ANNOUNCING THE END OF READ MY OPINION

I started this blog in 2004, and it has been fun to post here. But all good things must come to an end, or a beginning. So at the same time I am closing this blog, I am starting a new one.

Announcing The Snorkel, my new site. Here is the link: https://the-snorkel.ghost.io

Please visit me at The Snorkel. It is still being built, so it will improve over time. Snorkel is hosted by the non-profit foundation Ghost.org, which provides great tools and support for writers (and scribblers like me). If you subscribe to The Snorkel - FREE - each new post will be sent to your email where you can read it (or, you can go to the site itself). 

Thanks for reading this post, and thanks for the years of interest (if you are one of those special few). 

---end---

DISPATCH FROM THE HEAT DOME

Maybe I should have titled this post "Mad Max: Heat Dome," but how many of you would remember that movie series? Ah yes, the heat dome. A heat dome occurs when the atmosphere traps hot ocean air like a lid or cap. So yes, here in Portland, Oregon, the atmosphere put a lid on it.

Portland set a new all-time record (in all recorded weather data history) of 108°F on Sunday, June 27. That record was broken the next day by a high of 112°F. Wow. But, why stop there, so on Monday the temperature hit 116°F. Yes, three days in a row, new all-time record high temperatures. 

Today, and for the next week or so, it will be much cooler, only the high 90's. 

And at this point in the conversation we are required to talk about climate change. Is the heat dome a result of climate change? People who accept science will answer "yes;" those who don't will answer "no." The scientists will answer "maybe." Let me explain.

My favorite explanation is one I borrowed from Dr. Jane Lubchenco, a professor at Oregon State University and former Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from 2009-2013. In a Congressional hearing while she was NOAA Director, Dr. Lubchenco was asked by a skeptical Republican member of the committee if she could say for certain that a specific devastating hurricane was a result of climate change. Dr. Lubchenco, knowing that an explanation using technical jargon would not work, answered with an analogy from baseball (and I paraphrase here): let's say that there is a professional baseball player who is known for hitting a lot of home runs every season, and one season he starts using steroids. If he then hits a home run, can you say with certainty that it is a result of the steroids? And if you can't say for certain that the home run was a result of the steroids, does that mean he is not taking steroids or the steroid use has no relation to hitting home runs? 

My point is, heat domes happen, and it doesn't matter if this particular atmospheric event was "caused" by climate change. Climate change is real, it is happening, our climate is changed, and the climate models have predicted that extreme climate events would become more frequent and more extreme. 

When we moved to Portland in 1978 very few homes had air conditioning; our first one didn't. We didn't need it because very hot days were rare, and temperatures of 100+ degrees even more rare.  It is different now, and A/C is truly needed in the summer, just like heating is needed in the winter. Is this because of climate change, or simply normal climate cycles? The answer is "maybe;" however, the question is irrelevant. Fact: human activities, such as burning carbon-based fuels, have increased the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to the point where the climate is affected in ways that are detrimental to humans. So the question that is relevant is: what do we need to do, immediately, to stabilize and reverse the greenhouse gas emissions trend? 

We survived the heat dome because we have central air conditioning in our home that was built in 2002. Many other people in our region are not so fortunate. One way to remediate the impacts of extreme heat events is to install more air conditioning in homes, and to get people who are houseless into homes with A/C. This will take more electricity and a reliable electric grid. And the electricity has to be generated without burning carbon fuels (coal and natural gas), or the problem will just be compounded. 

It's a conundrum we need to solve.

And now back to Mad Max: Heat Dome. 

---

THE PROS AND CONS OF THE AMAZON SOCIETY

 Let me start by saying that I do not hate Jeff Bezos; I don't know if I like him, either. I do know that he is an amazing entrepreneurial capitalist who turned an online bookstore into an online you-can-get-anything-and-everything store. And he became the wealthiest person on the planet Earth in the process (net worth of $215.14 Billion as of June 10, 2021). But this post is not about Mr. Bezos, it is about the Amazon Society, a term I just invented for the dominance of internet (not just Amazon) consumerism.

The pandemic of 2020-2021 (and running) was a paradigm shift in our culture, in which vast numbers of consumers came to rely on Amazon.com for a huge number and variety of things they needed. Amazon sales in the first quarter of 2021 were up 44% compared to Q1 in 2020, and profit of $8.1 billion for Q1 was 220% up from Q1 2020. The most profitable parts of Amazon’s retail business boomed. Revenue from merchants listing items on its website and using its warehouses was up 64 percent, to $23.7 billion. Its “other” business segment, which is largely its lucrative advertising business, increased 77 percent, to almost $7 billion. (NYTimes) 

This increase in Amazon business made sense, as many retail businesses were closed, people sheltered in place, children were home all day (no school), and other pandemic actions and behaviors demanded a different type of consumerism. In many ways, maybe most ways, it was a good thing Amazon was there for us. A number of other "gig worker" companies saw a huge increase in business, also, including Instacart, Doordash, Uber Eats and many others. 

So the pros of the Amazon Society during this pandemic are the many ways people have been able to get through this period with less difficulty than we otherwise might have had. The Amazon platform, and others like it, are easy to use, easy to manage, and for those who are computer-savvy, another step forward into the future. Amazon and others hired many new workers to meet the demands of the pandemic, also a good thing for people needing a job. And Amazon raised its minimum wage to $15/hour, and has lobbied the federal government to make it law (and is squeezing every drop of PR they can out of it). More buildings, more servers, more trucks, more robotic equipment, more everything related to the Amazon business model translated into more money and jobs in related industries. And retail sellers were able to survive the pandemic by selling on Amazon's platform and utilizing its warehousing and online tools. So what could be bad? 

