THE GUN LOBBY AND GUN-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ARE WRONG!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Second Amendment, Constitution of the United States.

I'll take a different tack here than most; if the Second Amendment really means that we all have the right to have firearms designed to kill people, then the Constitution needs to be changed. Period. 

Fact: the latest massacre, in Aurora, Colorado, was perpetrated by a person who had legal firearms. He had in his possession four weapons that he had purchased from local gun shops in the past 60 days, and 6,000 rounds of ammunition. His arsenal included: 1) a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle with a drum magazine capable of holding 100 rounds that can fire 50-60 rounds per minute; 2) two Glock .40 caliber pistols, probably with 15 round clips; and 3) a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun that holds up to 7 rounds. The Colt rifle is the civilian version of the M-16 used by the U.S. military. The Glock pistols are popular among police. Both of these weapons are designed for one purpose: killing people. I'm not a hunter, but I assume that the shotgun is a hunting weapon. 

Does the Second Amendment really mean that we all have the right to own weapons designed to kill people? If it does, and I think it does not, then it needs to be changed. There is not one reason for any civilian to own a weapon designed to kill people. There is not one reason for it to be legal to sell these weapons to civilians. In other words, only the police and military should own these weapons (and if civilians didn't have any, then the cops wouldn't need them, either). 

Fact: we have had many mass shootings in this country; it has become all too common. Here's a graphic being used by many media outlets today:

This is nuts! What kind of country do we live in? Is this what the Second Amendment is all about? 

I know people who hunt and fish. They do this for enjoyment and for food. I don't have a problem with this. And by the way, they don't use M-16's. 

Can we prevent people from killing others with hunting weapons? No. Can we reduce the number of lethal weapons in our communities designed to kill people? Yes, and we should. It would take tough laws, made by tough law-makers who understand that it is OK to go against the NRA and other gun lobby groups. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have many people like that in Congress. 

This is nuts. 

THE DIRT ON THE STREET - THE FUTILITY OF STREET SWEEPING IN PORTLAND, OREGON

The City's street cleaning program removes dirt and debris from City streets to provide a healthy, safe, and attractive environment for the citizens of Portland. Regular removal of leaves and debris is necessary to prevent stormwater drains from clogging, which can result in street flooding. Street cleaning protects water quality and minimizes the burden on the sewer system from surface debris. 

The above introduction is on the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation street cleaning web page.  I agree that clean streets are a good thing, and that the City should regularly clean them for the benefits listed. The only problem is that the City of Portland street cleaning program doesn't do any of the above. 

The method used to clean the streets is street sweeping machines; you've seen the vehicles with the large rotating brushes going down the street. The street sweeper recently went through our neighborhood; this is done 1 or 2 times per year.  


Here's a photo I took near my house soon after the sweeper went through.

Look closely and you will see the track made by the sweeper; it went around the parked cars.
 
Further into the web page cited above, the City states that 97% of the dirt and debris on the street is within 40 inches (3.3. ft) of the curb. A car typically takes up the area about 6 ft from the curb. So in other words, except when it can get to within 3 ft of the curb, the sweeper only gets about 3% of the dirt. On our block, there are typically no empty parking spaces, so the sweeper misses most of the street dirt. 


I wondered how much dirt and debris the sweeper leaves behind, and on the 4th of July, I had an opportunity to figure it out. On that morning, there were only 2 cars parked on our side of the street for the entire block. So I went our with a square-end shovel and push broom and did the street sweeping myself (I actually try to do this at least once a year). 

What I found was a layer of dirt against the curb, a lot of which had weeds growing in it. There was also debris: cigarette butts, scraps of paper and plastic, bits of metal; you get the idea. And also, a lot of oil and grease stains on the pavement - I couldn't sweep those. 

I shoveled and swept the area within about 3 ft of the curb on one side of the entire block - you remember that this 3 ft is where 97% of the street dirt is found. I piled all of it into a yellow plastic recycling bin. 

I then measured the size of the bin and did some calculations; I had 1.78 cubic feet, or 0.07 cubic yards, of dirt and debris.  The length of the one side of the street I cleaned was 250 ft, or 0.05 mile. 


A standard dump truck holds about 5 cubic yards (cy) of dirt; that is about 75 of my yellow bins full of dirt. One dump truck at 5 cy would hold about 72 of my bins full of street debris. Or, if we consider both sides of the street, a dump truck would hold about 36 blocks worth of street dirt. The City of Portland has 4,700 miles of paved streets. Using the length of my block, 36 blocks would be 1.7 miles. Do the math, and you get a total of 2,765 dump truck loads.


2,765. That is the number of dump trucks full of street dirt that the City street cleaning program leaves behind every time they clean the streets, based on the assumptions of my small exercise and calculations. 

But wait - what about posting "no parking" signs so that the streets can be properly cleaned? In many cities, street sweeping is scheduled for specific days and people know not to park on those streets. Can't we do that in Portland? Apparently not. The second half of the City web site cited above lists numerous reasons (excuses) why the City of Portland can't do that.  And of course, as the City web site states: "Any attempt to provide a schedule online or through the mail would almost certainly result in a frustrated public because too many factors beyond our control always result in delays to our street sweeping schedule." We certainly don't want a frustrated public! 

Read the opening statement of this post again (go ahead, scroll up, I'll wait). Based on my small study, the statement is not true; the City does not really remove dirt and debris from the streets, they leave 97% of it. For me, this begs the question of "why bother?" Why continue a program that does nothing? Either do it correctly, or don't do it at all. 

We are very green in the City of Portland. We strive mightily to protect the water quality in our rivers and streams, to save the salmon, to improve our quality of life and the environment. We all pay stormwater fees, including the off-site stormwater fee that "pays for the construction, operation and maintenance of facilities that manage stormwater runoff from city streets." Part of the above is to deal with the water quality of stormwater runoff from streets. Effective street cleaning is one of the easiest and best ways to deal with water quality from street runoff - remove the contaminants before they go down the drain! 

Now, some of you might be wondering "what did he do with the yellow bin full of street sweepings?" I phoned the street cleaning department at the City of Portland and explained to a very helpful person what I had done. I said that I didn't want to put the sweepings into my green can (non-Portlanders; that's the can we put yard debris and food waste into that is picked up weekly for composting), and he said that was correct because "you don't know what's in it." "Oh, I do know what's in it," I replied. He asked for my address, I left the yellow bin out by the curb, and the next morning it was empty - a city crew picked it up for proper (hopefully) disposal. 

