thing" back then.”

“We walked up stairs because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the "green thing" in our day. Back then we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days.”

“Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day. Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.”

“We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the "green thing" back then. We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the "green thing" back then. Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the "green thing." We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.”

“But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the "green thing" back then? Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off... Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smartass who can't make change without the cash register telling them how much.”

During the Second World War (1941-1945, for those that do not remember) American industrialization expanded enormously, but after the war when the production of military machines and arms was no longer needed, industries could not just shut down. Instead, productive power was turned in the direction of the homeland and the household. The 1950s saw production expanding in all directions — new automobiles, new refrigerators, new gas and electric ranges, new means of communication, new clothing fabrics, and on-and-on. Everything, more-or-less, was aimed at making life easier.

It is now 70 years later and life could not be easier, in most respects. Unfortunately, this has also come at a great cost, and no one foresaw that cost. The expansion of human presence on earth has taken a heavy toll on nature. Already by the ’60’s Rachel Carlson’s “Silent Spring” was documenting this. Meanwhile, even the oceans were being over-fished. So it is not very surprising that by the 21st Century these developments of human economies have begun to impact the earth itself.

The question is Where, along this line, could we have been smart enough to stop this? Today, the majority of Americans don’t even seem smart enough to realize that it MUST stop.

The basic problem is that we see something that we can make or do that will “make things easier.” A is considered as a solution for B. But we fail to look forward and consider that B is related to C. My favorite example of this short-sightedness is the case of leaded gasoline. Early gasoline engines were less efficient and were being beaten up by ordinary gasoline. Engineers saw a beautiful answer to this problem in the creation of leaded gasoline. Under high heat and pressure, the lead caused changes in standard gasoline that made engines run smoother and more powerfully. Great. But the lead was harming the engines. Solution. Add ethylene dichloride to the gasoline. In the explosive mixture of tetraethyl lead and ethylene dichloride, the lead was transformed to lead chloride, which is a gas at high temperatures and could exit the engine through the exhaust. Problem solved? No. Beginning in the 1940s when tetraethyl lead was introduced, the annual deposition of lead in the Arctic Icecap increased and continued to increase until lead was finally banned from gasoline engines.

This is only one example. Consider the wonderful creation of plastics. Almost anything of potential use can be made out of plastics. But we now have plastics everywhere and they do not go away easily.

I think it is wonderful that young people today are taking up the torch for environmental control and asking our leaders to seriously address climate change. But blaming it all on my generation is foolish and just too easy. It is a product of a mentality that still operates and that is as much embraced by the young as by the old.

Bread and Wine

I have been re-reading “Bread and Wine” by Ignazio Silone. I first read this in the 1960s, probably in Mudd’s senior seminar class, “Science and Man’s Goals”. Silone’s novel was first published in 1936 and it tells the story of the rise and impact of fascism in Italy. What is very upsetting is the close similarity between Italian Fascism and what is happening in America today.

The church, the banks, and the big corporations take over rule as embodied in an unlikely hero patriot. Mussolini was viewed as a great revolutionary who would “make Italy great again.” One of the first demands of fascism is absolute conformity and the abolition of criticism. Then, the heroic leader begins to explore aggressive moves around the world. All of this is in the  name of patriotism and returning to some classic era of the nation’s history. Meanwhile, both emigration and immigration are strictly controlled. Italy went to war in North Africa in 1936 and added Ethiopia to its list of colonies in Africa. Anyone who wanted to advance himself needed to show absolute support for the regime; the opposition was everywhere suppressed. Meanwhile, the peasants were driven further into poverty. The fascist hero wastes no time on liberal governments and seeks relations with the world’s totalitarian leaders.

We may not be there entirely yet, but give Trump another term and there will be no turning back, I am afraid.

The Way Things Go

The Republicans and all their Right Wing friends have a unique way of deflecting any criticism that comes their way. Instead of dealing with the issue being criticized, they come back with an entirely different subject.

