Examining Donald Trump's Harebrained Schemes

Donald J. Trump (our next president?)

Donald Trump became the Republican nominee at their convention in Cleveland, OH this week. The convention had its controversies, scandals and surprises.

Unsurprisingly, Trump again proposed to build a wall on the border of Mexico and to deport all of the country's undocumented workers. And he again pledged to be tough on terrorism. These are two of Trump's most notable positions and two that can use very close examination...

I. BORDER WALL AND IMMIGRATION POLICY

Trump's idea to build a wall on the border of Mexico is a position tailor made for the ignorant. Although we do need to be able to control our border and know who is entering our country, there are many reasons why blaming illegal immigrants for our country's problems and proposing to build a wall and deport them is insane.

I'll list some of those reasons in a moment but the most bewildering aspect of proposing to build a giant wall on the border of Mexico is that it is an attempt to use a Stone Age solution to solve a modern problem. I'm surprised that nobody in the media has picked up on this. To me, it is akin to John F. Kennedy declaring that "we are going to the moon... by constructing a giant ladder!"

Trump may not know it but we are living in the Digital Age. A network of sensors, satellites and aerial drones would be far more effective at preventing unauthorized entry into our country than a wall. Such a  system could be implemented in much less time than it would take to build a wall. But Donald Trump lacks the vision to imagine things beyond the comprehension of a Neanderthal.

So why is Trump's policy on illegal immigration ignorant and ill-advised?

1.   Many illegal immigrants came to the United States because they were recruited by US companies, looking to hire cheap laborers. Cracking down on these companies would be the way to end the problem of Mexican workers crossing the border.

2.   Illegal border crossings is currently at net zero.

3.   NAFTA is partly responsible for the economic conditions in Mexico that have driven workers to the US. Our corrupt leaders colluded with the corrupt leaders of Mexico and the workers in both countries got the shaft. It does not make sense to blame the victims on the opposite side of the border instead of the politicians that passed the trade deal.

4.   Undocumented immigrants commit less crime than native born citizens. Even the oft vilified shooting of a woman in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant was most likely the result of an accidental firearm discharge and ricochet, for which Francisco Lopez Sanchez may not have even been responsible.

5.   Undocumented immigrants are likely to have a net positive effect on our economy.

6.   Without cheap immigrant labor picking fruits and vegetables and processing meat, many Americans would not be able to afford groceries. A nation-wide food shortage may also result, as when individual states have attempted to crack down on undocumented workers, millions of dollars of crops rotted in the fields with no-one to pick them.

7.   Only about half of illegal immigrants are Mexicans. Most of our country's illegal aliens did not sneak across our borders. They arrived by plane with a work, student or tourist visa. Then they over-stay their visas.

8.   A wall on the border of Mexico is highly unfeasible. The 1,200 mile border has about 500 miles of terrain so rugged that it would be inaccessible to work crews and equipment. Trump would be long out of office before construction of the wall could ever be completed.

9.   In an experiment, the previously-proposed border wall could be climbed over in less than 12 minutes. It took less than half that time to cut though it. And the wall could be tunneled under in about three minutes.

10. Undocumented workers do the worst jobs in the country for peanuts. Most US citizens would not do the jobs that immigrants do or they would demand much more money, which would make the products un-affordable for most people.

II. TORTURE

Trump criticizes George W. Bush for going into Iraq (although he didn't voice his objections until we were already there for a year). Trump has also stated that he would bring back waterboarding and other methods of torture. Personally, I would want a leader that is intelligent enough to connect the dots between the ill-advised invasion of Iraq and the torture that produced some of the flawed intelligence that got us into that war.

Trump's support for torture is another appeal to the ignorant because there is no evidence that torture produces useful information that cannot be obtained without it. Most experts proclaim that torture does not produce useful intelligence but other methods of extracting information do. CIA Director John Brennan admitted that torture tactics did not lead to the killing of Osama bin laden. The Useful information that was gathered leading to the killing of bin Laden was obtained before Hassan Ghul was waterboarded.

Trump is apparently willing to trade our security and our reputation for the self-aggrandizing purpose of appearing to be a "tough" leader. Why so many people are not as concerned about their leader being effective is anybody's guess.

In World War II, Nazis were proactive about finding methods of torturing and killing people that wouldn't emotionally scar their soldiers and operatives. What does it say about the United States that so many of our citizens and politicians clamor for more torture when it has been proven ineffective and it harms the people who torture others?

Here are a few questions that I feel any person should get a reasonable answer to before they consider voting for Donald Trump:

1.   What happens to radical Islamic recruitment after Trump tortures Muslims and murders the families of terrorists?

2.   What happens to journalism, whistleblowing and oversight of government after Trump puts Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning in front of a firing squad and makes the media subservient to politicians?

