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

Some Health Care Issues Examined and Observed In Greater Poltical Context

Who Are the Winners? Who Are the Losers?

Some people claim that eliminating "frivolous" medical malpractice law suits would drastically reduce health care costs. But tort reform is not the game-changer it is claimed to be because the numbers are derived from the assumption that ALL litigation is frivolous and therefore all judgments would be capped at $200,000--or some other arbitrary figure--regardless of the severity of the injury. If you had an operation and the hospital, through their negligence, paralyzed you or removed your healthy kidney instead of your failing one, would $200,000 be adequate compensation? It is not a solution that should be considered. What would give doctors relief from overly burdensome medical malpractice insurance costs would be to force them to pay more in relation to their incidents of negligence. Right now, doctors that never have a claim, pay roughly the same as those that are often negligent and have many claims against them.

The ability to buy and sell insurance across state lines would likely be a good measure for keeping health insurance costs down but it won’t ensure coverage for children who are dying of _________ (fill in the blank) today. The emphasis should be placed on health care first and profits and political ideology second. All of the people controlling the system and the debate would prefer not to have it that way.

But this whole health care issue is a struggle between Republicans, who want to protect the profits of their big campaign donors (insurance companies) and Obama who wants to protect his presidential “legacy” and signature law. Why do we bother fighting to win one of those inconsequential outcomes? We could have far more honest and constructive discussions about health care and all of the partisan sticking points if we first addressed eliminating corruption and creating a fair and honest election system. The reason the misinformation is abound is because politicians want us to vote against our interests and for theirs. So you won’t ever be asked to focus on the corruption and election schemes that both parties engage in. Focusing on those issues doesn’t really help either party and all the politicians are doing just fine with the system as it is. It is only we citizens that suffer. That is the new American Way.

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

Are You Feeling Like Chinese Finger Cuffs?

For those of you that are Kevin Smith fans, this will make perfect sense: The  government is treating us like Chinese finger cuffs. One party has us from the front and one party has us from the rear and we haven't gotten wise enough to simply object to the treatment. Instead we just keep arguing about how bad the other party tastes or feels.

The recent government shutdown was a perfect example of the two parties acting toward their own political goals with no regard for the citizens of the country. Obama and the Democrats are widely considered to be the winners of the shutdown fiasco, along with Ted Cruz, who increased his popularity with some TEA Party constituents by proving that he is willing to destroy the country in order to pursue their narrow objectives.

As for the rest of us, we were handed the bill. $24 billion, the charge for getting a front row seat to the grotesque spectacle of grandstanding and political posturing. Do you feel you got your money's worth?

You would think that, as a society, we would attack the corruption in government that causes politicians to serve the special interest groups rather than work for the benefit of the country. But, we don't. We mostly cheer on one party and condemn the other, which keeps us in our same position: treated like Chinese finger cuffs.

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

A Winning Strategy for Defeating Obamacare

Is there a problem with this picture?

Defeating/repealing Obamacare is not going to be easy. It is certainly not going to be as easy as pressuring your representatives in Congress to repeal the law. The futile act of doing so costs an estimated $1.4 million every time the Republicans bring it up for a vote in the House, meaning that Republican politicians in Congress have already wasted more than $54 million of your tax dollars. Does this sound like the actions of a fiscally conservative party? Most thinking voters would prefer an approach that would be (a) less costly (repealing Obamacare would actually add more than $109 billion to the national deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office) and (b) actually be effective. The following is a strategy that would accomplish both of those goals...

Step 1: Stop trying to convince citizens that Obamacare is going to be a disaster. Our system before Obamacare was a disaster so everyone should save their breath instead of warning of the woes of implementing the Affordable Care Act and put their efforts into Step 2 (see below). Anyone--such as I--would prefer to try an alternative to the health care system we had before the ACA if they--such as I--were confronted with a situation of being denied care because it would be more profitable for the insurance companies and doctors if they pretend that you did not have a problem or that the problem could not be treated. Being in that situation has personally cost me over $20,000 in medical expenses; at least several thousand dollars of wasted insurance premiums, co-payments and related expenses; and an inestimable amount of money in lost productivity and failed potential. A price cannot be placed on the anger and frustration of being denied health care so that others could profit while you struggle financially as well as medically. Imagine yourself in that situation. Would it be acceptable to you?

Republican politicians like to paint support for Obamacare as a desire to get something for nothing. This characterization may satisfy some, but many of us recognize it a as an opportunity to ensure getting what you pay for from an industry that would prefer to stiff their customers after taking their money.