There are cons to the Amazon Society; two major negatives, in my opinion, are the social and environmental costs. In spite of the positives of the $15 minimum wage Amazon pays, the warehouse jobs are reportedly intense and exhausting work. Workers are in a surveillance environment where they and their actions are tracked to gain maximum productivity. The jobs are non-union (a recent union drive failed at one Amazon facility). Many other so-called "gig workers" operate as contractors or free agents, often for low financial reward and no benefits. Small, local retail businesses have had to use the Amazon selling platform and services, with a cut going to Amazon, in order to survive. 

Local businesses need local customers. The trend to order everything online keeps us out of the businesses in our neighborhoods and towns. Powell's Books, a Portland, OR local business (with a large online presence, also) recently had a billboard that read something like: "If you shop at Powell's, Amazon will be fine." 

As consumers, we rarely consider the environmental costs of the things we buy based on how we buy. I once ordered an item from Amazon because it was easy to find on their site, and the bonus of next-day delivery sealed the deal. It was not an item I needed the next day, and I didn't take the time to phone local stores to see if someone in my city, Portland, Oregon, had the item. It arrived from Amazon the next day, from Tennesee. When I noticed that it had been shipped overnight from Tennesee it caused me to pause and think about the environmental cost of my purchase. Was shipping by air a greater environmental impact than shipping by train and/or truck? Very likely yes. And what about the environmental costs of the giant Amazon warehouse and all the Amazon delivery trucks? (To be fair, Amazon has been increasing its use of alternative power sources, and I think I saw an article that they are starting to electrify their fleet.) 

Is the Amazon Society where we want to be? Are there alternatives? How much control do we have as consumers? I ask myself these questions, so here are a few points I consider when buying:

• Prices on Amazon can be lower than elsewhere, but are we really paying the real costs (including societal and environmental costs)?
• Can I find the items I want locally? 
• Same- or next day delivery is great, but do we really need everything that soon? 
• Amazon could indicate on the website where an item will ship from when you order it, giving us more information for our buying decisions. If, for example, an item will ship to me from a local Amazon warehouse, that might make my buying decision different than if it ships overnight across the country. 
• The U.S. Congress is considering several bills that would regulate and change the business practices of huge corporations such as Amazon, which have become monopolies. As voters, we can let our electeds know if we support these bills. 

Like many people I know, I have a love/hate relationship with Amazon. Sometimes I'm happy that I can get the exact items I want or need, and return them if I'm not happy with them (at an even greater environmental cost!). And yes, Amazon nows everything about me because they harvest my online data. (Sigh!)

---

ISRAEL AND GAZA: THE LUNATICS ARE STILL IN CHARGE

I don’t want to make light of the fact that people are being injured and killed in Gaza and Israel as I write this. I am following this current battle in the prolonged war between these sides, and it is deja vu all over again, with one important difference that I will discuss in a moment. As I thought about writing a piece on this raging war, I went back in time within this blog and re-read things I have previously written, each time a new battle erupted. I realized that I don’t need to write much, but simply give my readers this link to a post from a previous outbreak of violence between these sides, in 2014, because they are following the exact same script, once again, as always.

The important difference I mentioned above is the civic unrest in Israeli cities with mixed Jewish and Israeli Arab populations. This kind of mob violence is unprecedented in Israel, and has most officials in Israel, as well as observers, truly worried. How this will play out is unknown.

For me, the bottom line in this situation is that the leadership of Israel and Gaza (Hamas) are lunatics who would rather continue a prolonged war in which thousands are injured and killed in order to satisfy their political ambitions and objectives. We can argue until the cows come home about who is to blame, but the reality is that the major players in this 73-year war (since the founding of Israel in 1948) could have and should have found a way to live together or side-by-side in peace and prosperity many decades ago. Instead, these lunatics have chosen hate, intransigence, finger pointing, cold war and hot war, and the populations they “lead” continue to suffer the consequences. 

—-

HOW ARE WE DOING ON CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE USA?

 (Wonkiness Alert: this post will be a bit wonky, with data being presented and science being spoken.)

Before I jump into the swirling pool of emissions data, I need to editorialize a bit. As I studied the Executive Summary of the Draft EPA document used for this post, I realized that something was not being said. I'm neither an expert on this topic nor an insider in the EPA; however, given the political climate in which this document was produced (Trump administration), I will assume a political filter was applied. 

The report presents greenhouse gas emission data for the years from 1990, 2005, and 2015 through 2019. The discussions in the report focus on comparisons of emissions for 1990 and 2019, in terms of increases or decreases between those years. In every data table, the columns are labeled with years, as shown below. I wondered why the year 2005 was included and highlighted in the tables, and the reason finally struck me (I was not hurt). The United States emission reduction goals in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change are based on emissions in 2005 as the baseline year. The EPA report uses the term "climate change;" however, there is no reference (at least in the Executive Summary) to the Paris Agreement or that 2005 is the baseline year for U.S. emission reduction goals. In fact, the report does not talk about emission reduction goals. 

So I have to assume, again, without knowing for sure, that the EPA scientists who wrote the report gave us a marker for looking at Paris Agreement goals. And so, in this post, I will use the 2005 data to look at how the USA is doing relative to the Paris Agreement goals. My final assumption is that, under the Biden administration, future EPA reports will not try to hide anything! 