3.   What happens to the millions of refugees from Alaska, Bangladesh and elsewhere who need to flee their homelands due to rising sea levels? Where are those people going to go and, can we deny them asylum in the United States considering that we are responsible for much of the environmental damage that is causing sea levels to rise? Trump has declared that he thinks climate change is a hoax, yet he wants to build a wall to protect one of his golf resorts from rising sea levels.

Donald Trump may be entertaining to watch and listen to at times but many of his ideas are poorly conceived and dangerous. Not to mention unconstitutional, offensive and ignorant.

Next week the Democrats are expected to nominate Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate, arguably a worse choice to have in the White House. The 2016 general election is going to be strange, ugly and will likely culminate with the election of one of the worst presidents in modern times.

Perhaps it will result in the beneficial consequence of citizens closely examining our political system and electoral process that allowed two of the worst and least-liked contenders to vie for the highest office in the land. Perhaps one consequence of electing a President Clinton or Trump will be that people will become motivated to change our political process to prevent such catastrophes in the future. One can hope.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

The Definitive Answer On Climate Change (Sort of)

Is climate change real, a hoax or a distraction from the real issues?

The definitive answer on climate change is that it is irrelevant. Here's why...

The first thing everyone should realize about climate change (or any other politically-charged issue) is that whatever your position is, it is likely not based on facts but on your emotions. There are studies that show that people have strong biases on political issues and that when discussing such issues, the emotional areas of the brain engage far more than the reasoning sectors. Not only that, but the brains of conservatives differ in physical structure from those of liberals. This suggests that our political beliefs are virtually hard wired and the beliefs of hyper-partisan thinkers will not be affected by facts. When contemplating political issues, people often begin with their belief or what they desire to be true, then they search for evidence to support their position (confirmation bias). This is the opposite of the scientific process but it is emotionally comforting.

I always found it odd that people would speak about political matters with such certainty when there is so much misinformation and contradictory information out there. The aforementioned psychological phenomenon explains why this occurs but issues like climate science is especially disturbing because the science is far beyond the understanding of the vast majority of us. That is where the misinformation campaigns are so brilliantly utilized. There are a lot of people that have a great deal to gain or lose from the consequences of this political issue. Nearly all politicians and pundits are likely to be personally invested in fossil fuel companies or green technology companies. Politicians get political contributions from these companies and pundits receive millions of dollars of ad revenues from them. So, anything you hear from either politicians or pundits should be thrown straight out the window.

How does salinity affect the
freezing point of water?

For instance, those who deny climate change [for the sake of brevity, when I mention "climate change" in this article, I will be referring to the human impact on the changing climate as opposed to the natural climate cycles of the Earth], will dismiss all of the science with a simple explanation that the lay person can understand. They may point out that the amount of ocean ice at the poles is increasing. But, when glaciers (fresh water) melt, they decrease the saline content of the oceans which allows it to re-freeze at higher temperatures. Any of us can test this at home by mixing table salt into some water and checking its freezing point, compared to water with less or no salt. Climate change deniers will also point out that increased snowfall is proof that the Earth is not warming. However, when temperatures rise, more moisture evaporates into the atmosphere and will eventually come down as precipitation (rain, snow, hail). These are third grade scientific facts but they don't keep politicians and pundits from using such faulty logic as arguments against climate change.

On the opposite side, people in support of climate change theories

Where is the scientific proof?

will point to hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy and claim that they are a result of climate change. This makes sense because hurricanes are caused by warm water temperatures. If the temperature of the oceans are rising, then hurricanes are going to be more numerous and powerful. But any connection between human activity and the super storms has never been proven by the science. And some climate scientists did not publicize data and communications that were not consistent with their findings that human activity is partly responsible for the current changes in the climate. Being secretive with the data has cast doubts on their credibility and on the credibility of the research and findings.

The simple truth is though, that the disaster of hurricane Katrina was caused by human activity related to fossil fuel consumption. The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) is a canal that was carved into Louisiana so that the oil ships would have a more direct route to the refineries, as opposed to using the winding Mississippi River. MRGO brought a surge of water, driven by the hurricane, from the Gulf directly into the city of New Orleans, causing much of the flooding and levee breaks. On top of that, the Louisiana shore line is receding at a rate of about a half mile per year, bringing the hurricane waters ever closer to the metropolises. The industry's own study determined that fossil fuel extraction activity is responsible for one third of the land loss.

There it is, the smoking gun at the feet of the fossil fuel industry and it has NOTHING to do with greenhouse gasses or the changing climate. About 1,800 people died as a result of Katrina and we the taxpayers footed most of the bill for the cleanup and reconstruction of New Orleans, subsidizing the profits of oil companies yet again. What issues were the left and the right fighting about at the time all that was going on?