Should the City of Portland sell their street sweepers, re-assign most of the staff, and instead distribute shovels and brooms to every property owner? I think not. I think that the City needs to evaluate their street cleaning program and change to a program that actually meets the intended goals. 

THE VISION THING

Some of you know that I've had eye issues lately. First it was cataract surgery, then an eyeball internal hemorrhage (vitreous hemorrhage, to be technical). Now I have impaired vision in one eye (retinal damage) that I try my best to ignore. And, of course, I joke about it: The Avengers movie was terrific in 2.5D!

A few minutes ago I was standing quietly on the back deck absorbing a bit of solar radiation and watching a chickadee watching me to determine whether or not it should risk a stop at the feeder. I thought about my vision for my vision, a bionic eyeball. When I had my cataracts done a few years ago, the doc talked to me about the different kinds of lenses from which I could choose - short- or long-vision. My response was that I wanted a Terminator eyeball, which, if you are a Terminator fan (the first one), you understand is an eyeball with many capabilities. I want one that will zoom in and out, snap still pictures and videos, measure distance between me and an object, maybe even measure temperature of an object (and no, I've rejected the see-through-clothing option from old comic book ads). I think I'll call it the iBall.

Here's a sketch of the iBall:

The iBall has a multi-sensor camera (1) in the front (note the interchangeable filter that allows the user to change eye color to match clothing). The on-board computer (2) processes signals from the iBall sensor and integrates them with signals to and from the brain (note: brain not included, sold separately). iBall options include the Smartphone Accessory, that allows sending and receiving vocal data; this includes an integrated antenna (3) (cleverly disguised as nasal varicose veins), audio receptor (4) that neatly fits inside the ear (note: ear not included, sold separately), and a microphone (5) (cleverly disguised as a skin mole). Future accessories will include an internet data module that can be added to the on-board computer and will allow net surfing, emailing, and watching movies. A major advantage of the internet accessory will be that the user can be on Facebook, watch a movie or doing any number of activities without anyone else noticing (user training will be available so users can learn to shake their head and mumble "uh-huh, uh-huh" while doing something else altogether).

And that is my Vision Thing for today. (Note to Apple, I get a major share of the profits!)

THE GREENING OF FAST FOOD: BURGERVILLE

We just finished a delicious lunch from our local Burgerville, a Pacific NW chain of drive-in/through restaurants. Burgerville has made a concerted effort to focus their business on people-planet-profits, and we truly appreciate their efforts. They source ingredients from local producers as much as possible, their beef, turkey, chicken, eggs are raised using sustainable and no-drug practices, and they use seasonal foods (right now they have Oregon strawberry shakes and smoothies (including dairy-free) and "golden-fried asparagus spears.") And did I mention that they now have gluten free buns available?

I have in front of me the packaging, which is truly impressive. The whole order was in a green plastic bag - certified compostable. The fries were in a paper bag labeled as made from 100% renewable resources, unbleached. The small paper bag with one of the burgers is labeled as "...made from 100% local, renewable resources, and uses 35% recycled content and recovered wood fibers. Inks are water-based and adhesives are starch-based." And it, too, is labeled as compostable. Ditto for the paper napkins, the paper burger wrapper, and the paper clamshell container. The only items I'm not sure about are the plastic fork and knife.

The Holland, Inc., a Vancouver, Washington company, owns and runs Burgerville. A big thank you to the good people at The Holland, Inc.

Image from Burgerville website.

This post is not sponsored by anyone, and is not a advertisement. I just appreciate good businesses. 

REAL FOOD DIDN'T USED TO NEED LABELING

Someone brought a bag of multigrain chips to our house for a family gathering (our family can't gather without food). I munched a few, and they were OK, but not terrific. I think that they weren't terrific because they were developed to meet multiple dietary restrictions. Here is a panel from the bag label:

Now, I understand that people who have allergies, high cholesterol and various other intolerances or voluntary dietary preferences want to know what they are about to eat - or not eat. But seriously, doesn't this seem a bit far out there? Real food doesn't really need to be labeled with any information other than the ingredients. Even real processed food, for example: potato chips (potatoes, salt and oil), corn chips (corn and lime and oil), pretzels (wheat, leavening, salt) and etc. Yeah, I know, what about all the food additives - well, that's my point, isn't it? If food ingredients are simple enough because the food is real food, then I would think that every consumer is intelligent enough to read the short list of ingredients and know whether or not they want to introduce the subject substance into their digestive system.

The list of ingredients for the above multigrain chips: stone ground corn, high oleic sunflower oil and/or safflower oil and/or canola oil, brown rice flour, flax seeds, cane sugar, oat fiber, sesame seeds, sunflower seeds, quinoa, soy flour, sea salt. (And, of course, because the attorneys insist: "Allergy information: CONTAINS SOY AND SESAME" - as if people who can read the allergy information statement can't read the ingredients!). So are all of the symbols shown above necessary? Of course not, except maybe the certified kosher symbol. Are we consumers so ignorant that we can't read a simple list of ingredients and make our own decisions?

The now mandatory Nutrition Facts box on all food labels has always perplexed me. I understand that some people need to calculate their intake of certain things for health reasons. I also understand that this legal requirement is meant to protect consumers from food manufacturers who put all kinds of stuff into our food - or don't. But I've wondered how many of us really understand the information in this box; I certainly don't. I always glance at the relative amounts of fats because I am blood lipid challenged, but as far as the rest - hmmmm, can't really say that it means much to me.

So we're back to the beginning; real food didn't used to need labeling.

A MODERN TALE OF BIOGEOGRAPHY

If you've ever taken a science or biology class, you have most likely heard the term biogeography, which is the geographic distribution of plants and animals on the planet. The typical, and classic, tales of biogeography ask the question about how plants and animals got to remote ocean islands. The study of animals on the Galapagos Islands is a particular favorite in this genre. We learn that insects, snakes, birds, even small mammals clinging to floating debris, like trees or mats of vegetation, might arrive on some distant shore by sheer chance. And of course, we also know that humans have transported many plants and animals on their ships and left them on foreign shores.