The other reason some citizens will never accept the arguments that Obamacare will be a disaster and lead to the financial ruin of the country and/or ruin our health care system is because the people who are making those claims also claimed that George W. Bush's Medicare Part D program would cost $400 billion over ten years, under-estimating the actual cost* by more than half. (By the way, Medicare Part D is responsible for much of the national debt which Obama is currently being blamed for. Yeah, I dislike Obama as President but I am just trying to be honest here. I don't dislike him so much that I would be dishonest in an attempt to discredit the man or his job performance. There are enough honest arguments about him to do that sufficiently.)

The same people that drastically underestimated Medicare Part D also underestimated the cost and efficacy of the Iraq War and other predictions that seriously call their credibility into question.

[For anyone that hasn't figured it out: like any other political issue, there are two sets of liars, one on each side. Each will say whatever will help achieve their political objective and we are left to sort out all of the BS. We cannot have an honest debate about health care, or any other issue, until we eliminate corruption from government. Then the politicians will have no reason to be dishonest and shady. Since we haven't figured that out and we haven't made eliminating corruption our top priority, we deal with the consequences.]

Step 2: Demand a better law than Obamacare. Many people find going back to the US healthcare system before Obamacare untenable. The reason is that--as I stated before--the system was broken and left many people vulnerable and/or victimized. Even prominent Republcians such as Clint Murphy now support Obamacare. Why? Because he has cancer and has never been able to get health insurance coverage due to that pre-existing condition. Obamacare changed that and now he has affordable health care.

Could Obamacare still be a disaster? Of course it could. Although, I know nothing in the law that leads me to believe that that will be the case. But someone with cancer who can finally get affordable health care to treat it will likely prefer to take the small risk of some negative outcome in exchange for the very likely positive outcome that they would stand to receive, personally. And, I feel that any compassionate person would support that.

The only viable avenue for repealing Obamacare is to replace it with a plan that addresses the same concerns in a smarter way. I imagine that few people are married  to Obamacare and they would embrace any health care reform that would address all of the issues that Obamacare does. If Republicans came up with an alternative plan that was smarter and could be implemented more easily, I suspect that many Obamacare supporters would embrace it. I would. Unfortunately, Republicans do not want that. I suspect that they are far more concerned that Obamacare may be successful than they are that it might be a disaster. For them, Obamacare being successful would be a disaster for their party. That is what the fight is really about. As with all issues, politicians seek political victory, not a solution to a social problem. It is another distinction that we are unfortunately not often intelligent enough to recognize.

Afterward: All of the facts, figures and information above create a solid case for demanding an alternative plan before accepting the repeal of Obamacare. Is it all lies and BS from the "liberal media"? Perhaps. although not likely, considering I got the information from various sources which have been corroborated by many other sources that I have found to be incredibly accurate and trustworthy over the years. If it is all lies and BS, then where are the real numbers? Do you have them? Please share them if you do. Otherwise, to say that this is all lies and BS makes you political operative. It is lazy, unfounded activism and it is 'phoning it in'.

*The Forbes article linked to admittedly contains some spin but the dollar figures in it and facts concerning the legislation are completely accurate, according to my recollection.

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

A Multi-Dimensional View of Politics

Many people view politics as a one-dimensional model. Like the image above, a person or politician would fall somewhere on the line between hardcore conservatism or hardcore liberalism. Although this model would include moderates--who would fall somewhere near the middle of the scale--it completely ignores those with libertarian views. These people are generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The two-dimensional graphic below would be far more accurate.

Both of the models above fail to acknowledge some of the most influential political forces. The image below is a representation of how I view the US political model. The two dimensional model at the equator of the sphere is where the strict ideologues would be found. Forces such as corruption, a desire to maintain elect-ability, deeply-held biases, etc., pull politicians away from that equator. They exist somewhere in the sphere where their political loyalties and core beliefs are compromised by these other factors.

When we look at the one or two dimensional models, we simply judge politicians on how liberal, conservative, libertarian or moderate they are or claim to be. But if those ideals are severely compromised by corruptive influences, it really doesn't matter how liberal, conservative, libertarian or moderate the person is. The politician will pursue an agenda that is inconsistent with the political ideals of the group they ascribe themselves to.

It is far more important to evaluate a politician based on the forces that drive their behavior than it is to evaluate them based on their party affiliation.

For instance, Republicans claim to promote economic growth by being "business friendly" and making opportunities for oil companies and other large corporations to expand and create more jobs. But is this their policy because they honestly believe that this is the best remedy for the country's economic crisis? Or is it because most Republican politicians are heavily invested in oil companies and other large corporations? Is it because oil companies and other corporations will contribute generously to their next election campaign if they can promise and deliver policies that will make those corporations more wealthy?

Democrats claim to support the middle class worker but they seem to provide a lot more support to people on Wall Street. Is that due to their personal financial investments in Wall Street banks? Is it for the campaign contributions they receive from Wall Street? Does anyone recall that while Countrywide was swindling home buyers and writing bad mortgages, the politicians in Congress that should have been regulating their business were not doing so? They were, however receiving great deals for their home mortgages from Countrywide. Isn't that a conflict of interest that we should never allow to take place? Do Democratic politicians "support" workers for the campaign contributions from unions? Do they do it for the votes that the unions deliver on Election Day?