Katrina is just one costly and deadly incident. Air pollution has been linked to numerous health problems, oil spills destroy fishing and tourism jobs, coal mining and natural gas fracturing poison peoples' drinking water and the U.S. military (the largest consumer of fossil fuels) commits atrocities and costs trillions of dollars attempting to secure our access to sources of oil around the world. Is that not enough proof that we should be looking for other sources of energy for our long-term energy needs?

But oh, there's more: we pay tax on a gallon of gas and the oil companies get subsidies for every gallon of gas they produce. Isn't that a redistribution of our wealth to the oil companies? Why is it that Republicans don't ever get upset about that? Or Democrats for that matter? They always seem to be fighting about something wholly inconsequential, of which evidence is scant and there are few trustworthy voices on either side of the debate.

We need to stop asking whether we want to side with Al Gore, green energy industries, and Solyndra subsidies or if we want to side with Exxon/Mobile, BP and OPEC, but rather whether we want to side with your fellow citizens instead of those other groups. That is where the division line lies and the climate change debate blurs the lines. If we looked at the issue with that frame of reference: what's actually good for us, and we stopped arguing about the issues that are good for them, the answers would be more clear.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

1.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Westen#Political_bias_study
2.     http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03/conservatives-and-liberals-have-different-brains-studies-show/
3.     http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/brain-difference-democrats-republicans
4.     http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
5.     http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003954/Nancy-Pelosis-wealth-grows-62--lawmakers-annual-form-release-reveals.html
6.     http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
7.     http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?ind=E01++
8.     http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-fundraisers-ties-green-firms-federal-cash/story?id=14592626
9.     http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/politics/fossil-fuel-industry-opens-wallet-to-defeat-obama.html?_r=1&
10.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
11.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater
12.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8QauSPK3Es
13.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Content_of_the_documents
14.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River_%E2%80%93_Gulf_Outlet_Canal#Role_in_Hurricane_Katrina_disaster
15.   http://www.rense.com/general67/drown.htm
16.   http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/quality/health.htm
17.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrJlUVCe4VA
18.   http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/13/coal-pollution-miningwestvirginiamassey.html
19.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing#Water
20.   http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html
21.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing#Countries_with_subsidised_gasoline

8 Profound Points About Gun Control That Nobody Seems to Have Considered

America and Firearms: Forever Intertwined

The gun legislation issue is so simple! Or is it?...

THE SACREDNESS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Supporters of the Second Amendment will always argue about the importance of it. The Founders of our nation expressly wrote  our right to own firearms into The Constitution because they felt it to be of special importance. And although I also agree, I too realize that the Second Amendment is no more sacred than any other right Americans have, including the rights to basic safety, security and peace of mind. Americans have every conceivable right (so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others), regardless of whether it is written into The Constitution or it is not. And although our Founders and our citizens may find certain rights to be more important than others, none are more sacred than any other. All must be respected.

LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES: Limiting the capacity of gun magazines means that a shooter will have to stop to reload more frequently (unless the criminal has decided that obtaining illegal large capacity magazines is a more taboo crime than murder) and give bystanders more opportunity to tackle and subdue the shooter. This makes perfect sense. Except that if there is a prison break and I have to defend myself against a dozen or more felons that wish to do me harm, I don't want to be tackled and subdued while I attempt to change magazines. This is the big flaw in the left's argument about large capacity magazines. The prison break scenario is unlikely to occur but who knows what threats a person may have to protect themselves against? Rioting following an earthquake or other natural disaster, an eruption of gang violence or a drug deal gone bad. It is just not reasonable to punish the law-abiding citizen in an attempt to prevent a criminal from having something that they can get easily on the black market or secondary market anyway. Thirty round magazines for rifles and ten round magazines for pistols is a good compromise.

PEEKING INTO THE FUTURE: I have often criticized peoples' understanding of politics as being very one-dimensional. One way to view the gun issue in a way that is multi-dimensional is to look into the future and build likely events into the calculus of your political decisions. At some point in the future, I'm sure that there will be ray guns that can render someone unconscious from several yards away. The victim will wake up from the attack with no lasting injury, aside from the fact that they may have just been raped. If you think we have a problem with "roofies" and rape now, imagine if a would-be victim would never even have to be in close proximity to the attacker to be rendered unconscious. Whenever there are advances in firearm technology, how they are bought, sold and regulated should be examined to ensure that gun-owners' rights to have and use guns do not infringe on other citizens' rights to reasonable safety and peace-of-mind.

ASSAULT RIFLES: Banning assault rifles is kind of like banning automobiles that can go faster than the speed limit. The statement "Why does anybody need an assault rifle?" is similar to "Why does anybody need a sports car that can go 200+ miles per hour?" I find the look of assault rifles to be very attractive and they are fun to shoot. Even if I never need one for self-protection, I enjoy the look of the weapon and I enjoy shooting them. Shouldn't it be within my rights to own the kind of weapon I find appealing if I am able to demonstrate that I can own the weapon responsibly? How wrong and un-American would it be to say that people cannot own a sports car because they can go too fast and could therefore cause injury or death to others? Nor can you own a replica sports car because it looks just like one that can drive fast? Nobody would accept such restrictions on our liberty and we should not do so with regards to firearms either.