A story in the Portland, Oregon newspaper today is about a dock that washed ashore on a beach in Newport, Oregon. The concrete dock, measuring 66 by 19 by 7 feet tall, has been traced to Misawa, Japan where it was ripped from its moorings during the devastating March 11, 2011 tsunami. The dock is one of the largest pieces of debris that has recently started washing ashore on beaches of the eastern Pacific from Alaska to Oregon.

Fish and wildlife biologists in Newport worked quickly to scrape and burn living plants and animals off the dock shortly after it washed ashore. The goal was to eradicate these organisms common in Japanese waters that could become invasive species on this side of the ocean where many of them are not found.

I think this is an exercise in futility, because many thousands of floating objects, large and small, have traveled across the ocean from Japan to the west coast of North America following the tsunami, and most of these will have attached organisms. I am certain that biologists will be studying the effects of this biogeographic event for many years to come; in fact, I think careers will be built around it.

This event also begs a question I've always had: what is a native vs. non-native species? Scientists who study species migrations and origins have pondered this question. I remember one conversation with a colleague in this field who was part of a group that determined that a number of the "native" zooplankton species in San Francisco Bay were actually invaders from Asian waters centuries ago. So how long does a species need to live in an area before it is considered "native?"

Plants and animals have probably reached our shores from origins in Asia many times. A devastating storm or tsunami can result in trees, floating marine algae, and other natural objects being released into the ocean currents, carrying with them attached or clinging organisms. These "invasions" don't make the news, but they are a constant. Certainly the tsunami in Japan last year was a very major event that released huge numbers of organisms into the conveyor belt of currents that flow west to east across the north Pacific.

Biogeographic processes: a natural form of globalism.

It's a small world after all.

NOISES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

Noises. They surround us as part of the air in which we're immersed. Loud, soft, and often subtle, almost not there.

We have a new neighbor in our neighborhood. We've seen him before, but this year he's become the source of constant noise. He pounds on things; mostly wood. His hammering is one of the first things we hear in the morning as we're awakening, and it continues often throughout the day from different locations around our immediate neighborhood. We see him once in awhile, most often when he comes to eat in our yard at the suet feeder - that's right, he's a bird, a Downy woodpecker.

This little fellow makes a drumming noise by beating his beak against a tree or a wood utility pole. It's not an exceptionally loud noise, but it is noticeable. I stop what I'm doing when I hear him, and I listen in wonderment. I've read that woodpeckers drum to announce their territory. I've always wondered how they can do this and still have a functional brain! It's one of those strange facts of nature. I heard him the other day while I was in front of the house, and I finally found him at the top of a utility pole across the street. He clung to the side of the pole and beat his little brains out against the wood - over and over - until he decided it was time to move on. We're pleased to live in the middle of his territory so we can enjoy the noise he makes.

About a week ago, we went with friends to a musical theater production on what turned out to be a very stormy evening. Our wives left for home at intermission (it was a horrible production) in the one car we had shared. My buddy and I stayed to the bitter end; we had a wrong delusion that maybe the second act would be better - it wasn't. Afterwards we decided to walk to his house, and he would then drive me home. It was a beautiful, almost warm evening just after a large rain storm had passed through. By the time we got to his house I had decided to walk the rest of the way home, and so I set off into the dark night.

At about 10 o'clock I heard the first salvos of fireworks down by the river celebrating the opening of the Portland Rose Festival. The noise of fireworks in the distance is different from thunder because of the various types of explosives being used. The noises also echoed off the buildings of the residential neighborhood through which I was walking. The combination of darkness, dampness in the air, mild temperature, the smells after a rainfall, and the stark noise of fireworks made for a memorable walk. I stopped in the middle of an intersection where I could see some of the fireworks above the trees and houses from my location at a higher elevation.

As I stood and watched the fireworks for a brief moment, my thoughts went to a few years ago when we had gone down to the river to find a good vantage point for the 4th of July fireworks show. We ended up in a crowd on the floating walkway on the east side of the river, directly across from the fireworks barge anchored in mid-river. This was the closest I had ever been to large fireworks, and it was both fascinating and terrifying. The fascination was watching the dark shapes of the fireworks crew scramble around on the barge, the flashes of the explosions that sent each explosive payload skyward, and the closeness of the explosive displays almost directly overhead. The almost terrifying part was the noise, the flames, and the ash and glowing embers falling on us. I've never been in a war, but I suddenly experienced what was probably the closest I'll ever be to the sights, sounds, and physical feeling of explosive concussive force that I imagine is part of combat. I thought a lot that evening about the people who are far away from home, fighting in a war where the explosions are more than fireworks.  We agreed that we'll never get that close again.

When I got to Belmont, a main street, there was a small group of people standing on the corner where they could see the fireworks at the river end of the street in the distance, and I joined them just for a moment. Then I ducked into a pizza shop, got a slice to go, and munched my way home on the last leg of a very fine walk, indeed - noise and all.

We also had a thunder storm last week, which is unusual in Portland. We were sitting on our back deck in the sun, enjoying one of the first outdoor dinners of the year. In the distance, to the north, we could see dark clouds gathering, and when a breeze kicked up from that direction, we knew it was coming our way. The noise of a far away thunderstorm is a low rumbling that seems to roll towards you across the landscape and then pass like a slow freight train. It's a noise that was part of my youth in Chicago, where thunderstorms are common. I very much enjoy thunderstorms.

We finally moved into the house when the temperature dropped and the wind picked up; but I went back outside every few minutes to check the storm's progress as it approached. Storms have a special set of smells and sounds. Faint flashes of lightning were followed by rolling thunder, and I realized that I was counting the seconds between each flash and it's associated noise, something I had done as a kid to estimate the distance between a lightning flash and me. The intervals grew shorter until the storm was here, the rain was pounding, and the lightning flashes were very close. By then I was standing on the covered front porch watching the storm, enjoying the sights, smells and noises of a thunderstorm.

There are many other noises in our neighborhood, but these are a few of my favorites.

NO NEW TAXES: SPECIAL INTERESTS INSIST

It's a good thing special interest groups are watch-dogging the government to prevent new taxes. A good example is right here in Oregon, where it looks like the Oregon Association of Realtors (OAR) will have a measure on the November ballot to prohibit any new taxes on real estate sales. To my knowledge, there are no proposals to impose new taxes on real estate sales; this is a preventive measure that would amend the Oregon Constitution to require a public vote on any proposed real estate transaction tax. The OAR lobbyist, Shaun Jillions (seriously, I'm not making this up), explains that the basis for this action is the 2010 approvals of ballot measures that increased the taxes on corporations and wealthier Oregonians. This made the realtors so nervous that the OAR wanted to get an oar in the water now (sorry - couldn't help myself) to prevent the state from generating revenues from real estate transactions. Oh, did I mention that the OAR has gotten money from the National Association of Realtors and assessments on individual realtors in Oregon ($1,000,000 spent so far) for this anti-tax measure?