____________________________________________________________________

This post is focused on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. For context, some global data are included in this section.(1) The seven top emitter countries in 2017 are shown below. The U.S. is second, behind China.

On a per capita basis, the United States leads the world with about 19 tons of CO2 equivalent per person, followed by Russia (~15.5 tons/person), Japan (~10 tons/person) and the European Union and China (~8 tons/person each). 

Finally, when parsed by economic sector, as shown below, the energy sector accounts for 72% of global emissions, of which 31% is production of electricity and heat, and 15% is from transportation. 

So how are we doing on climate change in this country? We all know that it is real, that it started having real impacts years ago, and that the future looks different for human societies if we don't change the trajectory. I have wondered about this myself, so I decided to do some reading. I selected one document: Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. in Federal Register, February 12, 2021. (1) This document was out for review comments until late March, 2021. I reviewed the Executive Summary. 

My goal in this post is to summarize the large amount of information in a clear and simplified way; this might or might not work. 

Let's start with defining a few terms and acronyms:

• emissions inventory - identifies and quantifies the anthropogenic sources and sinks of greenhouse gases
• GHG = greenhouse gas, a gas in the atmosphere that can directly or indirectly contribute to climate change
• GWP = Global Warming Potential is a way to compare the ability of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas
• MMT CO2 Eq. = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. CO2 is used as the reference gas to calculate and compare the GWP of other gases. For these calculations, the GWP of CO2 has a value of 1. The report lists more than two dozen other gases that have GWP values relative to CO2; examples are: methane (CH4) = 25, nitrous oxide (N2O = 298, and hydrofluorocarbon 23 (HFC-23) = 14,800. In other words, one unit of methane has the greenhouse gas equivalent of 25 units of carbon dioxide. 
• a metric ton (MT) is 2,204.6 pounds, or 1,000 kilograms. 1 million metric tons (MMT) is 2.205 billion pounds. 
• LULUCF: Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. These landscape categories have associated emissions and sinks of greenhouse gases. For example, a forest landscape might lock up more carbon than it emits. LULUCF includes agriculture, conversion of land from rural to urban, urban trees, forestry and other land uses.
• total emissions and net emissions: total emissions is the total of emissions from all economic sectors; net emissions is total emissions minus the amount of carbon removed, or sequestered, from the atmosphere by LULUCF.  

The above might be the wonkiest part of this post! 

Let's start with the big picture. Just how much GHG does the U.S. put into the atmosphere every year, and how has this changed in the past 29 years? 

• In 1990, total U.S. emissions was 6,449.4 MMT CO2 Eq.; net emissions was 5,548.6 MMT CO2 Eq.
•  In 2019, total U.S. emissions was 6,577.2 MMT CO2 Eq.; net emissions was 5,788.3 MMT CO2 Eq.
• Gross U.S. emissions per year increased by 2.0% between 1990 and 2019. However, gross emissions was 15.7% above 1990 levels in 2007, and generally decreased between 2007 and 2019. 
• Net emissions increased by 4.3% between 1990 and 2019. 

Paris Agreement Goals 

The U.S. stated goal in the Agreement was a 17% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, and a 26% to 28% reduction by 2025, compared to 2005 emissions. (Without digging into the Agreement, I assume that "carbon emissions" means GHG emissions expressed as CO2 equivalent. I also don't know if the goal is based on total or net emissions, so I will assume it is net emissions.)

The actual emissions in 2005 were:   7,432 MMT Total, and 6,644 MMT Net.

The actual emissions in 2019 were:   6,577 MMT Total, and 5,788 MMT Net

The U.S. goal for 2020 is:                   6,169 MMT Total, and 5,514 MMT Net

The U.S. goal for 2025 is:                   5,351 MMT Total, and 4,784 MMT Net

In 2019, the 2020 goal for total carbon emission reduction was not met*, and the net carbon emission was slightly greater than the goal (not met). (Data for 2020 are not in this report; however, the pandemic might have resulted in a greater lowering of emission due to less transportation activity in the United States.) 

A few figures from the EPA report are instructive. Figure ES-3 shows changes of emissions relative to 1990 levels. Note the steady increase through 2007, followed by a bumpy but overall steady decline through 2019. (Editorial comment: the trends might be related to programs introduced and removed by the Obama (2008-2016) and Trump (2016-2019) administrations. The data might also reflect the impacts of the economic recession starting in 2008.)  

I have summarized, below, some of the data from Table ES-2 in the report, showing the major sources of carbon emissions. 

Table ES-2 Recent Trends in GHG Emissions and Sinks (MMT CO2 Eq): 

Total Fossil Fuel combustion          1990 = 4,731.5   2019 = 4,888.5

   transportation                                          1,469.1               1,843.2

   electric power                                          1,820.0        1,606.0

   industrial                                                     853.8   837.6

   residential                                                   338.6      338.8

   commercial                                                228.3          238.3

In 1990 and 2019, emissions from the transportation sector and the generation of electricity sector accounted for 69.5% and 70.6%, respectively, of total emissions from fossil fuel combustion. This is an important set of numbers to understand, as it tells us where we need to focus our attention for GHG reductions. These two sources are interrelated. The most obvious way to reduce transportation emissions is to transition from fossil fueled vehicles to electric vehicles; however, the methods of generating electricity also have to transition from a reliance on fossil fuels. 

At this point, two more graphics are instructive. Figure ES-6 shows 2019 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Combustion of petroleum accounts for most of the emissions from transportation. Combustion of coal and natural gas account for the majority of emissions for generation of electric power, with coal representing more than half. Overall, emissions are greatest from burning petroleum, followed by natural gas and then coal (see pie diagram in figure). 