UNDERSTANDING THE INTENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: I am rather certain that if automobiles were around during the founding of the nation, our forefathers would have considered them to be sacrosanct. They may have even been addressed in the Bill of Rights. "The automobile, being necessary for the freedom of travel and an important convenience, the right for citizens to own and operate a motor vehicle shall not be infringed." the language of the Eleventh Amendment might read. But does that mean that anyone can own a car, regardless of age or ability to drive safely? Does it mean that people shouldn't have to obey stop signs and NO PARKING signs? I doubt the Founders would have put every potentially acceptable regulatory measure into The Constitution.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF OVERLY STRICT GUN LEGISLATION: Recently, the technology to build a plastic gun by use of a 3-D printer was developed. Although the weapon is crude, it is just the start of what is to come. Before long, far more sophisticated weapons will be able to be constructed in the homes of private citizens and strict gun legislation will accelerate those ambitions. When something is made illegal or made prohibitively expensive, alternatives will surface and flourish. In this case, sophisticated weapons that are constructed and traded by private citizens with no governmental oversight. Such weapons cannot be detected by X-ray machines, (assumingly) have no traceable ballistics and have no serial numbers. Dealing with such weapons is going to be incredibly complicated and we are certainly not ready to take on that challenge now or in the near future.

THE NON-EXISTENT SLIPPERY SLOPE: The "slippery slope" argument is usually put forth when there is no argument of real merit available. The idea that extending background checks for firearms is a "slippery slope" to the government keeping a gun registry is ludicrous. We have a defense against such an assault on our Second Amendment right. It is, our Second Amendment right! Nothing says that you don't plan to ever exercise your Second Amendment right more than claiming that something could be a threat to it. If the government wants to go to my local gun store to take records it has no rights to, I would be there, with my firearm to tell them that they cannot do it. Are we going to participate in this democracy or are we going to just phone it in? We can be more prudent about where we draw our DO NOT CROSS lines.

PROTECTING DEMOCRACY: Gun owners often declare that their ownership of firearms is necessary to protect the country from the government becoming tyrannical and eliminating our freedoms. Those who support aggressive gun control legislation point out the futility and ridiculousness of armed citizens defending the country from government resources such as Apache helicopters, nuclear weapons,  fighter jets, drones, etc. This is going to take some time to unpack so, bear with me…

[Now, I speak purely hypothetically because I don’t believe that we have a government interested in bringing about tyrannical rule at this time. As much as I feel that government is corrupt, wrong-headed and dysfunctional, I don’t think government is attempting to subvert democracy or declare martial law. I do think that many people in government and those forces that influence government would want to do so if they felt they could. But we are a long way away from that becoming a reality.]

It is erroneous to think that the aforementioned government resources would include the soldiers required to operate the machines and weaponry. Our soldiers swear an oath to the country and to The Constitution, not to the government. No soldier should ever commit acts of aggression towards the citizens of the United States. If the government turned tyrannical and ordered attacks on citizens, soldiers should (and I believe most would) disobey those orders and fight with citizens to restore democracy and order.

If tyranny became the goal of government officials at some point, they could conceivably contract a mercenary army like KBR or Academi (formerly Xe, Blackwater)—provided those American contract soldiers have greater allegiance to their company, their government and/or to money than they do to their country. Our government could also hire foreign soldiers but those fighters would need to be trained to operate the machines and weapons that would make the government such an imposable force.

Looking beyond the hypothetical, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the future of the nation and how citizens can get control of government. I believe that we are long overdue for a revolution of some kind and I am hoping for a non-violent one. I believe that it is not only possible but necessary.

Those who do not believe that gun ownership is a realistic check against government tyranny sometimes bring up the government actions against the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX as evidence of the futility of citizens standing against government. Although the Davidians lost one battle (their lives and compound), they won a very significant battle which was to make themselves an example to other citizens about how the government can treat its citizens. People like me took notice. We saw the propaganda and lies the government told to explain how those people, including women and children died. It further eroded my trust in government and gave me more motivation for finding a way to achieve a non-violent revolution to address what I feel are serious and potentially disastrous flaws in the constructs of government and in how it operates. The killing of the Branch Davidians didn’t spark a revolution, likely because they were an odd group--if not potentially dangerous to the community--they were arguably potentially dangerous to themselves and to the children living in the compound.