So, in summary, the realtors are spending millions and Jillions to keep their OAR house in order.

We citizens are lucky to have this kind of help; I mean, who wants more taxes. I'm thinking there are a lot of other special interests out there who will be weighing in soon, for example:

- no new taxes on hair cuts, sponsored by the ABC (the Association of Barbers and Cutters), and their lobbyist "Curly" Q. Ball. This measure is likely to be opposed by the Brotherhood of Alpine-Like Domes (BALD); their lobbyist, Harry Less, claims that his constituents would favor a tax on hair cuts: "It's no hair off our skin!"

- no new taxes on toilet flushing (includes public urinals), sponsored by Citizens Representing all Personal Processes of Elimination and Removal (CRAPPER). The CRAPPER lobbying team of Ima Terde, I. P. Daley and John Flushing has been working for months, and has assured this blogger that their measure is "ready to drop."

- and finally, the word on the street is that CO2 (Community for Open Oxygen) is preparing a no-new-taxes-on-breathing amendment to the Oregon Constitution that would prevent any municipal or state levy on breathing. The husband and wife lobbying team N. Hale and X. Hale, who represent breathers throughout the state, are emphatic that government has no right to tax the air we breathe. "We've heard from reliable sources that regulators are working on a plan to monitor air consumption by citizens, based on the number of breaths per day" was the word breathed to me by the Hales.

No New Taxes!! That is the rallying cry being heard from border to border to border to border (there are four, after all) in Oregon. Thanks to all the organizations and lobbyists out there who are protecting us from our government.

DEMOCRACY IN PERIL: PORTLAND, OREGON USA

Yesterday, May 15, was election day in Oregon. Very few people bothered to vote. This worries me.


Yes, this election was the primary election; the "real" election is in November. But a lot of important decisions were made in this primary, and these decisions were made by a minority of the eligible voters.


Let's look at the primary election for Mayor of the City of Portland. Portland is mostly in Multnomah County, but small parts of the city are in Clackamas and Washington Counties. Of registered voters, 28.5% voted in Washington County, 35% in Clackamas County, and 28.1% in Multnomah County.


A total of 86,893 votes were cast for the position of Portland Mayor (numbers as of this morning as per web sites for each county election office). I could not find the number of voters registered in Portland for this election, so let's use the number I did find: 352,041 registered voters in Portland for the 2008 general election. Do the calculation and we get 24.7% of the registered voters bothered to cast their votes. Pathetic!! 


There were three real contenders for the position of Portland Mayor in this primary election; Eileen Brady, Charlie Hales and Jefferson Smith. Here are the results (again, as of this morning, as per the web site for each county): 


          Eileen Brady:          21,482 (24.7% of the votes cast)
          Charlie Hales:        36,226 (41.7%)
          Jefferson Smith:     29,185 (33.6%).


Let's look at the vote for each candidate as a percentage of the eligible voters, shall we: 


          Eileen Brady:           6.1%
          Charlie Hales:       10.3%
          Jefferson Smith:      8.3% 


So about 1/4 of the eligible voters determined who will be in the run-off election for Portland Mayor (the top 2 candidates: Hales and Smith). The candidate with the most votes, Hales, got votes from 10 percent of the eligible voters; hardly a mandate. 


I don't get it. Why don't people vote? This election decided a number of local, state and federal positions, as well as some local ballot measures and bond measures. If one-fourth of the voters bother to cast a ballot, what does that say about democracy? 


I've always thought that we should have a law that determines who has a say on government issues. If there is a public hearing on a specific topic, only people who have voted in the last election should be allowed in (with the exception of those too young to vote). Letters to elected representatives should be tossed if the writer didn't vote. Living in a democracy should have conditions - if you vote you have a say in things; if you don't vote - you have no standing. I've often wondered about people who show up for public meetings and hearings and give angry testimony against this or that - did they vote? 


I voted; I always vote. For me, voting is how I participate in the governance of this country, state and city. It's messy, and I worry about the big money and special interests involved these days, but I prefer this to the alternative.


Did you vote? I hope so.

I'M PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN

Today, Barack Obama, the President of the United States of America - my President - your President - our President - made an historic statement; here are his words in an email I received from him today (many of you also received this): "Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer: I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry." 


This is truly a major moment in the history of our country. The momentum for this has been building for years, thanks to the dedicated efforts of many in our communities who have worked tirelessly to break down yet another barrier that has kept some of us separate and not equal under the law. This battle is not won, not yet; we need only look at the shameful votes in places like North Carolina that are last-ditch efforts to maintain discrimination. 


I celebrate this action by President Obama, taken at a very crucial moment in his career. His statement has now drawn a very distinct line in the sand that is the democratic footing of our nation. He has put the nation, and the world, on notice that the President of the United States of America will no longer tolerate or support indecision about this fundamental right for people to be treated equally by the laws of our country. The preludes to his statement were the decisions by his administration to not actively support the Defense of Marriage Act, and to end the shameful Don't Ask - Don't Tell policy of the United States military services. It is interesting, and amazing, that President Obama made the statement now, in the thick of a heated election campaign, and in the aftermath of the North Carolina vote (and previous similar acts by other states). 


Unfortunately, although many of us feel that this position is long overdue, it is very timely, and sends to each of us an urgent call to action. The position taken today by President Obama makes him an even larger target for the right wing, particularly the religious right in this country, to un-elect him in November. The Romney campaign will have to ratchet up the rhetoric and the attacks on Obama, using same-sex marriage as the cudgel. Even worse, the religious-right and other extreme right Super PACs will dump many millions into negative ads focused on same-sex marriage. 


Fellow citizens - it is time. It is time to stand behind our President - strongly, vocally, actively. Not just about this issue, but about all of the issues that are part of our core beliefs: excellent health care for all citizens, excellent education for all of our children, jobs (jobs!), equity - including the super wealthy paying their fair share, solid and tough regulation of the financial industry; you know the list.  