Trump has a big problem with the truth. "Oh, Obama was an illegal alien and a crook to boot." Or, "Hillary ought to be jailed for those thousands of emails."

Trump's border policy should be less aggressive. "Oh, didn't Obama gas immigrants every day?" Or, "Well the Democrats just want completely open borders."

I am not denying that these other issues should be addressed and discussed at some point. The point is that raising these other issues allows the Republican to avoid talking about the actual point. They can sail along without defending Trump or the present by dwelling on the past.

We have to stop allowing this. Turn the corner and just go right back to the point in question.

Kavanaugh and SCOTUS

I am frustrated by the fact that the entire discussion of Kavanaugh’s ascent to the Supreme Court has been badly off track. In the shadows of his ascent we have headlines like “Sex offender sent to the Supreme Court.” No, “Lier, Bully, bad Drunk, and Politician sent to Supreme Court” is what we should be saying.

I have no argument with the MeToo Movement as such and I believe it was correct that Ford’s accusations were brought forward. I believe the other women should also have been heard and I believe that the FBI should have been given complete freedom to investigate all of these matters. The fact that almost none of that happened is the fault of a hugely powerful Republican political machine.

But in the end, when the Senate was finally ready for a vote, what should they have been thinking? In my mind, the most important aspect of Kavanaugh’s series of hearings was his present behavior —- precisely who he is today, how he thinks, and how he behaves. Is Kavanaugh really the kind of person Americans want on the highest court of the land? In this respect, Kavanaugh had already been failing well before the allegations of sexual misconduct came forward. While Republican Senators stroked him, Democratic Senators tried to probe with serious questions. Kavanaugh repeatedly avoided giving direct answers, refused to reveal his beliefs, and hid 90% of his judicial record from examination. When he was forced to testify with respect to Ford’s allegations on that infamous Thursday, he behaved like a monster — angry, resentful, altra-political, and a bully. Clearly, also, he lied numerous times under oath. Now that should have disqualified him from a position on the Supreme Court right there.

I do not believe that sexual misconduct in high school or college, for that matter, should itself disqualify the man (or for that matter a woman). People do grow up and become better people. The sexual issue is disqualifying only if we find it appearing in the present and recent past as well, signaling that growth of character has not occurred. This is the case of Donald Trump, a sexual predator that should never have been allowed into political office. Neither of them should have a high public office, but in the case of Kavanaugh, I believe, it is not for his sexual misconduct.

Two Problems

Problem #1

People of my political persuasion keep saying, "That is not who we are." I agree with that idea but the question remains, "Who are we really?" I am afraid that the "we" is very ambiguous. The "we" has been a progressive movement that has sought to move the country into a state of tolerance for racial justice, sexual freedom, etc. But the "we" as in "who we are" --- the actual USA --- is very different, as we have learned in the last two years. It may be that when Trump boasts about the women he has abused, loves dictators around the world, lies and cheats, and orders immigrant families to be criminalized and separated, that IS who we are --- as a nation, that is.

Problem #2

Many of us keep observing that the German people accepted Hitler's Nazism too easily but begin to see, under Trump, how easy it is. All of that is sad but true. The really important issue, however, is how to get out from under Fascism once it has progressed. I cannot think of a country in recent history that has gotten out from under Fascism once it became a fact. The Spanish tried and failed (even with outside help). In the cases of recent history, it took the rest of the world to come and rescue them. And "rescue them" looks a little optimistic when you look at what happened to the Germans and the Japanese as a consequence. The lesson is that the people under Fascism wind up being blamed for their regimes and pay a big price.

The Image

I am possessed by an image. It is June 6, 1944 —- 74 years ago —- and a young man is in full battle regalia standing at the very front of an LST landing craft that is bucking waves toward Omaha Beach. He has trained on American soil and sailed across the Atlantic Ocean to England and has nervously set off that morning for a beach in France. The landing craft finally reaches waste-deep water at the beach and the huge front door slams downward. Suddenly the beach is in full view ahead and at that very instant a bullet slams right through the front of his helmet into his brain and he is gone — doesn’t even remember being alive —- snuffed out like a bug. Perhaps 5,000 other young men died on the very same day and on that very same beach. Why?