The next figure looks at emissions from electric power generation. Total emissions have steadily decreased since 2007 (solid black line, right axis), while the total amount of electric power has increased between 1990 and 2007, and then leveled off between 2007 and 2019. The reason total emissions have declined is two-fold: more renewable generation (e.g. wind and solar), and replacement of coal-burning with natural gas generation facilities (natural gas has lower emissions than coal). 

-------------------------            ------------------------            --------------------------            ------------------------

Different gases have different global warming potentials (GWP). For the EPA report, every gas has a carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent. For the emission inventory, CO2 has a value of 1 GWP, methane (CH4) has a value of 25, nitrous oxide (NO2) is 298, hydrofluorocarbon 23 (HFC-23) is 14,800, and etc. 

Methane (CH4) is the second largest emission gas after CO2, at 10% of all emissions. The top five sources of CH4 emissions are, from highest down, enteric fermentation, natural gas systems, landfills, manure management, and coal mines. Enteric fermentation is methane emitted by livestock (burps and farts). In 2019, enteric fermentation was 178.6 MMT CO2 eq., representing 27.1% of the CH4 total emissions, an increase of 8.4% since 1990. This increase tracks the increase in cattle populations in the U.S. 

And, just in case you are wondering, as I did, about CO2 emissions from human breathing, I did a rough calculation. (2) For the population of the USA in 2021, total emissions from breathing is 84.5 MMT CO2 eq. (I did not do a calculation for human burping and farting.)

Carbon sinks. Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) are the areas where carbon is removed from the atmosphere. It is important to know that there are LULUCF emissions, as explained in the EPA report: "LULUCF emissions of CH4 and N2O are reported separately from gross emissions totals. LULUCF emissions include the CH4, and N2O emissions from Peatlands Remaining Peatlands; CH4 and N2O emissions reported for Non-CO2 Emissions from Forest Fires, Non-CO2 Emissions from Grassland Fires, and Coastal Wetlands Remaining Coastal Wetlands; CH4 emissions from Land Converted to Coastal Wetlands; and N2O emissions from Forest Soils and Settlement Soils."

LULUCF carbon stock change is how the EPA lists the removal or locking-up of GHG: "LULUCF Carbon Stock Change is the net C stock change from the following categories: Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, Land Converted to Forest Land, Cropland Remaining Cropland, Land Converted to Cropland, Grassland Remaining Grassland, Land Converted to Grassland, Wetlands Remaining Wetlands, Land Converted to Wetlands, Settlements Remaining Settlements, and Land Converted to Settlements."

LULUCF data, in MMT CO2 Eq., include:

                                                 1990                2005                2019

     Emissions                              7.9                  16.8                 23.4

     Carbon stock change          -908.7              -804.8             -812.4

     Net                                      -900.8              -788.0             -788.9

These data show that the capture and sequestration, or retention of GHG from release to the atmosphere is going in the wrong direction.

What's the take away? (This section is editorial.) 

It is obvious from this brief summary (and I encourage you all to look at the EPA document linked in note 2, below) that the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, 70% of the total, are the transportation and electricity generation sectors. These two sectors are inter-related; we cannot decrease one by increasing the other, we have to decrease both. As the demand for electricity increases for reasons of reducing GHG emissions (for example, more electric vehicles, new residential and commercial construction that is all electric, &c), the production of this electricity must be from non-emission methods (i.e. renewable). It does not make sense to drive an electric car that recharges with electricity generated by burning coal or natural gas. 

Many Americans are doing things to reduce their "carbon footprint." Some examples are replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent or LED bulbs, purchasing more energy efficient appliances, installing solar panels on homes, &c. These are worthwhile actions; however, based on the data above, the residential and commercial sectors are not the major sources of GHG. 

We Americans need a national program, enacted into law, that will drastically change the transportation and electric generation sector emissions. The Biden administration is proposing a massive infrastructure bill that will address these issues (as well as many others). This is perhaps the most important moment in the effort to reverse the trend of climate change. It is already too late in some respects; however, a focused, concerted effort can slow the trend, improve prospects for human society in the future, and set the United States on a course that makes sense.

It appears, from my cursory review, that the U.S. has made good progress towards meeting the Paris Agreement goals. New goals for the years 2030 and beyond will be set soon, and political will is the key to success. It is unfortunate that, like so many other issues, climate change is a partisan issue. The Democrats have two years to make significant progress that demonstrates to voters that there are tangible benefits to them from the needed programs.

Remember, the planet is not in danger; human societies are in danger. The planet will be fine, no matter what we do. Will we? 

---

* the original post stated that the goal "was met," this statement was corrected on April 7, 2021.

NOTES:

(1) https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/

(2) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/12/2021-02910/inventory-of-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2019  

(3)https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archived-posts/sciblog/2008/08/11/release-of-carbon-dioxide-by-individual-humans/comment-page-1/index.html

STREAMING SERIES REVIEW: DJT - THE IMPEACHMENT: SEASON 2

Season 1 recap.  In season 1 of DJT: The Impeachment, we saw Donald John Trump, then President of the United States, impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on two counts: abuse of power, and obstruction of Congress. These counts were a result of Trump's attempts to strong-arm and extort the newly-elected President of Ukraine in an attempt to get Ukraine to investigate Trump's opponent for the 2020 election, Joe Biden. Trump acted with his usual degree of impunity, brazenness, lying, and contempt for normalcy and decency. The entire season 1 of DJT: The Impeachment was a two-thumbs up series of episodes filled with excitement, amazement, brilliant and compelling walk-on cameos by career foreign service staff, incredible acts of logic- and law-defying tricks by the Attorney General of the United States, and bald-face denial by Congressional Republicans. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump along party lines, with the exception of a single Republican, Senator Romney, voting to convict. The season ended in the post-trial episode in which Trump exacted retribution against those who dared to challenge him, including firing several career employees of the State Department and the Army. Our final glimpse of Trump was his victorious strutting, indicating that yes, he, Donald Trump, could get away with anything. 

