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/

No Spoiler Alert

BERNIE by Ted Rall (page 172)

Bernie Sanders joining the Democratic Party is a brilliant move at this time. It has been made impossible for a third party to compete in the political system that is rigged by the Democratic-Republican duopoly. But more importantly,third parties have always been considered to be spoilers. They can siphon votes from a lesser-of-two-evils candidate and leave us with the worst candidate winning the election.

With one of our country's most popular and well-liked independent politicians joining a major party, Bernie Sanders is going to re-shape the Democratic Party in very good ways. It will be more responsive to the needs and concerns of the people in ways the party now is not. If Bernie doesn't win the presidency, he and the movement that is growing behind him will continue to re-shape the debate in ways that favor the middle class and Americans that are struggling.

I don't consider myself a Democrat or Republican. I consider myself an "independent voter" and I support "independent" candidates because they often look at politics from a different perspective than the two main parties. It's not so much about a different ideology. But I am not suggesting that an Independent Party should attempt to rival the two main parties. I understand that doing so would likely be futile and counter-productive. Now that Bernie Sanders has joined the Democratic Party, he will transform it into a party that more resembles what it should be.

BERNIE by Ted Rall (page 176)

The Republican Party needs to do the same with theirs. I've not read a better blue-print for how the government should be run and how our politics should operate than in the book Reclaiming Conservatism by Mickey Edwards, the book to which the name of this blog is a tribute. Why isn't the Republican Party taking themselves in that direction?

Instead, their choices for politicians are ridiculous characters that are equally shady and corrupt as the Democrats. The Republican Party could be a great party by following the correct blue-print. But corruption keeps Republican Politicians from adhering to a more sensible game plan, such as the one that Mickey Edwards lays out in his book. The Democratic Party is currently engaged in this struggle, because of Bernie Sanders.

If we can't figure out how to end corruption, then we cannot ever re-shape the parties. It takes a change in perspective, rather than ideology.

People's ideologies generally do not change. I don't debate issues with people because I think I am going to convince a conservative to vote Democrat or for a liberal to vote Republican. I aim to point out where both parties are failing us and how best to change our political perspective so that our interests are better served. The majority of Americans need to step up, do what politicians cannot and guide this country in the direction that it should be going. This is the remedy that the Bernie Sanders campaign is offering.

BERNIE by Ted Rall (page 174)

We've seen the result of what happens when we leave politicians to making up the rules. Billionaire bankers get bailed out when they behave so recklessly that they crash the world economy, then they pay themselves multi-million dollar bonuses with our tax dollars. More than 125,000 people are prevented from voting in Brooklyn, NY and 27% of the voting population (independent voters) are barred from voting due to onerous rules. In Phoenix, AZ, officials close polling locations in poor and middle class neighborhoods, resulting in absurdly long lines and a very excessive burden for tens of thousands of voters. Every member of Congress has an annual operating budget for their office of up to $4.7 million--am I the only one that finds that excessive?--and why is it that when there are financial troubles, the people that caused them (politicians) are not asked to make any cutbacks?

Let's change our political perspective so that those kinds of issues are prioritized. If we follow the agenda of the Democratic and Republican Parties, such issues will never be addressed. Those legal loopholes and election deficiencies are in place for a reason: to serve the interests of the politicians that created them.

The correct change in perspective that is needed right now, is one that focuses on ending corruption. Policy changes are always going to be perceived as affecting someone's liberty. But nobody's liberties are infringed upon when we attack corruption, when we fight for election integrity, for equal justice for all citizens and for serious fiscal conservatism that looks at all wasteful spending as unacceptable, or when we hold politicians accountable. They are the priorities of a well-managed country.

If we can shift the direction of the two parties, we can have two parties that work for our interests instead of theirs. But it will take a change in our political perspective, not in our ideology.

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

What Happened to Three Strikes?

