The Danger of Drumpf

On Monday, December 19, the Electoral College will convene to vote for our next president. Although it would be a dramatic, unprecedented and frightening action, I support the Electoral College selecting someone other than Trump as president.

I believe that the United States is strong enough to survive a Trump presidency. I also do not have fears that the US will turn into Nazi Germany under a Trump administration. But there are several rational reasons why Trump will likely cause severe damage to the US and to the world:

1. The Iran Nuclear Deal. Trump has stated that he would tear up the Iran deal if elected president. Without the deal, there is nothing to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, short of the US attacking them militarily. Trump said that he would re-impose sanctions on Iran but sanctions did not prevent Iran from moving their nuclear program forward in the past. Iran was simply willing to give up the program in order to end the sanctions. Sanctions, like war, would mostly affect the citizens of Iran--many of whom are kind, peace-loving people who have no ill will toward the United States. Many Iranians know more about our country and our politics than our own citizens do. Those people will suffer most under sanctions or in war with the leadership of the Iranian government hardly be affected. I think that it would be naive to think that there are not people in our government that want to go to war with Iran. It would mean billions more for war profiteers.
2. The environment. Trump has expressed support for the Keystone XL pipeline and he is
   personally invested in the project, as well as the Dakota Access Pipeline. Both of these

   

   Oil Pipeline Spill in the Town of Mayflower, AR

   pipelines threaten the drinking water for millions of people, at a time when there are already millions of people who do not have access to clean drinking water. There is lead contamination in the water in Flint, MI; coal ash contaminates the drinking water for residents in states surrounding the Appalachian Mountains; coal cleaning chemicals have contaminated drinking water in South Carolina and Kentucky; and other oil pipelines have contaminated drinking water all over the country where, "since 1986 pipeline accidents have killed more than 500 people, injured over 4,000 and cost nearly seven billion dollars in property damages." Does Trump not understand that such catastrophes really hit working people hard when they have to buy bottled water for all of their needs? Perhaps he simply does not care.
3. Homeland Security. For all of Trump's tough talk about defeating ISIS and Islamic extremism around the world, he has not been attending daily briefings by intelligence advisers. Trump famously said that he knew more about ISIS than the generals. He may actually believe that and many of his supporters may also believe it. I am skeptical. With Trump having no diplomatic experience and no foreign policy experience, there has probably never been a president-elect that needs daily intelligence briefings more.
4. The Vultures. Paul "the Vulture" Singer made his first killing when he bought Owens-Corning.

   

   Asbestosis, anyone?
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis

   The company was going down due to lawsuits filed against it from hundreds of thousands of people whom it had made sick with asbestosis. Singer was able to buy the company cheap. Then he slowed down the legal cases so that the victims would accept a paltry settlement or die with no compensation at all. Paul Singer made millions off the deaths of those people, then turned his sights to foreign countries. He began buying up the debt of impoverished countries. Tens of billions of dollars of debt had been forgiven to allow the countries to provide drinking water and medicine to their citizens. But now Singer is demanding full payment. Paul Singer's greed for billions is going to kill millions of people all over the world. President Obama and the US State Department had blocked Singer's actions with a court injunction. It is unlikely that Trump would try to block Singer or any of the other vultures from feeding off the corpses of poor countries. After all, Trump made his first killing by hiring illegal Polish construction workers to demolish his building, before building Trump Tower. The workers were not given safety equipment and likely also died of asbestosis.

I could go on and on about Trump but I think those few bullet points are quite enough to consider an Electoral College intervention as a possible remedy. I would love to have a wild, non-politician, unorthodox president to blow the whole political system up. I would just want that person to be rational, intelligent and competent with a good sense of fairness. I don't see any of that in Trump.

If you agree, contact the electors before December 19th and let them know your thoughts.

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

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

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/