Season 2.  Episode 1 - The Vote. The opening episode of DJT: The Impeachment: Season 2 dropped on election day in November, 2020. In that episode, the director used numerous flash-backs to set the scene of the constant Trump drumbeat of lies about election fraud, preparing his base and sycophants for his looming defeat. We also saw the gross incompetence of Trump and his key staff regarding the coronavirus pandemic, in which hundreds of thousands of Americans died. The episode ended as a cliff-hanger, with the vote counting continuing in a few key states that Trump needed to win. 

Season 2, Episode 2 - The Madman Roars. We saw the agony and anger of Trump as his must-win states fell to his opponent, Joe Biden, who was declared the winner. Trump ranted and raged on social media, television, and to the press, a madman insisting he had actually won by a landslide and that the Biden campaign and Democrats had committed the greatest fraud of all time and cheated him out of his win. The anger of his MAGA hat-wearing base grew to a fever pitch, and Trump went on the road to hold large rallies - in the middle of a pandemic - to promote his great lie and whip up his supporters. The Great Lie was promoted everywhere, including by prominent Republicans. We see Trump lawyers filing court actions more than 60 times to have various states ballots disqualified; all of these efforts failed. The Supreme Court declined to take up Trump's election challenge. Trump is shown making phone calls to various state Republican officials, from governors down, to convince them to change the vote results in his favor. Using social media and other avenues, Trump triples down on the Great Lie that the vote was a fraud, it was stolen, he had won by a landslide, and his supporters needed to "stop the steal" and take back their country. As the episode closes, we see a frustrated and angry Trump planning his last options involving Vice-President Pence and, if all else fails, a massive action in D.C. on January 6.

Season 2, Episode 3 -  The Insurrection. Episode 3 was the most chilling episode of the series to date. It opened with Congress preparing to certify the electoral college votes of each state in a joint session, with Vice-President Pence presiding. This action is normally a straight-forward confirmation; however, the tension built in episode 3, with Trump increasingly turning up the volume of his lies about "the great fraud" perpetrated by the Democrats, culminating in Trump's call to his base to come to Washington, D.C. to "Stop the Steal." Thousands of Trump loyalists showed up from every corner of the country. On the morning of January 6, 2021, the Trump machine held a massive rally at which various speakers, a propaganda film, and Trump himself whipped up the crowd to a mob frenzy, demanding that they "be strong, very strong," engage in "combat," "stop the steal" and "save our democracy." The crowd responded by attacking the Capitol Building while Congress was in joint session, breaking through barricades and police lines, breaking into the building, attacking and battling the police, and looking for members of Congress and Vice-President Pence with intentions of capturing them and, based on the video evidence, threatening to kill them. Members of Congress barely escaped. Seven people died, including one policeman beaten to death and two who later committed suicide. More than 140 police officers were badly injured, many for life. Donald Trump watched the insurrection on T.V., ignoring the pleas of those around him, members of Congress, former staff, and family members to do something to stop the violence. 

Scene from DJT The Impeachment, Season 2, Episode 3.

Season 2, Episode 4 - In da House. Within a week of the Capitol insurrection, and one week before the end of his term as President,  the House of Representatives impeached Donald Trump, for the second time, on a single article: incitement of insurrection. In an unusual defection, 10 Republican members of the House voted for impeachment. House leadership is stymied in their hope to have the Senate conduct the required impeachment trial before January 20, Inauguration Day, while Trump is still in office; however, Mitch McConnell, outgoing Senate majority leader, refuses to put it on the Senate schedule until February. This is a calculated move by the sly McConnell. 

Season 2, Episode 5 - The Trial. This episode dropped on February 9, 2021, almost exactly one year ofter the conclusion of DJT - The Impeachment Season 1. The Episode was presented in two parts, both set in the U.S. Senate as the House Impeachment Managers prosecute Donald Trump, and Trump's legal team, hired about a week prior (because previously hired attorneys left or were fired by Trump) defends him. The opening day of the trial is focused on one question: is the impeachment constitutional? The House Impeachment Managers present their case that the trial is appropriate and lawful under the Constitution, and they do a masterful job. The defendant's lawyers, seemingly from the law firm Meandering, Furious and Scolding, LLP, are exactly that as they claim that Trump, now a private citizen, cannot be impeached. The session ends with a role call vote in which all Democratic Senators, and 5 Republicans, vote that the trial is constitutional.  On Day 2 of the Senate trial, the Impeachment Managers present hours of evidence showing how Donald Trump, while President, created the Great Lie that the election was a fraud and that he had actually won by a landslide, that the Democrats had stolen the election, and that Congressional Republicans and the Vice-President, and his base of voters, needed to "fight like hell" to save the country and right the huge wrong that put Trump out of office.  