The banking giant, HSBC has been in the news a lot. They've had to pay fines in the billions over the past few years. And it's upsetting me a bit that this corporate "person" has committed some very serious crimes and for some reason is not subject to the three strikes rule. Don't we still have a three strikes rule? If so, then HSBC should be given a life sentence, by the letter of the law.

Now, I know that an attorney could easily talk his way around that argument in our court system. But I mean to simply state--and there is no way to really overstate--the absurdity of what goes on in our country. Some of the most devastating, horrific and even treasonous crimes have been committed by this corporate "person". But that "person" is still free to exist and carry on as if no crime had been committed because they gave the government a cut of the profits. If you are a flesh and blood person, you are likely to see a much harsher and more permanent application of the law.

What has HSBC done that is so bad?

The Devastating: In a recent case, HSBC was fined for illegally foreclosing on 112,000 people's homes. In some of these cases, these practices not only illegally took houses away from decent people and caused them grievous financial harm, but it also helped to further depress the housing market. When the proper title to homes are in question, title insurance companies are reluctant to insure them, making houses risky and nearly impossible to sell.

[Photo has been pixelated due to the graphic image]
Sign English translation: ATT: EL CHAPO
DO NOT FORGET THAT I AM YOUR FATHER

The Horrific: HSBC laundered drug money for Mexican drug cartels. So, when you hear of all of the people in Mexico who are found brutally murdered, know that HSBC has played a vital role in helping the murderers conduct business.

The Traitorous: HSBC conducted illegal business with Iran that was forbidden due to economic sanctions on the authoritarian country. Think about this for a moment... when the United States and our ally nations were trying to negotiate a deal with Iran to prevent them from being able to build a nuclear weapon, HSBC was undermining the strength of our bargaining position so that they could make a buck! This is not just an offense against the US government, but it is an offense against all of the people of the world!!!

Iranian nuclear facilities

Republican politicians criticized President Obama, saying that the deal with Iran was "weak". President Obama said that the US got the best deal that we could get. But no politician of either party will point the finger at HSBC and say that they were responsible for undermining our position in the negotiations. With HSBC violating the sanctions against Iran, Iran was under less pressure than they would have been. They certainly would have been willing to give up more for relief if HSBC wasn't already providing some relief from the sanctions, illegally.

When corporations commit horrible crimes, the executives who made the decisions to act illegally need to face criminal charges! Otherwise, the criminal and extremely destructive behavior will continue. When the mortgage crisis was reaching its pinnacle, it was discovered that politicians who were supposed to be keeping an eye on the banks to make sure their operations were above board, were asleep on the job... and getting below market rates on their on personal mortgages from the banks. Those politicians--who acted criminally and failed to perform their job duties--never faced any consequences either.

Considering that corporate crime is extremely costly, destructive and nefarious, would citizens be wise not to make it a primary focus of their efforts? But how can We the People ensure that corporate criminals are held accountable when their cronies in government want to let corporate criminals shirk any accountability? A Citizens' Congress could impose ethics rules on federal politicians that are so strict, that no politician would dare to violate them. And if a politician did violate the stricter ethics rules, they would immediately be removed from office, per a Citizens' Congress established Zero Tolerance policy on corruption.

If you haven't heard of the Citizens' Congress, it's because it doesn't yet exist. But hopefully this article has made a good argument for why we should have a Citizens' Congress. A Citizens Congress could feasibly be formed and operational with just a few months of effort. The continued decline of our country and increased depravity and criminality in government and in business are clear indications that We the People need to engage in politics in different ways in order to effectuate the change we desire but that politicians have consistently failed to deliver on. We need innovative approaches so that our efforts in reforming government can be successful. A Citizens' Congress is one innovative idea that can deliver on major reforms. The old model of supporting and donating to political parties and politicians  has proven to be ineffective.