One-dimensional thinking affects our understanding of political events as well. One example of a one-dimensional view is the statement that "terrorists hate us for our freedom". That may be true but it is not why they are attacking us. There are many geopolitical reasons for the attacks and it can't be so easily explained away. Until we understand them, terrorist attacks are likely to be a forthcoming.

Another one-dimensional view is the idea that business people would make the best politicians. Being able to balance a budget is an important skill for government workers to have but look at other aspects of the job. Are business people generally aware of the protocols of holding an elected office? Do business people generally empathize well with others? Business people generally succeed when they gain an advantage in a deal whereas a good politician needs to find equitable solutions that work for the benefit of all parties. Also consider that wages--like any other commodity--are subject to the laws of supply and demand. Business people profit when jobs are scarce and demand for them is high because that allows business people to freeze or lower wages. If a business person's cronies are other business people, will they be likely to work hard to create more opportunities for employment to better the country or will they keep unemployment high so that their cronies (and perhaps they, themselves) can benefit from suppressed wages?

For this country to move forward, we need to break out of the box. Republicans will give you a game plan to move the country forward and the Democrats will give you an alternative plan. But we don't have to choose one or the other. We can demand other options. And, if we think multi-dimensionally, we can identify solutions that will actually work for the country as a whole, instead of just for the politicians and their cronies.

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

Fight the Slog or Advance to VICTORY?

For what cause will you fight?

Are there any chess players out there? Are there any that look at our current political situation and see a classic match underway? Do you see the citizens of this country behaving as pawns for the politicians that are dominating and controlling the game? We argue out all of the issues that the politicians want us to battle each other over. Hashing it out with fellow Americans because we are told that the left/right issues are the important issues. More important than determining whether our foreign policy decisions are making us more or less safe, moreover, whether they're moral and just. We're told that the left/right issues are more important than examining the salaries, budgets and perks of members of Congress. And more important than getting corruption out of government and constructing a fairer election system.

Who do you think is controlling the message? Is it merely coincidence that the issues that get discussed ad nauseum in the media are the issues that seem to shield politicians from scrutiny and unite the political bases to defend their parties, to the detriment of the country as a whole? Which makes me wonder: can we stop focusing on the issues that divide us and instead cooperate on fixing the issues that would really create some positive change in the government and drastic improvements to our quality of life?

After all, how do you win the game of chess? How do you vanquish an opponent that has all of the powerful pieces on the board when your ranks have been reduced to a handful of pawns? When those pawns work in concert, they can traverse the board, take the fight to the powerful and when they reach the opposite side, they become a queen!

OK, not a perfect analogy. But the queen is the most powerful piece on the chessboard. A queen can take out all of the other players and turn the game around.

Why defend politicians when we instead could harness our power, become the most dominant force on the board and control the game? So, as much as I never imagined that this would ever be my rallying cry... BECOME A QUEEN WITH ME!

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

Identifying and Avoiding the Danger Ahead

Are we too distracted to know and understand the danger ahead?

Does anyone really think that our politicians suck because they;re too "liberal" or too "conservative"? Do you think that maybe it's because they're all beholden to interests other than yours or mine that their job performance is unsatisfactory?

I don't see many politicians I would call either liberal or conservative. If we had a liberal party it would be an anti-war party. And if we had a conservative party it would be fiscally responsible. Instead, we have Democrats and Republicans and just look at what they have accomplished over the past several years. It has not been pretty.

What is the best course of action?

If you are standing on a ship headed for an iceberg, does it matter whether you're on the port side or starboard side? Would you chain yourself to one side or would you rush the bridge, take control of the vessel and steer it clear of the danger? Understand that the primary danger ahead of us is not a mass of bad liberal ideas or bad conservative ideas. It is an iceberg of corruption, of plutocracy and of duopoly. If we cannot focus on avoiding that obstacle, or obliterating it, then we are sunk. Plain and simple.

We are not going to eliminate corruption by electing more Democrats or more Republicans. We are only going to eliminate it by addressing it ourselves, together. Politicians are not going to work to eliminate corruption. Most of them profit from it. Others enjoy the sense of power that comes from having the ability to take your tax dollars and hand them to their cronies.

Are we going to continue to tolerate the corruption or will we do something about it? Click here to read about how a 21st Century Continental Congress could be created to reform government and eliminate corruption. It would take a  lot of work but it would be successful. ...if we find the motivation to change the system to benefit us. Otherwise, we wait for the special interests, the plutocrats and the duopoly to wrangle over who gets our tax dollars and how much of it we get to keep. Why would you ever consider leaving such decisions in their hands?

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