It was all about Hitler. He just wanted to make Germany great again.

Hitler’s Nazi Party won popular support in 1933 and many Germans remained faithful to him to the very end. They paid a heavy price for that, as did Americans, French, and British men and women. All in all about 60 million people died because Hitler wanted to make Germany great again.

What Is to be Done?

You have to wonder where all of this will end --- with Trump, that is. He praises tyrants around the world and then he turns on all our traditional allies. He thinks the president of China is a hero because he has somehow placed himself in a lifetime position. Doesn't Trump wish. Apparently he does.

He has been in office for almost a year and a half. Hitler had essentially taken on all power in Germany after about two years. Can Trump manage that? One wonders when you see the arguments that come out of his lawyer team. Basically, he has all power and no one can check it.

The whole thing is an amazing test of our Constitution and, unfortunately, we are discovering that our Constitution may not be up to this challenge.

Published Blog Book

If you have been following my blog off-and-on, it has been published as an Amazon Kindle book --- both paperback and kindle formats. The blogs have been reorganized into groups of relevant material.

https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-American-Dream-Excerpts-Philosophers/dp/1980850836/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1524695233&sr=1-1

The Gun Issue, Part 2

On Saturday, thousands of people (even people outside of the US) marched in support of the movement founded and lead by the young survivors of the Florida school shooting. It is more than sad, actually obscene, that the gun supporters (NRA and others) refuse to engage in dialogue and merely demean the young people and their followers. That is genuine cowardice.

No one that I know or have heard has called for the elimination of hunting guns. I suppose that some people consider an AR 15 to be a hunting weapon, though I think a sign I saw responds to those people —- “If you need an AR 15 to hunt, you should find a better hobby.”

I think there are really two levels of gun issues. The present issue is AR 15s and AK 47s and similar military-style assault weapons. The other issue is hand guns. Without a doubt, hand guns are involved in the majority of annual deaths from gun violence. In that sense it is an even more serious issue. Nevertheless, the present issue stems from the use of assault weapons to attack schools and other large gatherings of people young and old. There is something terribly wrong when parents send their children off to school in the morning and cannot be sure that they will be safe.

If researchers and commentators are correct, the majority of gun owners in our country are willing to have stronger restrictions on the purchase or sale of guns. Even large numbers of police and military personnel believe that assault weapons should not be available to the public. But the bottom line of defense of those who believe in free access to assault weapons seems to be among those who hate and fear government and who believe that their weapons are the one line of defense against government enslaving them. I find this argument entirely unconvincing. First of all, it seems historically true that people lose their freedom and move into tyrannies slowly and by their own doing. Italy, Spain, Germany, China, and Cuba are recent examples. By the time they realize what they have done to themselves it is really too late to clean and load their arsenals. Secondly, modern governments have multiple ways in which they can control and overcome people — cancelling their bank accounts and credit cards, intervening in their employment and housing, invading their homes and throwing them in jail overnight. That fellow with his AR 15 is going to be pretty confused by the time the swat team surrounds his house and breaks through his front door. In short, it seems to me that the only way to protect ourselves from an abusive government is to participate in good government and try to make government work well. We have a well founded Constitution and we will be safe if we follow it. That includes the Second Amendment, by the way. If we really followed it, all the assault weapons would be in the National Guard where they belong.

Currently, there are two big problems in American government. Huge rich organizations like the NRA literally own Congress and the Presidency so those who are assigned the task of governing us are actually acting in the interests of these organizations rather than for the interests of the people. The second problem is that we now have a President who is born to be a tyrant and has no respect for the Constitution and is probably mentally ill.