The government should have no reason—aside from greedy self-interest—to oppose a non-violent revolution, intended to restore democratic principles that have been perverted by special interests over the years. If the government did oppose such an effort, all citizens of the country would have to ask why the government would oppose common sense reforms that are supported by a majority of the population. People would have to wonder why the government would want to oppose fellow citizens who were simply interested in making corrections to government machinations that would lead to a freer citizenry, more effective government, a more prosperous nation, a more just society: a more perfect Union.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Guns are for Killing People

Most guns are really for killing people. Does anyone really have a problem with that? Does anyone think that there are no people that may need to be dispatched? (The random shootings we've seen present proof that there are.) Are there no people that may need the protection of firearms?

When people ask me why I own a gun, my response is "To kill people." I'm no hunter. But I know that people can be dangerous. And I know that an un-checked government can be dangerous and erode personal liberties. It is the DUTY of responsible citizens to be armed and able to protect themselves and to provide that check on government power.



Crime Requires Some Legislation

 Having said that, I'd love to know how many liberals and non-partisan anti-gun nuts think that we could or should ban firearms in the US. My guess is that it is somewhere around 2%. So, if most of us agree that guns are necessary and an American right, why are we fighting an insane battle over whether we are going to have guns or ban them outright? Again, I see the most extreme and most irrational ideologues shaping the debate. Can we reel the debate in to what is actually relevant? Can we talk about how we can expand gun rights while making it more difficult for dangerous and irresponsible people to get them? Wouldn't that satisfy the other 98% of us? Can we talk about preventing legislation that focuses on the way a gun looks? Can we re-think bans on large capacity magazines and other gun features (essential for protection against a potential large, oppressive force)  to put more emphasis on screening and testing gun buyers?

I'd also like to point out that President Obama has said very little about gun control as president and the one gun law he signed actually EXPANDED gun rights and was endorsed by the NRA. I firmly believe in fighting the battle of preserving gun rights and even expanding gun rights. But can we do it with FACTS and KNOWLEDGE rather than PARANOIA and MISINFORMATION?

The NRA has really gone off the deep end with their wild and unsubstantiated claims regarding Fast and Furious and other lower profile conspiracy theories. We should always be skeptical of government and those in power but believing un-proven fantasies is not a logical or responsible course of action. EVER.



Dang, I wanted to include this quote but according to en.wikiquote.org it is "bogus"



The NRA has a good and important function: to promote RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and gun SAFETY. Unfortunately I feel that they have largely abandon that mission to become a more politically influential organization. Politics and politicians are not going to fix this or any other issue. RESPONSIBLE, KNOWLEDGEABLE and PROACTIVE CITIZENS can. Are there enough of us to come together to find the correct balance? Do you prefer to leave this important task to politicians and organizations whose aspirations are political in nature rather than LOGICAL?

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017

http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

How We Solve the US Energy Riddle

What is our energy future?

Lately, conservatives have been arguing that we need to focus on extracting our fossil fuel energy in the US so that we can become energy independent. The problem with that is: even if we become 100% energy independent, if that energy independence is based on fossil fuels, other countries will continue to have influence on what we would pay for gasoline, coal and natural gas. This is because in a global marketplace, US companies will sell their product to US consumers for as long as it is economically feasible to do so. Once people in other countries increase their demand (and price) for fossil fuels, US companies will be glad to sell their products to them instead... until we can out-bid them and keep the supply here.

Also, I believe that at some point it may be cost-effective for countries like China to refine oil to export to the US. When countries without air quality standards or labor regulations can cheaply refine oil into gasoline and find a way to transport it inexpensively enough, I can imagine that we will be buying our refined fuel from those countries. This may sound preposterous but consider that we already send tons of flour to China for them to mix with melamine and mercury and send back to us in the form of cookies and crackers for us to consume.

Green energy, on the other hand, cannot be exported. Energy from windmills and solar will bring jobs that can't be outsourced. These are the industries of the future. This is where our long-term energy solutions will come from. We can't ignore it. We must embrace it. We should not be afraid of new technology. Of course, in light of our current economic crisis, it may be risky to gamble on somebody inventing ways to make green energy solutions viable in the near term. Green energy has a lot to prove still, despite the fact that it promises some amazing things. Fossil fuels however have a current, real, intrinsic value.

So here is what I propose: we aggressively harvest some of our fossil fuel energy over the next several years. If done correctly, fossil fuel energy could be a good source of jobs and we do need jobs desperately. It is true that fossil fuel projects won't create many jobs on their own. The XL pipeline project, for instance, is only expected to produce an estimated 20,000 job years (yeah, job years, not jobs--that's 20,000 jobs for one year; or 10,000 jobs for two years; or one thousand jobs for 20 years--it's not exactly going to turn our country around). We can create more jobs by over-regulating the fossil fuel energy industries. Most of the disasters that have occurred in the in the past few decades could have been avoided or greatly mitigated if crews and containment equipment were on the ready as oil companies promised they would be. If we actually make fossil fuel mining companies follow through on their legal and contractual obligations this time, there will be more workers to respond to a disaster, meaning more jobs filled, and fewer and far less severe catastrophes. The additional government regulatory jobs would improve oversight of  the operations of the industry. Yes, it is more bureaucracy but it also creates more jobs and reduces environmental impact. It is also likely to save lives (kind of important) and stimulate the economy. We stop funding terrorists and get cheaper fuel prices in the short term.