The Trump legal team has their day to present the case for their client. They focus on everything but the question of Trump's guilt. Instead the Trump crack legal team (are they on crack?) chastises the House Impeachment Managers for lying, cheating, altering video and tweet evidence, being mean, conducting a "snap impeachment,"being radical socialists, eating babies for brunch (well, maybe not that), ignoring due process, violating the First Amendment of the Constitution, and...well, you have to watch it yourself. A highlight of the episode is a lengthy video, the "Fight Club" video, showing Democrats (mostly women, people of color, and Jews) using the word "fight," meant to imply that there was nothing untoward about Trump telling his people that they had to "fight for their freedom," and "fight to keep their country." No, they claim, he did not mean they should actually fight with anyone, even though many of them were armed and wearing battle gear and shouting for blood.  

Part 2 of Episode 1 opens on the final day of the Senate trial, with each side presenting their closing arguments; however, there are a few plot twists and turns. The Impeachment Managers want to depose a witness, a Representative from Washington State who had told the press about a telephone conversation between Trump and Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the Minority Leader of the House, in which McCarthy implores Trump to send help, and that VP Sense had just been rushed out of the chamber by the Secret Service - Trump did nothing. The Trump team was incensed, and said that they would depose a hundred witnesses. Confusion ensued, and the Senators caucused to figure it out. In the end, the lead Impeachment Manager read the Washington Representative's statement into the record as evidence, and they moved on to closing statements. 

The vote was taken, and the result was that Trump was acquitted by the Republicans on a vote total of 57 guilty to 43 not guilty. A two-thirds majority, 67 votes, is needed to convict someone in a Senate trial. Although Trump was not convicted, he does have the dubious historic honor of being the only U.S. President to be impeached twice, and the only one to have such a bipartisan guilty vote, 7 members of his own party. 

The episode, and season 2, closes with a bizarre epilogue. We see Senator Mitch McConnell, majority leader of the Senate when Trump was president, now minority leader as a result of the 2020 election, standing alone at the podium and speaking. There are brief flashbacks of McConnell, the majority leader, refusing to accept the Article of Impeachment from the House of Representatives until after the inauguration of Joe Biden. We see McConnel, now the minority leader, casting his "not guilty" vote only moments before he steps to the podium. And then McConnell begins to speak. 

"January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the vice president. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth – because he was angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty. The House accused the former president of, quote, "incitement." That is a specific term from the criminal law. Let me put that to the side for one moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago: There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. And their having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only the president's intemperate language on January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged "trial by combat." It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by our now-president. I defended the president's right to bring any complaints to our legal system. The legal system spoke. The Electoral College spoke. As I stood up and said clearly at the time, the election was settled." And he continued in that vein for several minutes.

Then McConnell explained that he had voted for acquittal because he believed the trial was unconstitutional; Trump could not be impeached after leaving office. In other words, McConnell, and very probably many other Republican Senators who voted "not guilty" actually thought Trump was guilty, but acquitted him on a technicality. The Senate voted, on the opening day of the trial, that the trial was constitutional, and this should have settled the matter, but obviously the majority of Republican Senators did not honor that vote, because the constitutional issue gave them an easy out. 

DJT - The Impeachment is a brilliant mini-series. In it's two seasons, it provides many chilling lessons about democracy, politics, and authoritarian tendencies of leaders and followers. Luckily, nothing like this has happened in the history of modern democracies, and in fact, much of it stretches the imagination to the point of being unbelievable and unlikely. It is, however, great entertainment.

--- 

REFORMING ELECTION LAWS

This post is NOT about the Big Lie that Biden rigged the election. Now we have that out of the way.

This post is about how our election process works, or doesn't work, and what, if anything, we can and should do to fix it.

The Electoral College.  I'll leave this one to the experts; however, there is one solution I've read about that could be a simple solution. A number of states have already signed on to a proposal under which all of the state electoral votes would be assigned to the winner of the popular vote. If this were to be the process in every state, it would basically bypass the role of the Electoral College, and the winner of the popular vote would be the winner of the election. 

Money in Politics.  Campaign spending on the 2020 election was about $14,000,000,000 (14 billion). For the presidential contest, Trump raised $785 million and Biden raised $1.06 billion, totaling $1.85 billion, between January 1, 2017 and November 23, 2020.(1) In my humble opinion, this is obscene and out of control. We need to limit the amount of money in electoral politics. Citizens United went the opposite way, so we need to overturn that through legislation, or a constitutional amendment. There should be strict limits on the amount of money spent, no dark money, complete transparency and more. It is a fact that electeds spend a huge amount of their time every year doing fund raising. And yes, big donations result in favors or special treatment.

Politics should be Local.  Why do we allow people (or corporations and other entities) to get involved in elections for people who will not represent them? In other words, donations to and campaigning for political candidates should be limited to the people who will be represented by the elected person. In many elections at the local, regional, state and federal levels, outside money and campaigners can flood into the process and determine the outcome. In Oregon, for example, we have a ballot initiative process, and we often find that some person or organization from outside Oregon sponsors an initiative, puts big money into campaigning for it, and can win over Oregon voters for it. Why is this O.K? 

The recent presidential and senate elections in the State of Georgia is another good example of outside influence. Many millions of dollars poured into the Georgia election from outside Georgia. Georgia voters were inundated by many thousands or millions of letters, postcards, telephone calls, text messages from people outside Georgia. Wouldn't it be a better process if the citizens of Georgia made their own decisions without all the outside money and labor trying to persuade them? (Yes, I know that if you are a Democrat, you don't like this idea; but it works both ways.) 

This issue, of course, goes back to the issue of money in elections. Think about it, if every candidate was given the same amount of money by government to spend on campaigning, and was not allowed to use outside money, a lot of the problems would go away. 