The Gun Issue

The Second Amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The NRA likes to ignore the part about the “well regulated militia” and focus only on the part that says “shall not be infringed.” What the framers of the Constitution surely had in mind, speaking of the “security of a free state,” was the possible intrusion of British or other foreign forces. As time has passed, the concept of a militia has been replaced by the concept of a National Guard. A militia was a well armed citizenry that was ready to come together in defense of the country. The National Guard is an organization of volunteer citizens who train together and stand ready to act in the interests of the state or nation. And the National Guard can indeed be called into action in situations where the national security seems threatened. People in the Guard are trained and “well regulated” and leave their military style weapons and other equipment in the Guard facility.

The Second Amendment says nothing about keeping and bearing arms for the purpose of hunting, home protection, marksmanship, or merely collecting. But American tradition clearly includes shotguns and rifles for hunting as well as hand guns of various sorts for self defense. Rural Americans have grown up hunting and do so with little formal training. Urbanized Americans hunt for a mixture of reasons and most likely need training. (In California one cannot get a hunting license without passing a hunter’s safety course.) I do not believe there has been any significant movement to take away hunting equipment; although there is certainly a movement that speaks against “trophy hunting” and for good reasons. (I have an article about hunting published on Amazon’s Kindle.)

The issue of hand guns is a rather different matter however. Hand guns can easily be concealed. They can be brought out quickly and they can be deadly at close range. Hand guns are of little use in hunting and their main use is against other human beings. The NRA likes to say that “a good guy with a gun is the one sure way of dealing with a bad guy with a gun.” What this brings to mind is the American Wild West where everyone was toting a gun and there was so much violence that towns ultimately began restricting guns. Hand guns are susceptible to accidental use and are all too available when people are angry or drunk. By far the majority of gun related deaths in this country are involved with hand guns.

Now enter military style assault weapons. Their sole purpose is to kill lots of people very fast. Perhaps that is desirable on a military stage but it has no place in a domestic scene. In spite of the NRA, that good guy with the gun doesn’t really stand a chance against someone with an assault weapon. So the whole thing escalates. That good guy better have an assault weapon too. So we should put these into schools? Enough of them so that there’s a real barrier against assault? First of all, any person in the military or in the police force will tell you that working a hand gun or an assault weapon effectively requires significant training. And actually confronting another person who is armed and dangerous is not just a simple matter of holding a weapon of your own. And actually shooting another person is not easy, nor is the aftermath pleasant.

Virtually none of the rights bestowed on us in our Bill of Rights are unlimited. Speech is free so long as you don’t abuse it by standing up in an airplane and yelling “highjack” or “bomb.” Assembly is free but you better get permits from the city if you plan to do it in public. The press is free but you are not free to defame someone. Only the NRA seems to think that the right to our weapons is unlimited; even most NRA members seem to agree that limitations are justified.

I have a hunting license because I did go through hunter safety training and I am glad that I did. I think that people who want to have hand guns should register them, insure them, and receive training on how to handle and store them. We do as much for driving a car. Personally, I think that assault weapons should remain within the military domain and should not be available to the general public.

Education

I value "learning" but I value "education" more. What is the difference? Well, learning is the result of studies in a very wide range of topics and fields. Education is learning that addresses specific needs that have been established by people whose wisdom we trust.

When I came to Harvey Mudd College in 1961, there was a required program of studies through the first two years called the Common Core. At the end of the second year, students could select a major course of study for their final two years. The major, needless to say, was also largely a required set of studies. In other words, all four years of study at Harvey Mudd was largely directed study in specific fields, a program of study that would educate young mathematicians, scientists, and engineeers.

As an example, the State of California, at that time, required undergraduate programs to include a course of study in US history. It seemed wise for students to go out into the world with an understanding of their own history.

What has happened at Harvey Mudd as well as at most other institutions, is that our confidence has been shaken. Fewer faculty are inclined to make a claim of wisdom with regard to learning. The US history requirement disappeared decades ago. Faculty backed up from specific fields and content to defend only specific techniques. So, as time went by, we were willing only to require that historical studies should be a part of one's program. As a consequence, students go out in the world understanding Asian history (for instance) but not their own history. I have no problem with the study of Asian history as such but I do have a real problem with the general ignorance of US history that has been a result.