Anyone uncomfortable with trading more bureaucratic government jobs for more domestic energy production should consider the practice of oil pipeline "pigging" and its record of failure. Now imagine that a pipeline is proposed to run near your child's school or through your favorite hunting area. Government oversight is needed to ensure that safety regulations are closely followed and disasters affecting our citizens and environment are minimized.

Here's the other catch, profits from the new fossil fuel bounty would have to be taxed a bit to offset the environmental damage by funding research into green energy options for the long-term. Drastically reducing domestic fuel prices would only cause more consumption. If we accellerate our production of domestic fossil fuels, we need to devote much of the cost savings to move the whole country forward and not to just be a boon to energy companies. A little tax on the fossil fuel energy income and a little increase on the gasoline tax would be required. Then the whole country can benefit from capital that can be invested in green energy (our long-term solution).

The faster we can get green energy solutions paying off for us, the better. We need to compete with China for manufacturing those products since they are what will be in demand in the future. That may mean subsidies for green energy companies. Perhaps, more Solyndras. But as much as people like to make Solyndra out to be a big deal, the best information out there says that it was not a scandal. It was an unfortunate waste of money but in the bigger picture, most of the investments we've made in new technologies have paid off far more than enough to offset the few that failed. A little more of this will be in our long-term economic interests. In the short term, we suck the fossil fuel energy from this country like a demon sucking the last drops of blood form the skull of its victim and hope that we have the intelligence and dedication to ensure that it is done safely and responsibly.

It is a little complicated and not 100% to the satisfaction of the two ideologies that exist in this country. But I believe that it is a wise, responsible and sensible compromise to accomplish the goals of both sides; giving us all lower fuel prices, greater national security (which requires less military spending), improved environmental protection, more jobs and improved economic growth.

That's how we fix the energy problem. Now, can we go fix the CORRUPTION in Washington?

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Bill O'Reilly Finally Gets it Right (sort of)

Get your free stuff here!

Following President Obama's reelection, Bill O'Reilly seemed baffled by the voters' rejection of the Republican establishment candidate. Flummoxed by Americans' preference for the guy who couldn't fix the economy over the guy who helped to destroy the economy, O'Reilly offered his assessment of the phenomena declaring that people voted for Obama because they want free stuff and Obama is the candidate most likely to give it to them.

This was the first time I can recall that O'Reilly actually got something right (sort of). As someone who voted for Obama in this election, I will enumerate some of the things I want from the government and believe that Obama is more likely to provide that Romney would have been:

1. When I pay for health insurance, I want to actually receive treatment, not just be a donor to the wealth of insurance companies and doctors (as was previously the case).
2. I want the people who are appointed to regulatory agencies to have the public interest in mind, rather than to merely be former executives from the industry. [Obama gets a failing grade in this category but I believe that Romney would be much worse.]
3. I want the people who head government agencies such as FEMA to be competent and proactive.
4. I want my political voice and influence to have no more and no less weight than every other American, rather than being drown out by billions of dollars worth of political advertisements sponsored by a few special interest groups.
5. I want our country to go to war as a last resort, and in the event of war, I would like the war to be conducted intelligently.
6. I want a country that gives everyone opportunities to succeed rather than being rigged to offer excessive advantages to those who already have.

Forgive me for being selfish but I voted for the guy who is most likely to give me the things I want. I wonder what the people who donated millions of dollars to the Romney campaign want. Somehow, I think their objectives are counter to mine. Bless democracy!

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

How do You Say 'F- You!' to the Tea Party?

Tea Party Citizens vs. the Republican Establishment

How do you say "F- you!" to the Tea Party? Nominate a man for president that has made millions of dollars from bailouts from the federal government, is wishy-washy on abortion issues and agrees with 90% of Obama's foreign policy.

Then have him pick a VP that voted for all the bailouts, voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (yet voted against providing benefits for veterans returning from the wars) and voted for every wasteful Bush era spending program (including the transportation bill with the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere").

That ought to do it!

When the policies and politics of both of the political parties are so incredibly divorced from the ideology of their constituencies, the country is NOT functioning properly.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Mitt is Militarily Challenged

It's time for an updated military strategy.

Let me get this straight: we have drone aircraft that we build for a few thousand dollars that can fly 50,000 feet in the air using solar power which costs nothing, target an enemy and obliterate them with a hail of gunfire and Mitt Romney wants to spend billions of dollars to build a bunch of metal boats to float around in the ocean, burn up diesel fuel, kill a bunch of fish and provide fun target objects for our future enemy drones? Yeah, why don't we go back to using muskets, because, by-golly that's how we did it in the good old days! This is frightening, people. How is it that this candidate has not been laughed out of contention for any military policy position? I hope this is all an elaborate practical joke!