Finally - in case you aren't on a first-name basis with our President, and don't get all those personal emails from him like I do (and from Michelle Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and all the rest), here is the rest of Barack's email to me today. Enjoy it, and be proud to be an American today! 

I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

Thank you,

Barack

EXPLODING UNDERPANTS

[Blogger's note: if we lose our sense of humor, the terrorists win. Mine is still intact.]

By now you are all aware of the CIA foiling a plot by terrorists to detonate a newer, more modern underpants bomb on a plane bound for the USA. What is this world coming to? Who puts on exploding underpants (not to be confused with exploding in your underpants)? Just thinking about it makes me cringe.

Who are these guys, and how do they let themselves be talked into this? I'm picturing the recruiting posters used by Al Queda: "Blow your nuts off for Allah!" "Jihad your Junk!" "More than a Tickle Test for your Testicles!" Do these guys read the fine print? I mean, if you're signing up for martyrdom and the promise of 1,000 virgins waiting for you, don't you think about how pissed-off you'll be when you show up where all these virgins are waiting and suddenly realize you've just turned your equipment into millions of tiny droplets of flesh and blood?

If this wasn't so real it would be funny. Picture a movie about a bumbling terrorist trying to get his exploding underpants on without setting it off, having to use the men's room at the airport but the underpants bomb doesn't have a fly, sitting down oh-so-carefully in the waiting area, and etc. If it wasn't real, it would be funny.

Another part of this news story - really - is that this new Jockey Rocket has no metal in it. The experts think that the newer body scanners in the US might detect the Boom Boom Boxers, but the European scanners won't. This makes me reach the conclusion that the Portlander who was recently arrested for completely undressing at Portland Airport security (he claims he finally just had enough already) was on the right track. We will all be flying naked soon. Or at least we'll have to drop trou to prove that we're flying sans undies.

Remember the thing about boxers or briefs? Now it's boxers, briefs, or da bomb.

Oh well, I guess I'm the butt of this joke.  See you in the Friendly Skies.

THE ART AND ACCEPTABILITY OF POLITICAL PANDERING

Fact 1: politicians pander. Fact 2: we accept it.

I think that "panderer" has become an accepted part of a politicians job description. Pandering is most visible during election season, and it is in full bloom right now. Mitt "Etch-a-Sketch" Romney is a weather vane twirling in the winds of interest groups. Nicolas Sarkozy has taken a sharp right turn to the on-ramp to anti-immigrant and anti-Islam land in an effort to save his bid for a second term. Barak Obama, Bill Clinton, Dubya - they all pandered to their base and any other group with electoral muscle. Many of us voters recognize this, but we shrug it of as part of the game.

The column by Frank Bruni in the Sunday NY Times made me stop and think about my acceptance of political pandering. Bruni writes about Marsha Ternus, a former Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court. "Former" because she was unelected three years ago, along with two other justices, because the Iowa Supreme Court they were part of ruled unanimously that an Iowa statute banning same-sex marriage violated the equal protection language of the Iowa Constitution. This ruling resulted in a firestorm fanned by out-of-state anti gay organizations that funded the campaign to toss these judges at the election box. Ms. Ternus was not a crusader for gay rights; she simply looked at the facts and made a logical decision based on a very strong legal foundation.

I understand that judges and politicians are different species, but the story of Justice Ternus made me realize that I long for political leadership that is based on logic and truth, not on the number of votes. I've seen the movie in which the political candidate or the elected official finally reaches the limit of tolerance and stands up for the truth, thereby dooming her/his chances. Reality is different, we say, because in order for "good" people to get or stay in office, they need to get the most votes. And part of  playing the Get the Most Votes game is pandering to as many voters as possible without doing an unacceptable amount of damage to one's principles. After being elected, a politician can do the etch-a-sketch shake and put the election persona back in the box until the next election.

There are politicians who don't play the pandering game; I personally know some. But perhaps this is only possible because they have a clear majority of voters in their districts who clearly support them. In presidential politics, the voters are all over the map (literally and figuratively), and the game is won by those who pander best (and raise more money, of course - but this is also largely a result of pandering to the big money interests).

Is there a different and better way?

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: HOW MUCH BETTER THAN GASOLINE POWERED?

I drive an EV (electric vehicle); actually, I like to call mine an UEV (urban electric vehicle) because I dare not take it on the freeway - and it wouldn't get me very far if I did. 


I've always wondered about the reality of my UEV actually being better environmentally than a fuel efficient gasoline powered automobile, like my wife's Mini Cooper Clubman that gets probably in the upper 20's to lower-mid 30's mpg (depending on the kind of driving). There are certainly important questions about the cradle-to-grave environmental footprint of a small vehicle that runs on 6 car batteries and was made in China. In fact, maybe I don't really want to know! 


But the Union of Concerned Scientists, of which I am a member, has recently published an interesting study: State of Charge: Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings Across the United States. The article examines the emissions associated with producing the electricity used to charge an EV for every region in the USA. The Executive Summary is the place to start if you want to learn more.  Here is a graphic from the UCS report:

As seen on the map, there are good, better and best regions to own, and charge, an EV. The "good" regions are those where electricity is typically generated by burning coal, and in those areas, an EV has associated emissions similar to those of a gasoline-powered car getting 31-40mpg. In other words, you would be greener if you drove a vehicle that got 40-50mpg or higher than driving an EV. 


Well, it's not exactly that simple, but if this piques your interest, read the article. 

Happy green driving! 

And btw - feel free to cruise around on the Union of Concerned Scientists web site, also. 

EXPORTING COAL FROM THE USA: SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT

There are presently a number of proposals in the works to export coal and liquified natural gas (LNG) from the United States to overseas markets. Some of these export facilities are proposed for the lower Columbia River on both the Oregon and Washington sides.  It was only a few years ago that there were at least 3 proposed facilities in Oregon to import LNG; however, the development of new natural gas sources in Canada using the technique of fracking (fracturing shale rock formations deep underground to release gas) has resulted in an abundant supply of cheap natural gas. The demand for natural gas in places like Japan and China makes exporting it from here a lucrative endeavor.