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

Memorial Day Screed

The flag of the United States of America flying in the Financial District of San Francisco, CA

If ever there was a sin to behold, it is seeing one of those faded and tattered Chinese-made nylon American flags. If ever there was proof that we've sold our soul, that would be it. I of course do not mean any offense to the Chinese people. It is We the American People that have demanded impossibly low prices and increasingly greater profits so now we can buy a flag for next to nothing. I can take some solace in knowing that the inexpensive flags may have made it possible for some people to buy one where they otherwise could not. But if anybody has bought a cheap flag just because it was the cheapest flag they could find and then allowed it to become a tattered disgrace just because they are too lazy or too cheap to replace it, then I would be a little offended by that.
Here's some legislation that I might get behind:
1. No foreign company may sell American flags or any American states' flags inside the United States. Print as many as you like outside our country and sell them to whomever you like. In fact, if your country has a reputation of treating our flag respectfully, we could perhaps grant additional foreign aid money whereas if you treat our flag disrespectfully, your foreign aid money may be reduced. These funds would be to provide incentives for companies to make and people to buy better quality productions of our flag.
2. Any citizen our visitor to our country can get a well-made American flag, made in the United States, for free if they can correctly answer a series of questions about our flag, knows how to properly fold the flag and they have never been known to have treated the flag disrespectfully. If a person understands what the colors mean, what the stars and stripes represent, who designed our flag, under what circumstances and what it meant as a symbol to our forefathers, then they are a person who will inevitably love our flag and treat it respectfully. They will repay the cost of the flag tenfold by displaying it proudly, inspiring love for our country and not allowing it to become a disgraceful eyesore.
I'm sorry but I am just one of those people that gets moved at that scene in The Patriot where Heath Ledger's Character, Gabriel Edward Martin, is clinging to the only flag that he has. It is literally stained with blood and dirt and sweat and tears but it was his symbol of hope in dark times. It was a flag that if he was discovered with it, would mean he would be executed. He was sewing a new piece of cloth to patch a hole caused by a bayonet strike, a musket blast, who knows? And he fought and died to make sure that the flag could be passed on, along with this great country, to be respected and cherished. Every American should have that much respect and honor for our flag!
Having said all of that, I am on the fence about flag burning. Although I am offended by it, I don't know that I have the right to declare that someone else doesn't have the right to offend me. I can't say that another person's condition isn't so bad or their moral sensibilities so slighted that they feel they need to get attention any way they can. Or that I may not at some point get so disgusted with the government that I wouldn't want to have that as an available option. I don't like interfering with people's freedom of expression but there is also the sticky issue of what constitutes any legal definition of "flag burning"? I vaguely recall getting a hold of some rolling papers as a kid and rolling a cigarette with my dad's pipe tobacco and smoking it. As I recall, the papers may have had the American flag printed on them. Could that mean that I would be guilty of the act? We're in the digital age, if you burn the flag in a CGI animation, would it be in violation of any law?
Many of our politicians have stained our flag and our country far worse than simply burning it. And they did it, and are still doing it, wearing the American flag on their lapels.
~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

A New Political System...

Q: Who is better at ridding the government of corruption,
Democrats or Republicans?
A: "No". (also accepted: "Neither", or side-splitting laughter.)

Here's an idea: let's re-examine the efficacy of a political system whereby multi-millionaire, career politicians are elected to create public policy.

These people never find any common sense solutions to problems because there is often no money to be made in doing so. From what I have seen, they instead run around chasing after billions of dollars with which they intend to further enrich themselves and their cronies, thereby bolstering their political power and allowing them to continue the cycle.

Citizens that wish to eliminate corruption will face
sophisticated resistance from special interests that
have nearly limitless resources!

A good candidate on the other hand, would be good at identifying wasteful programs and finding ways to eliminate them, and identifying needs of the people and coming up with viable and sensible ways to address those needs. Their focus would be on the correct targets: creating a fairer system and a government that is accountable to the people. The status quo politicians focus more on progressing their political agenda to increase their wealth and political power. That distinction--between a hypothetical non-partisan, solution-based politician and the status quo politicians--is far greater than the minimal differences between liberals and conservatives.