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Revolution Now? (part 1)

Gas explosion; San Bruno, CA

In my last post I suggested establishing a 21st Century Continental Congress to wrest power from current political forces and demand common sense reforms to government and to laws and regulations. You may be wondering why I am recommending such a radical solution to address our country’s problems. I’ll be the first to admit that I have more comfort and convenience than any person has a right to. I’m not downtrodden or feeling oppressed. I have actually prospered in this country and I feel secure. But what I lack in my life is justice and I demand it. I demand justice for myself and for My Fellow Americans whose tax dollars are squandered on wasteful government spending. I demand justice for the citizens of other nations who suffer at the hands of US (military and financial) foreign policy. And because I feel that government corruption has reached lethal proportions.

On September 9th, 2010 in San Bruno, California, a natural gas pipeline exploded and killed 8 people. You can read about it here. [an excerpt from the article] On January 13, 2012, an independent audit from the State of California issued a report stating that PG&E had illegally diverted over $100 million from a fund used for safety operations, and instead used it for executive compensation and bonuses. These types of incidents occur rather frequently. I could recount hundreds of similar incidents. Americans killed due to lax government oversight and inappropriate collusion between government and big business. So where are the arrests? Where are the CEOs doing perp walks for taking money from a public safety fund to pay themselves millions of dollars?

So now that we all understand that our lives can be at stake when government does not work effectively--and I assume that most of us have little faith in government cleaning up its own act--is it unreasonable to demand that government do its job? Is it unreasonable to take dramatic action to ensure that the government does?

Hummer after IED blast

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we supplied our troops with Hummers which are inferior vehicles when pitted against the main threat, the improvised explosive device (IED). Other vehicles available could have been deployed to protect our soldiers from IEDs but were sent to the war front in far fewer numbers than the Hummer.(1) There are a few reasons for this: cost, government bureaucracy failings, logistics, military ineptitude and lack of fore-thought.(2) But I am suspicious that our politicians look at such issues, to some degree, from their own point of view and not ours. To them, the Hummer was perhaps a perfect solution. Sure, it didn't do much to ensure the safety of our soldiers, but the contract to provide them was already in place. People were already making money on the program. More money for the war profiteers means more money in the campaign coffers of politicians come election time. And the more Hummers that got blown up, the more that needed to be purchased. It was a feedback loop and a war profiteer's wet dream and I question if it is not another example of government corruption reaching lethal proportions. After all, in World War II automotive plants throughout the country were converted to produce war planes within a couple of years. What has kept us from producing and delivering the needed war vehicles in the Middle East?

Here is a bit more about how a new Continental Congress might work to reform government: delegates would be appointed by majority vote of the constituents of their district (districts and constituencies to be determined) and would propose reforms to current laws, regulations and Congressional rules that do not make sense, or propose laws, regulations and rules that do make sense. Once drawn, the proposals must be approved by the delegate’s constituents by a simple majority vote (>50%). The proposal would then be presented to the other delegates and must pass by a super majority (>75%), with each delegate in the Continental Congress getting simple majority approval of each proposal from their constituents. Once a proposal has been ratified as outlined above, it would then be presented to Congress to be implemented.

Any Congress member that opposes any of the proposals would be voted out of office in the next election. That’s where the impossible part comes in. We would need backing by a huge number of the citizens of the country. Ideally, the “constituencies” combined would number 100 million or more, although the objectives would likely be accomplished with as few as 30 million people. Any number greater than 30 million would represent a voting block so large that every politician would be at our mercy. No longer would lobbyists and big campaign contributors have undue sway over our elected officials. It is the way we flex our power and protect our own interests.

So how do we get 30+ million people on the same page? We have to look past the general arguments of the two parties and focus on the minutia of government function, regulations and budget line items. Here’s an example:

Conservatives want to cut spending in general. Liberals want to cut military spending. Here, the two sides can agree because there are a lot of wasteful military spending programs that can be improved or eliminated. We have military programs that are out-dated and only remain funded because they make a few powerful people money. The F-22 was the poster child for wasteful military spending. You can read about it here. That program has finally ended but there are others that can be examined. If we can eliminate similar programs we could save billions of dollars in wasted government spending. Some of that money can be re-allocated into research and development of new, modern-era weapons and surveillance systems that will make our military more effective at a lower cost. Are we really so entrenched in partisan ideology that we are unwilling to accept a win/win scenario (a more effective military for less money) when it is in our power to achieve it?