While there is plenty of opposition to building LNG plants here (whether for export or import), the prospect of shipping coal from lower Columbia River ports is really getting a lot of opposition and media play. The reasons given for opposing coal export are primarily environmental concerns and disruptions of local traffic and communities caused by mile-long trains from the coal fields of Montana to lower river ports. One of the primary stated environmental concerns is that we are trying to reduce the burning of coal to produce electricity in the USA in order to combat global climate change, so why would we export it so it can be burned in China? This seems to be the over-arching reason for opposing coal exports. Other reasons include the potential effects of coal dust from open train cars on human health and fish and wildlife, and issues of environmental justice.

But I wonder if this is as simple as some want it to appear. I'm not taking sides on this one yet because I think the topic needs a lot of thought first. So for the sake of discussion, let me lay out a few reasons why we might want to export coal.

1. China's growing economy demands greater production of electricity to power the existing and future factories where domestic and export goods are made. Keep in mind that the US demand for computer and other home electronics, sport shoes and many other commodities is a main driver for Chinese industrial expansion. The Chinese government is trying to reduce the carbon footprint of it's industrial base, and one way to do this is to import relatively clean (i.e. low-sulfur, high BTU) coal from the Montana coal fields and reduce the use of their domestic dirty coal. We need to do the math on this to determine if the carbon footprint of mining and shipping coal from the USA to China is a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions when compared to the life-cycle of the Chinese using their own coal.

2.  In the present economic environment, increased mining and exporting of coal from the US will create jobs and stimulate some local economies.

3. Alternative methods of shipping and handling coal, in covered barges for example, could reduce the potential for harmful environmental and human health impacts, traffic disruptions, and other impacts to communities along rail lines.

For each of the above reasons, and many others, there are opposing arguments.

I'm always interested in why some topics get a lot of play in the public arena while others remain off the public radar. Exporting coal is a hot topic right now, but let me present another similar topic that I'm sure most of us have never considered: the global impact of exporting animal feed from the USA.

Below is a table that shows containerized cargo exports (and imports) from the lower Columbia River ports. The number one containerized export is hay and animal feed, representing 32% of containerized exports and weighing in at 615,400 metric tons (1 metric ton = 2,205 pounds) annually (I'm not sure what year is represented in these data).

 (Source)

This really surprised me. But so what? Well, an article in the NY Times (2008) examined the real cost of growing animals for food, which is increasingly done in factory-type operations.

Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.

The author cites estimates that about 30% of the ice-free land on this planet is involved in meat production, and this generates almost 1/5th of the world's greenhouse gases - more than transportation sources. US agriculture, which is increasingly dominated by growing livestock feed, is estimated by the USEPA to be responsible for about 3/4 of the water quality problems in our rivers and streams.

The social and environmental justice impacts are also high due not only to the environmental impacts cited above, but by the demand and high price for corn and soy for growing meat that makes it less available as food for people, particularly in developing nations.

Shall I continue? No, I think it best for you to read the article yourself. My point is that I have never heard anyone opposing the export of hay and animal feed from the lower Columbia River ports, even though these exports directly support livestock operations overseas that have very real and very high environmental, human health and social justice impacts.

As you can tell, I like to examine all facets of a topic before leaping to a conclusion. Perhaps this is a result of my years spent as an ecological consultant, during which I worked on a large variety of projects, even one of the LNG terminals on the lower Columbia River (as part of the team hired by the company proposing to build the facility). Doing the research needed to plan a development, or even to write an ordinance to protect natural resources (I've done a lot of those, also) requires looking at a lot of alternatives, including not doing the project at all, and then making a reasoned selection of the best alternative. The selected alternative is not necessary the one that every side wants - but it rarely can be.

So, as you chew your steak, chop or chicken leg tonight, think about the above - maybe you'll start eating coal instead!

WHY I ENDORSE EILEEN BRADY FOR MAYOR OF PORTLAND, AND DISAGREE WITH THE OREGONIAN EDITORIAL BOARD

The Oregonian has endorsed Charlie Hales for the next Portland Mayor, and I strongly disagree. The Oregonian endorsement is based on specific qualities of their candidate: "a mayor who's ready to lead...experience on the Portland City Council...a record of accomplishment on jobs, transportation, parks and public safety...leadership."  This sounds all too familiar, like this Oregonian endorsement of another former City Council member: "City Commissioner Sam Adams has delivered on his promises to businesses, bicyclists and other Portlanders. He has the drive, political savvy and vision to be mayor" (2008). 

The mistake made by the Oregonian is to choose a candidate based on a stereotype of what qualities the right candidate should have. Leadership, accomplishments and experience are certainly admirable qualities, but are these the only things a good mayor needs? I think not, as history has shown. Each of the three mayoral candidates has her/his own unique set of experiences, accomplishments and leadership qualities. Choosing between them on this basis doesn't get us very far. The Oregonian would have us only elect someone who has already served on the City Council; this is a very limiting proposition.

Portland is a good city aspiring to be a great city. There are certain things that hold us back, some of them inherent in our specific form of government, some based in the different visions of people in city management positions, and others based in the agendas of the multitude of interests and groups that make up our citizenry. What can a mayor do with this mix to move Portland forward? What qualities need a mayor have to change our direction on those pathways that need a new direction? I have seen the qualities needed in Eileen Brady.

Paul Hawken, the businessman, author and sustainability guru who spoke at an Eileen Brady for Mayor event, used the term "reimagine" when discussing how to effect change in our society. That word stuck with me, and the following day I realized that it is the perfect word for articulating a major quality Eileen has, the ability to reimagine. Eileen's experience, accomplishments and leadership are forged from her ability to bring people together to not merely solve a problem, but to reimagine an issue in a way that avoids problems rather than having to solve them because they can't be avoided. 

As a business owner in Portland for the past few decades, I've experienced first hand the multitude of issues one often hears from our business community when it comes to doing business here. As a consultant to both the public and private sectors, including contracts with the City, I've seen these issues from all sides. Portland does a lot right, but it also does a lot wrong, and this holds us back in many ways. Eileen Brady talks about the issues that she sees not only holding us back as a city, but, more importantly, holding us back as individuals who are the moving parts of the city. She voices concerns about the future, based on her view of the pathways leading forward from the place we are now. This is not a message of doom and gloom; this is a message of hope based on her firm belief that working together, we Portlanders can steer a course to a vibrant and thriving future. 

The Oregonian endorsed Charlie Hales because his set of experiences, accomplishments and leadership as a City Council member resulted in his knowledge of where the levers of city government are and which ones need to be pulled in order to keep the City that Works machinery working. That's fine, if what we want is yet another political lever-puller. 