Voter Registration.  Voting in America is not just a right, it is a responsibility. As such, it should be easy for citizens to become registered voters. In fact, there are some who think that every eligible person should automatically be registered by some process, and even make voting mandatory. The 2020 election had the largest voter turnout, by percentage, in more than a century, at 66.3%. In other words, one-third of American voters didn't vote. Certainly we can and should be better at this.

Voter Suppression. A shameful aspect of voting in America is the efforts by political bodies at every level to suppress the votes of specific groups, mostly people of color. The formation of the United States only allowed white men to vote, and this was not completely corrected until the twentieth century. Today there are efforts to redraw voting districts to favor a specific political party (usually Republicans), there are laws passed to make it more difficult for certain people to exercise their voting right, and the act of voting is often made more difficult for minority communities by limiting the number of voting locations and understaffing them. Many solutions abound, including a national vote-by-mail mandate. Credit is due to the dedicated people who worked hard to make the 2020 election one of the most secure in history, and in the midst of a pandemic. 

Stop the Lies.  Elections and campaigning should be based on fact and truth, not lies and deception. Candidates should be punished in some way for mounting advertisements or making speeches that convey false statements - lies. Broadcasters should be regulated, as they used to be, to only allow truthful statements and facts to be aired. Unfortunately, lies were the foundation of the Trump administration, and this will be difficult to unwind.

Back to the Basics.  Unfortunately, American politics has become a partisan money game, instead of the ideal we strive for. According to the Constitution:

• The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.... [Article 1, Section 2]
• The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof....[Amendment XVII]
• The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States....[Article 1, Section 8] 

(emphases added, above)

In other words, each State should elect the people to represent it, and these members of Congress have the responsibility to "promote the general welfare" of the country. Nowhere does the Constitution say or imply that the job of members of Congress is to promote their party or their own fortune. 

Yes, I know, things are not that simple; but seriously, our system is totally screwed up, and smart people can certainly find ways to make the system more fair, more transparent, and more representative of voters. And that's my opinion.

---

Footnote:

(1) Source:https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election_campaign_finance,_2020

(This post was modified several hours after the original posting.)

WHITHER DEMOCRACY?

On January 6, 2021, at 1:24 PM, the assault on American democracy continued, this time in the Congress of the United States of America.  In a joint session of Congress, more than 100 members of Congress, all Republicans, gave a rare standing ovation to the objection by a representative of the State of Arizona to the counting of Arizona electoral votes for Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris. 

Scholars, lawyers and pundits on both political sides agreed that this grand side show had no chance of changing the results of the 2020 presidential election; it was pure political theater designed to appeal to the Trump/Republican base and burnish the Trumpian credentials of aspirants to the presidency in 2024. This cynical move, however, was more dangerous than not, as it continued the constant drumbeat of lies and conspiracy theories spewing from the mouth of the U.S. President and his co-conspirators. The fabricated lie of a stolen election had convinced a huge number of Americans that Joe Biden and the evil Democrats had cheated Donald Trump out of a second term to make America great again, again. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R Texas) spoke first in the Senate after they reconvened to debate the challenge to Arizona votes. He said "...almost half of Americans (Republicans, 39%, Democrats 17%) think the election was "rigged." He called for "appointment of an Electoral Commission to conduct a 10-day emergency audit, to examine the evidence...." The problem with Cruz's argument was that there is no evidence of election fraud - zero - as determined by every state and every court. Cruz used circular logic; "we kept telling the people the same lie, and look, a lot of them believe it!"

As Congressional Republicans attacked democracy in the House and Senate chambers, Donald Trump was inciting a huge crowd of his supporters to attack the Capitol Building. He instructed them to march down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, repeatedly saying that he would march with them (he didn't; he went back to the White House and watched on T.V.). And so thousands of screaming and yelling Americans stormed the Capitol of the United States, overwhelmed ill-prepared Capitol Police, broke in, vandalized the hallowed halls of government, threatened members of Congress, who fled to secure locations, and tore a gaping hole in the American facade of "united." Five people died, including one policeman; many more were injured. All of the facts of this incident have yet to be uncovered, and we can assume that it was much worse than we think now. 

Time will tell the extent of coordination and possible collusion around this mob invasion of the Capitol. Many questions remain unanswered. One thing, however, is crystal clear: authoritarianism has taken root in America.

In November, 2020, 74,224,501 Americans voted for Donald J. Trump; this was  46.82% of the votes cast in the election (about 6 million more voted for Joe Biden). 

On the morning of January 6, 2021, 15 Senators and 141 Representatives were on record as intending to challenge state-certified electoral college votes for Joe Biden (7 Senators and 2 Representatives changed their minds after the Trump mob attack on the Capitol). Assuming the original number of Senators and Representatives would have voted their opposition had the mob riot not occurred, 28.3% of Republicans in the Senate, and 71.6% of Republicans in the House of Representatives would have voted against the democratic election process and in favor of giving the election to Trump. Combining the Senate and House numbers, 62.4% of Congressional Republicans intended to vote against the democratic process. 