If Grover Norquist can strong-arm Republicans with his ridiculous oath that prevents them from eliminating any tax loophole, then we can certainly strong-arm all politicians to adopt common sense reforms that will help to eliminate corruption, promote transparency, make our elections accurate and over-seeable, reduce spending and ensure in a better, more efficient government.

I could live my convenient, comfortable life and not bother rocking the boat. I could occupy my time with enjoying my toys and distractions but my commitment to justice precludes me from doing so. It may be an impossible mission but I am convinced that direct democratic action is the only way to fix our government. And I will advocate for it for as long as our government is dysfunctional.

[please join this blog or return for part 2 of this post...]

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/
(1) http://jalopnik.com/5542789/the-m1117-guardian-
(2) http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008317.html

Letter to President Obama RE Soldier Suicides

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

President Obama:

The last time I wrote to you, I asked that you do something about the 9/11 first responders that are ill from working in the toxic conditions of Ground Zero following the terrorist attacks. Eventually the fund to give those heroes the health care that they deserved was approved by Congress. The fact that so much effort had to go toward approving the meager amount of money required to provide health care to those that stepped forward to bear the burden of rescuing survivors--before they were added to the list of casualties--reflects very poorly on the government of this country. And the fund did not initially include coverage of cancer unless the victim could prove that their cancer was caused by the toxic chemicals and elements at Ground Zero. I'm not sure how they were supposed to do that and I'm sure they were stumped as well. It is absolutely shameful the way we have treated those heroes.(1)

I've been hearing for years that our veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are committing suicide at rates far above what has been present in our military since the founding of our nation.(2) I expected that this problem would be addressed and get better over time but that does not appear to be the case. This is not acceptable to me so I call upon you, Mr. President, to address the issue personally.

I understand that you have a lot on your plate. The economy, the financial system and job creation all need your attention. These problems are monumental and affect the entire nation. But when the people who have given us our country, our way of life, our prosperity--and protect those things every day--are in jeopardy, I don't know what could be more important than making sure they are taken care of. How can I enjoy prosperity, safety and peace of mind knowing that the people responsible for allowing me to have those things are incapable of enjoying such things themselves?

Mr. President, it is not really your job to solve this problem personally but it wasn't exactly in the job description of our soldiers to be deployed on multiple protracted tours, fighting the two longest wars in our country's history simultaneously. None of our  soldiers could have known what they were signing up for. After all, the United States usually conducts wars competently and efficiently. But that was before profit became the primary motive for going to war. Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan may have post-traumatic stress disorder, depleted uranium contamination, parasites and pathogens due to poorly treated drinking water and financial difficulties due to a lack of jobs. Some soldiers may be unable to work due to injuries sustained in battle and they are struggling as they wait for benefits.(3)

How long must they wait? Every veteran who needs health care should get it, no questions asked. There should be anonymous psychiatric services available 24/7 and just a phone call away. Currently, soldiers often refuse mental health assistance because it may be a black mark on their record and affect career advancement. Programs should be established to allow civilians to contact soldiers, meet with them and express their gratitude. Perhaps a program could be created whereby the US Post Office would deliver postcards from grateful citizens to struggling soldiers for free. How powerful would it be for someone to bring their best fried chicken to a struggling soldier to say "Thank you"?

The very wealthy in our country may not be willing to give up one dollar of their tax cuts to take care of our soldiers. But I believe and I hope that the rest of us, the so-called 99%, will step up and pledge to provide for our soldiers, no matter the cost. Our country can afford to take care of them. And if one soldier is contemplating suicide then we are not doing enough. So, Mr. President, please raise my taxes if necessary to ensure that needs of all veterans are provided for.

Sir, you were elected because we wanted a different kind of politician. One that would re-prioritize the nation's problems and find unique and effective ways of dealing with them. People believed we could make big, important changes for the country. But like George W. Bush, you have asked little of the citizens of the country while asking a tremendous amount of our soldiers and their families. In 2008, you stated on the campaign trail that change and strength for our nation must come from the bottom up.(4) But part of what satisfies and empowers people is being a part of effectuating that change and not just being beneficiaries of it.

Someone needs to lead the charge the way our soldiers have done. Like them, someone needs to go above and beyond for a cause that is so urgent and so critical. If you lead us, I believe this is a change we can make, despite the political division in the country right now. Please appoint someone you trust to address this problem as what it is: an urgent crisis. Oversee the operation personally and call upon US citizens to do what we can do to help. If we choose not do whatever is necessary to care for those that have sacrificed for us, what will other nations think of us? What will our soldiers think of us and what should we think of ourselves?

Respectfully,

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

(1)          http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/zadroga-act-expanded-to-cover-50-different-types-of-cancer-159911035.html

(2)          http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57394452-10391704/study-suicide-rates-among-army-soldiers-up-80-percent/

(3)          http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2012/07/16/backlog-of-military-vets-awaits-service-disability-benefits/

(4)          http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/technology/07hughes.html?pagewanted=all