I endorse Eileen Brady for Portland Mayor because she understands that moving Portland forward from these troubled times into a better future for everyone simply cannot be accomplished by keeping the old machinery running. We need a leader of a different kind, one who can help us reimagine the City of Portland as a great city, a city that works for everyone because we all make it work together.  

THE GREAT SHAME OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

I've had it! I'm pissed! The Congress of the United States of America is a body that needs electric shock therapy. In spite of the efforts by those in Congress who understand that their job is to "promote the general welfare" (Constitution of the United States of America), our governing body has been hijacked by those who see their job as un-electing a president and getting their hands on the levers of power.

What has our vaunted governing body been doing lately? Political theater over contraception and the supposed wounded feelings of the Catholic Church. The "War on Religion!!" Oh give me a f*cking break!! How is this promoting the general welfare?

Members of Congress: read this. I dare you! This column by John Canzano, a sports writer for the Oregonian newspaper, is about a 16-year old girl who is battling osteosarcoma - bone cancer. Her doctor has told her that she maybe has a year left. The only treatment for this killer cancer is to remove affected body parts. One leg is gone, parts of both lungs have been taken, and next week the entire lower half of one lung will be cut out. Natalie has a bucket list, and shooting baskets with the Portland Trailblazers was checked off yesterday. The photo in the paper shows a beautiful, smiling, bald and very, very brave teenager. Read this column and then tell us how you can justify your childish behavior. Compared to this teenager - to all of our children - you look like a bunch of spoiled, name-calling children fighting over a pile of toys. Stop it! Do your job!

Members of Congress - what are you thinking? While you posture and pontificate and blabber away about the insults to the church of this or that, thousands and thousands of our kids, like Natalie, are bravely fighting for their lives and futures. They are fighting disease, they are fighting hunger, they are fighting poverty, they are fighting abuse, they are fighting schools that are way too crowded and underfunded, they are fighting for basic health care, they are fighting for a chance to get a meaningful job when they grow up. They are fighting for the future; what are you fighting for? If you can't put aside your petty partisan politics and fight for the future of these kids, then you are failing to perform the job you were elected to do, and you need to step down.

I am so sick and tired of the crap coming out of this Congress.  What will it take to change it? I don't have many illusions left about the strength of our democracy; I'm afraid it's been lost. There is a great divide in this country, and it's not just the politicians in Congress. We are now living in a mean society, where people cheer when a political candidate says that people who can't afford health care are on their own and who cares if they die because it's their own fault. A society in which we have devolved to name-calling and demonizing. And yes, a society in which yelling people down about who should and shouldn't pay for birth control is more important than helping our children live, grow and thrive.

---

FISHING (NOT PHISHING)

Do you like to fish? If yes, I've built a fishing pond just for you. Yep, that's it just to the right of this text box. See the little fishies swimming around? Place your curser in the pond, let it sit for a few seconds, then slowly move it around. Hours and hours of fun - just for you!!

You're welcome.

HEALTH CARE ACT, BIRTH CONTROL, AND THE CHURCHES

Here's the situation: the Affordable Health Care Act, passed by the US Congress in 2010, requires health insurance providers to include contraceptives as part of preventative health care coverage. The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a statement to this effect, and includes non-profit religious organizations that provide health insurance to their employees.  The Catholic Church and a number of others have loudly protested this requirement, and are joining together to work towards repeal of the health care law. The Republic Party has jumped on this attack on "Obamacare" with all four feet!

My opinion - tough luck non-profit religious organizations, just obey the law. If individual employees don't want contraceptives because of their religious beliefs, they won't get them. But what about your employees who do want them? Why is it any of your business? Do your employees have to be members of your religion? Why do you think you have the right to control what individual people do about their own health care and reproductive practices? I understand that birth control is against your religious doctrine, but we do (still) live in a democracy.

This is all a bunch of smoke that will help obscure the true values and benefits provided to millions of people under the new health care legislation. The media love it - it's a controversy! Talking heads and blabbing bloggers are filling the mediasphere with this stuff.....oh, um, wait a minute......OK, goodbye for now.

TAXING THE WEALTHY: A QUICKIE

I like numbers. Here are a few I gleaned from the media this week about taxes and some famous wealthy people. And btw, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against wealthy people in general.

Mitt Romney 2010 income tax return:
Income:  $20,000,000 approx.
Taxes paid: $3,000,000
Tax rate:  13.9%
Charitable donations:  $3,000,000 (15% of income)

Barack Obama 2010 income tax return:
Income: $1,800,000 approx.
Taxes paid: $454,000
Tax rate: $26%
Charitable donations: $250,000  (13.9% of income)

Newt Gingrich 2010 income tax return:
Income: $3,100,000
Taxes paid: $994,708
Tax rate: 31.6%
Charitable donations: $80,600 (2.6% of income)

What do I think about this? Mr. Romney makes a lot of money - good for him. Because most of his income is returns on investments - or capital gains -  it is taxed at a rate of 15%. This is the standard rate for this kind of income, and I think it was established during the G.W. Bush years.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Gingrich make good money also, and they each pay taxes in the 30% range, which is where many Americans are.

I'm a bit shocked that Mr. Gingrich seems a bit stingy with his charitable donations, paying well below the national average for people in his income bracket.

Now, what if wealthy folks like these three were taxed as much as 5% more on their income per year? Here is the additional amount they each would pay:
Romney:  $1,000,000
Obama:   $    90,000
Gingrich: $   155,000.

Would this extra amount break these people? Hardly. Would the extra tax mean that they would each create fewer jobs (a favorite "fact" of the Republicans)? Well, not directly, because these guys don't create jobs. Maybe indirectly in terms of them spending less money and thus less demand for goods translating into fewer jobs? Nope - they each would be left with plenty of cash to spend. So why don't we want to rescind the Bush tax cuts on these guys and help reduce the federal deficit?

Making money and being wealthy isn't a crime, and neither is paying taxes based on the government tax code. The issue here is the lack of a level playing field for all Americans, and the rightness of asking the more fortunate to pay their fair share.

KEYSTONE PIPELINE: WHAT IS THE REAL ISSUE?

The U.S. State Department today decided today not to approve, for now, the Keystone XL pipeline project from Canada to Texas. Keystone XL would carry crude oil from the Canadian oil sands in Alberta to coastal Texas. Keystone XL is an extension of an existing network of pipelines (see map).