In a similar way, the Common Core has been eroded and degraded over the years. The faculty is unwilling to stand up for it's beliefs and the general direction is one of pacifying student protests. After all, they are paying for their education. But that is very ironic because, if they really want an education, why are they unwilling to respect the wisdom of the faculty. The answer, I guess, is that respect has little to do with actions among many students today.

On Government

I have often argued that government is the way in which we (the people) come together to solve our mutual problems. And I still believe that; however, government in that sense in our country has completely failed. Government as people coming together requires education and participation so that the people have an understanding of what their mutual problems are and try to find the best solutions. People in the US have largely ceased educating themselves and participation has fallen to ridiculous lows. So the result is that very wealthy people get elected to office by a small percentage of the population and these “representatives” take over “government” in their own interests and the interests of those who pay their way. In the US, government is an oligarchy that has little to do with what we like to call “the common good.”

Liberal democrats, like myself, continue to vote for candidates who, they think, will support the common good. Conservative republicans seem to vote in multiple paths that are not always logically consistent. One group seems to support “moral values” although they seem to have in mind merely a very limited number of issues such as abortion and gay/lesbian lifestyles while ignoring core principles of Christian faith. Another group seems merely interested in “law and order” and added to that a fear of world-wide terrorism. Yet a third group seems only concerned with the “free market” which translates into taxation and business regulation. The reality of this, it seems to me, is that both groups — Republicans and Democrats — believe in certain policies that politicians are expert at using to their advantage. The resulting government really fails to satisfy any of these goals.

What all of this seems to have brought us down to is a national movement that hates the Federal government and would prefer to just retreat into state-run societies. Having grown up in Illinois, I can’t say that I have much faith in state government. One might think this is just a resurgence of the Civil War but the movement is far larger than just a North/South matter. One might also think that it is a resurgence of the Articles of Confederation and anti-Federalism from the 1780s but few are well schooled in the Federalist Papers and other arguments with regard to the Articles. The only power of the Federal government that people seem happy about is defense, which may be why they are willing to pay almost half of their income taxes directly to the military.

The sad aspect of this movement to undermine Federal government and to inflate state governments is the loss of any “national character.” But perhaps a national character was an illusion sheltered by naive people like myself. Perhaps we have been ignoring the large differences in character that are evident as we travel around the country. What is happening right now is a backlash of those differences against a nationally motivated attempt to secure a common character.

Protecting Our earth

Global Warming is a scientific fact. Temperature readings from around the world and over a long period of time have been collected and analyzed. The average temperature of our earth is increasing. You cannot call that "BS".

Climate Change is more speculative. Rather than being a fact, it is a well developed theory, based on documented climate events.

The human origin of global warming and climate change is more speculative yet. Nevertheless, what other factors can we seriously propose as causes of these changes? Skeptics like to believe that human behaviors do not have that much effect on global phenomena. However, one of the classic examples of human impact is the presence of lead in the polar ice cap. When cores are drilled in the ice cap and analyzed, there is no lead found until around 1930s and then the amount of lead increases radically. It was in the 1930s that tetra-ethyl lead was introduced in motor fuels to solve the problem of "knocking". Auto engineers knew that it would be bad if the lead remained in the engines so they also introduced ethylene dichloride. Lead chloride is gaseous at high temperatures and takes the lead out the exhaust system of the vehicle into the atmosphere. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions are definitely a major result of our behaviors as well.

Perhaps we can all live with global warming, but climate change, if genuine, is a major problem. Agriculture, as one example, is hugely dependent on climate. A large part of California's economy is based on agriculture, thus alteration of California's traditional climate could have a major impact on our economy. Climate change can potentially make some parts of the world unlivable and cause major disruption of human life. Rising ocean waters are already problematic in some coastline areas.

It seems obvious to me that, if we can avoid damaging the earth, which is our home, we should do so. We did do away with lead in our gasoline. Perhaps we can also stop throwing so much methane and carbon dioxide into our atmosphere as well. Eat less beef; walk more (it's good for us); and use green energy when possible.