This candidate may be rough around the edges, s/he may not have Mitt Romney's tailor or John Edwards' image consultants but s/he would have a propensity for finding viable, common sense solutions. An approach such as that--focused on eliminating corruption and government waste--would allow us to reduce government spending while providing plenty of money for a sound safety net for the nation's truly needy people. The conservative citizens and the liberal citizens could both get what they want. Instead, we are told that the way to succeed politically is to fight each other to prevent the opposition from getting anything they want. Honestly, I don't see the wisdom in it. Do we really want lower taxes AND NO public assistance for veterans and military families? Do we really want public assistance programs for needy people WITH NO attention to the fiscal responsibility or sustainability of those programs?

Neither party has the right answer so the game has become to change the question from "What is the best policy?" to "What wins elections and generates campaign contributions?" Where are our interests represented in that? They are not. So, we either need to change the system or we will be destroyed by it.

I may be shouting this message to an empty coliseum, but I'm not going to go down without shouting. I don't care if the message of government effectiveness and efficiency over political idealism is never embraced by the Democratic or Republican leadership or by the pundits (who are paid millions of dollars to create controversy rather than to find common ground or solutions to problems). I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue against the logical soundness of the position. And I hope that the majority of the country will soon come to the same realization.

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

The truth About the "Takers"

Who is the real burden on society?

According to the right wing, the country is broke because there are too many "takers" in society. According to the right wing, these "takers" will vote for whichever candidate offers the most "free candy"--by which they mean welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. When in these conversations, I first concede that entitlement spending is out of control and is unsustainable. I also usually find it necessary to point out that the low income people in our country are not the only people after "free candy". For every hundred low wage workers who gets $120 a month in food stamps, there's a big corporation that gets billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies and other "free candy" from the government every year. Even politicians, are helping themselves to free taxpayer money.

Mitt Romney was one of the worst candidates that the Republican Party could have picked as their presidential nominee in the 2012 election because his company, Bain Capital, often made money by being one of the biggest takers in the country. They would see a company that employed hundreds of people, giving them capital to spend in the community, which created an environment where other businesses could thrive, and where a healthy community could exist. Bain bought some of those companies and took out huge loans on the companies' credit so that they could pay themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in "management fees". Often times the companies could not pay back the enormous loans and the companies went out of business, the workers were laid off and the entire community took a big hit. Even though the Bain people made out quite well, I'm sure some of the workers lost homes and had to resort to unemployment insurance, food stamps and other forms of government assistance to get by. So, who were the takers in this scenario? It seems to me that he laid-off workers had something taken from them and Bain did the taking.

What's worse is that we, the taxpayers, had to pay for Bain's greed/poor management by providing assistance to the workers that were laid off. As for Bain, they got sweetheart tax rates on their profits because--due to successful lobbying efforts--the government has apparently been convinced that their business model is somehow good for the country. It is the new American business model: collect the profits while leaving the taxpayers responsible for losses and the costs of collateral damages.

Of course, Bain is just one private equity (aka "vulture capital") operation. There are others. And there are banks that illegally foreclosed on peoples' homes, banks that invested peoples' life savings and retirement funds in schemes the banks knew were worthless. All so they could make enormous profits and pass on the bill for the damages to the taxpayers. Now, they call anyone who needs assistance as a result of their schemes a "taker" while they enjoy the title of "job creator". And they are appalled when anyone suggests that they pay back some of their ill-gotten gains by way of higher taxes.

I assume that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to figure out a way to fairly raise taxes on just the institutions that acted unethically. But I know that every thinking American would agree that carried interest profits should be taxed at the same rate as workers' wages. There is no stimulative effect to the economy from these special tax breaks and it rewards private equity firms for destroying jobs.

So, do you wonder why the pundits on TV who claim to have our best interests in mind don't scream about this issue and urge you daily to call your representatives to eliminate this subsidy for job loss? Could it be that they are paid millions of dollars to create controversy rather than find solutions to problems? Should we stop getting our information and talking points from them and assess for ourselves what issues deserve our immediate, focused attention? Only if we want to improve our country and economy, I suppose.

~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