Source: indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline has generated a tremendous amount of controversy, with a host of groups choosing sides: environmentalists, tribes, states, private companies, politicians, and national governments. President Obama has been under a lot of pressure to deny or approve the project, and he tried to put a decision off until after the 2012 elections; however, Congress placed a 60-day ticker on the decision as a rider on a recent must-pass bill.

Speaker of the House John Boehner had this to say about the State Department decision: “President Obama is destroying tens of thousands of American jobs and shipping American energy security to the Chinese. There’s really no other way to put it. The President is selling out American jobs for politics." Ah yes....politics.

Source

Source: Energy Information Administration

So what is really going on here? What's the big deal, anyway?  It's not as if Keystone XL is the only oil pipeline in the USA. The map on the left shows the major existing oil/fuel pipelines in the U.S. The next map shows the regional pipelines. According to the Association of Oil Pipelines there are 168,000 miles of liquid pipelines in the USA, and these are the "safest, economical and environmentally favorable way" to transport oil and petroleum products, other liquid fuels and chemicals. Pipelines, most of them underground, are a fact of life, and we rely on them for the fuels we consume every day. 


Do pipelines have spills? Yes, all the time. So do trucks, trains, ships, barges and etc. Fact of life in the modern world.


Am I supporting the Keystone XL pipeline in this post? Not necessarily; I don't know enough about it to make that kind of decision. It's one of those knowing what I don't know moments! 


My main question is this: how should our government make this kind of decision? (The astute reader now knows that I'm not in the "keep government out of the way of free enterprise" camp; government absolutely needs to regulate this stuff.) The environmental and cultural issues are a matter of risk assessment; how much risk are we willing to take on in order to get the benefits of the proposed project? We assume risks every day in everything we do. 


Other environmental aspects include the negative impacts of recovering oil from oil sands, and the relatively large greenhouse gas emission factor of this type of oil recovery and refining.  


What about economics, including jobs? A project of this size will create thousands of construction jobs, and a smaller number of long-term jobs. And US companies could make money supplying materials and equipment for the project. (An interesting sideline: Evraz Steel, a major employer in Portland, Oregon is counting on a major order of steel pipe for the Keystone XL pipeline. An interesting twist - Evraz is a Russian company that bought Oregon Steel a few years ago.) 


There is also a geopolitical issue: should the US allow a Canadian company to build a major pipeline through the United States? What if the main use of this pipeline is to get Canadian oil to a seaport so it can be shipped overseas (this is one claim by project opponents who cite recent data showing that the US is now a net exporter of petroleum products)? 


And energy security. Does this project make the United States more secure in terms of energy resources and supplies, and reduce our dependence on oil from less-friendly or stable countries than Canada (we get a lot of our oil from Nigeria and Venezuela, although Canada is our largest supplier)?


Complicated, eh what? I think part of the answer lies in the energy policy of the United States. Unfortunately, I don't know that we have a comprehensive energy policy, although I am confident that President Obama will try to push one through in his second term. (Remember the Bush Energy Policy crafted by Cheney and his oil industry cronies behind closed doors?) 


In conclusion, the decision to allow or not allow the Keystone XL pipeline will most likely be a political decision, and this is unfortunate. We have now, and will always have many of these kinds of decisions to make. Local examples where I live: several proposals to build export facilities on the Columbia River to ship Montana coal to China, and other proposals to ship liquefied Canadian and US natural gas to Asia. It seems that the Canadians and Americans have large reserves of coal, oil and gas and prices are high in other parts of the world. And by the way, the companies wanting to build these export facilities are not all American companies. 


We need to think and act more globally, and our government needs to have a solid set of policies that will guide these kinds of decisions. Can we ever wrest these decisions out of the political arena? Sometimes. Maybe. 





  are the safest, most reliable, economical and environmentally favorable way to transport oil and petroleum products and other energy liquids and chemicals throughout the U.S.

THE AMERICAN UN-CIVIL WAR: 2012 - 20??

I've stopped laughing at the Republican presidential candidates comedy show; it's not funny anymore. I now realize that this bizarre episode in U.S. history is only one of many indicators of a war brewing within our country, the Un-civil War.

The signs have been right in front of us for a few years, most evident since the election of President Barack Obama. Our Congress has devolved into a snake pit of partisanship, with the minority leadership pledging to uphold only one goal - to beat Barack Obama in 2012. Both sides of the aisle play the game; the losers are the American people.

There is a large and widening chasm running down the middle of the American people, dividing us into mostly two camps - the left and the right. But "left" and "right" are terms that are too simplistic, and not really correct. The divide runs along a seam of what Americans think about who we are or should be. The geographic features on either side of this chasm have labels like religion/secularism, capitalism/socialism, gay/straight, 1%/99%, big government/small government, private/public, basic rights/survival of the fittest, union/non-union and others.

When G. W. Bush was President, I often talked about taking back our country from what I considered to be dangerous men in control of our government. Now I hear people interviewed on the radio saying that we have to take back our country, except they mean from Obama and his supporters. Obama is characterized as a European-style socialist who, according to Mitt Romney, is using the "politics of envy" as part of his attack on and deconstruction of free enterprise.

What I initially considered to be loony tunes statements and ideas expressed by candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are actually serious, and supported by many voters. Some examples (and these are actually mild compared to others):
  - Ron Paul was endorsed by a pastor who once spoke about executing homosexuals,
  - Rick Perry pledged to devote predator drones and thousands of troops to protect the U.S. - Mexico border
  - Governor Perry also said that voters should serve god by voting for him,
  - Rick Santorum promised not to be cowed by "the craven secularists who believe that a stable, healthy household need not be headed by god-fearing moms and dads,"
  - and Newt Gingrich stated that only people of faith should have the right to be citizens of this country.

The lack of civility in the national discourse has reached great heights. The Congress is a prime example, and a number of congressional old-timers have talked about this sea change in how members of Congress relate to one another. Some have announced their retirement, citing this new lack of civility and collaboration as a primary reason.

I think this is serious. I think this is more than election year rhetoric. I think the United States of America is headed for an Un-civil War within, the result of which will be a great tear in the fabric of our society. We are slipping from greatness. We are devolving into a country of meanness in which many good people will be hurt economically, socially, politically and, yes, even physically. I fear for our future.

Does this sound dire? I think it is, and the lack of leadership in this country at this critical time does not bode well for the American future.