The Absurdity of Trump's "Religious Freedom" Order

Some American Christians have been whining a lot about their religious freedom. Supposedly their religious freedom is being hampered because they are not free to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Of course, they are completely free to think what they like about gays and lesbians; but because we live in a "civil" society, they must conform to how we are expected to treat gays and lesbians. Comparable issues arise with birth control and abortion.

Our Constitution provides the freedom to practice the religion of one's choice (or, for that matter, the freedom to practice no religion at all). So the real question at the bottom of all this is what actually constitutes "practice." It seems to me that practicing a religion means having certain beliefs and, perhaps, taking part in organized groups who share those beliefs. Many people would also suggest that sharing one's beliefs with others or even helping others to understand similar beliefs is part of practice. In my opinion, that can become a bit "edgy;" people who want to share their beliefs at my front door are really violating my privacy.

The problem with religious practice is that some groups seem to think that they should be allowed to treat others in our society consistent with their special beliefs instead of treating them within the norms of civil society. This, of course, amounts to a demand that their beliefs trump (excuse the pun) all the rest. That really means that others should not have the same freedom of religious belief.

The irony is that Christians are not at all ready to allow other religious groups to behave according to their own private beliefs in our society --- especially not Muslims. Freedom of religion depends upon being in a free civil society; but that means that many behaviors, especially toward other people, are controlled by the rules of that society and not by private religious beliefs.

It's a Mystery to Me

What I find truly appalling and beyond understanding is the Republican abhorrence for helping people. The whole discussion of our Affordable Care Act, from its inception to the present day, is a vast canvass of Republican attitudes strewn over the field of Democratic struggles to bring Americans up to the standards of the rest of the developed world. Even the nickname “Obama Care” is an attempt to defame the act by association with their racist hatred of our 44th President.

One could try to justify the Republican attitude by aligning it with their time-worn hatred of Federal government versus state’s rights. But Republican states are no more likely to advance health care legislation either. One could also suggest that it is a matter of budget control. Republicans hate what they like to call “entitlement programs” and will do anything to eliminate them supposedly because they want to control spending and reduce the national debt. But, in fact, the idea that Republicans want to reduce the national debt by lowering spending is pure fantasy. History shows that every Republican administration since Regan has spent large and put us deeper in debt while every Democratic administration has brought spending down and reduced the debt. The Republican abhorrence for helping people runs deeper than all of this. I believe it is an essentially anti-social attitude built on an extreme fantasy of independence.

What is mysterious to me is where in our history this attitude began. Looking at our origin documents, the Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” That is a basic belief that government is created to secure “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thirteen years later, our Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” That is, one of the principal reasons for our government is to “promote the general welfare.” Nothing in all of this suggests that promoting the general welfare should detract from the “blessings of liberty” or other personal freedom and independence.

It seems obvious to me that taking care of our fellow citizens is entirely consistent with, indeed a fundamental part of, promoting the general welfare. Where are all those Republicans who adore the Constitution in all of its original words and notions?

That's the GOP

Between the GOP in general and Donald Trump we are in for a very rough ride. The Donald wants us all to believe that the media produces nothing but fake news and constantly lies. (Donald should know something about that since he lies constantly!) Meanwhile, the GOP Congress, aided by Trump's cabinet choices, has set about shutting down reporting to the public about everything from climate change to toxic spills in rivers and streams. Even NASA can't show us pictures of temperature gradients across the world.

So this is a government based on eliminating a free press and keeping hazardous news from the public. Do the 48% of Americans who voted for Trump really think that is a good idea? Do they really think a dumb and uninformed public is the best way to run a "democracy"? Actually, that is precisely the way dictatorships are run.

After the press is torn apart, they will turn to the universities and then the students. If you think this is not going to happen (can't happen here), follow the money. When the GOP starts re-routing the money (as they clearly can), the press and the universities will collapse.