Let's be very, very clear here about this critically important take-away from the 2020 presidential election process: almost half of American voters (47%) and almost two-thirds of Republicans in Congress (62%) chose authoritarianism (Donald Trump) over democracy!  (see update at end)

This fact has to be foremost in our minds moving forward. Many of us assume that every American believes in and supports democracy, as opposed to fascism or authoritarianism. The facts show otherwise. The far-right in America, led for the past four years by Donald Trump, has convinced a significant number of Americans that only they can save America, make it great again, and keep the socialists and "others" (re: people of color, immigrants) from taking over their country. Using lies and fear-mongering, the right has somehow convinced these Americans that a man like Donald Trump is actually their champion and has their best interests in mind, even though any intelligent person can see clearly that Trump and his minions only have the interests of themselves and the very wealthiest people in mind. This is a truly dangerous time for America. 

Soon-to-be President Joe Biden ran on a platform of unification, of working across the aisle, of being the president of every American, not just those who voted for him. This is a great ideal; however, in practice, Mr. Biden will need to charge ahead with the critically needed new programs and reforms that will, in fact, benefit the vast majority of Americans, including those who chose authoritarianism. He must find ways to open people's eyes to the realities of Trumpism by showing them the tangible benefits of improved wages and meaningful jobs, health care, education, building a carbon-free energy system, improvements in air and water quality, and many other aspects of life. This will be a tough job, and the Biden team, including all of us who want him to succeed, have the next two years, until the mid-term election of 2022, to show fickle American voters what major progress looks like. 

Make America Great Again - MAGA - is a dog whistle for Keep America White. This fact is much more evident today than it was a week ago or four years ago. The contrast between the law enforcement response displayed at the nation's Capitol Building compared to that at every Black Lives Matter demonstration in D.C. and across America is shockingly stark. Although there are numerous videos of Capitol Police seeming to accommodate the white rioters, even befriend or assist them in some cases, overall the officers appeared to try to keep the crowd back and protect the building and the people inside until realizing their lives and safety were at risk against impossible odds of success, and they pulled back. One officer was killed, and many others injured. The failure of law enforcement at the Capitol was a failure of leadership; it remains to be seen if this was intentional. It appears that a "demonstration" of white people did not present the threat that demonstrations by Black Americans is assumed to present. We can only imagine the extent of injury and death of rioters had they been persons of color. However, an alternative explanation could be that this was an intentional plan to set up a situation that would allow "demonstrators" to overwhelm law enforcement in order to stop the Congress from approving the electoral college certification of the election of Trump's opponent. This is a conspiracy theory alternative explanation, but in the Trump-era, it has to be considered. Hopefully, time and investigations will determine the truth. 

I believe that the American democratic republic is strong and will endure; however, I also believe that the many flaws in our system must be corrected, and the tide of authoritarianism must be defeated. America was founded in white supremacy, and its history has followed that shameful track to this day. Advances and improvements have been made along the way, but the framework of systemic bias remains. To move forward, we must change the framework.

---

UPDATE (January 27, 2021): Yesterday, I finished reading the book "Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents" by Isabel Wilkerson. She recounted a question by Taylor Branch during their discussion: "...if people were given the choice between democracy and whiteness, how many would choose whiteness?" This is an important word substitution I accept instead of "authoritarianism," above. 

DECEMBER 31, 2020 - AT LAST!

It's been awhile. I guess I just haven't had the heart or the will to post here since early November.  The Joe Biden and Kamala Harris ticket won the election, and Donald Trump and his minions stepped up their denial snake oil pitch and continued to make a mockery of the office of president and the Republican Party. He left for Florida and has spent the days playing golf and tweeting bile while many more thousands of Americans sickened and died from the killer virus. Trump will be gone soon - not soon enough - the Retrumplicans will stay on, and the new administration will have a daunting job ahead, to say the least.

2020. A year of infamy. Many people have or will write about the year that ends tonight, and I have nothing new to say. At the end of a year, I usually scroll through my digital calendar from January 1 to December 31 as a way of reviewing the year. For 2020, this scroll-through looks pretty typical for us; dinners out, theater evenings, museum visits, doctor appointments, gatherings with friends and family for normal activities or special events. But it all changes starting March 11. After March 11, the calendar is filled with video calls; first using Skype, then exclusively Zoom. And grocery pickups. Zoom gatherings and grocery pickups, all...year...long. We have been "sheltering in place" to avoid exposure to the virus. 

>19,970,000 COVID-19 cases; >344,000 people dead as of today in America since February, 2020. A lot of this was preventable. There are vaccines now, but the distribution system is screwed up, so it will be a long time until enough people are vaccinated to clear this train wreck off the tracks. The Biden-Harris administration will hopefully fix a lot of what's broken. Fingers crossed.

Our family has been fortunate. We elders are retired and comfortable; the kids (anyone under 60) are hanging on and getting on well enough. No-one in our immediate circle has tested positive, or been ill with the virus. And no deaths. We grieve for the many families - too many - in our country who have been visited with pandemic tragedy, and we are saddened by the loss of jobs, economic and social stresses so many families are experiencing. And yes, we are mad as hell that the Repugnicans in Congress have dithered away the time with their partisan politics, their Trump-support nonsense, instead of doing the job the Constitution requires them to do: "promote the general welfare." A pox on all their houses!!!

A friend remarked yesterday that it was not really the new year until January 21. Agreed. While it is true that much of what happened during 2020 was brought by nature, it is also true that the Trumpsters made everything worse, every time. An old adage is: everything is political. 

As I complete this short post today, 01/01/2021, I know that today is simply the day after yesterday, and that the "new year" is only symbolic. Nothing has changed from yesterday that is outside the trend lines from the yesterdays. And yet, we can symbolically take a deep breath, look ahead, see the end-of-tunnel light is a bit larger and brighter, and renew hope for a better year. And maybe, just maybe, if we all work together, we can make it so. 

---