THE PLAN: U.S. ENERGY STRATEGY, INCLUDING OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

I guess this is part 3 in my on-going discussion of the Shell Arctic Ocean oil exploration project. I'll be brief; it's up to you to do some reading, or not.

The Obama Administration has an energy policy they call the All-of-the-Above Energy Strategy. Here it is on the Whitehouse website:  https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/securing-american-energy

On drilling for oil beneath the ocean, the Whitehouse website says:

Safe and Responsible Domestic Oil and Gas Production

In 2010, in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama administration launched the most aggressive and comprehensive reforms to offshore oil and gas regulation and oversight in U.S. history and put in place new safeguards to protect the environment. These measures help to ensure that our nation can continue to safely and responsibly develop offshore energy resources. The Administration continues to develop and implement a series of standards that will make oil and gas production and transportation safer, including in hydraulic fracturing, arctic drilling, and rail safety.

The Obama Administration has completely retooled the review and regulation of energy development in the USA. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has replaced previous agencies and consolidated numerous review and regulatory functions.

I found a FAQ on the BOEM website that has helped me understand oil spill risk in the Chukchi Sea, where Shell will be doing exploratory drilling. Here is the FAQ sheet: http://www.boem.gov/Risk-and-Benefits-in-the-Chukchi-Sea/ and I suggest reading it if you are interested in understanding the risk assessment.

And if you want to go a bit deeper, and look at a very interesting technical report about how risk is modeled, here is another link: http://www.boem.gov/Ocean-Science-2014-Oct-Nov-Dec/

The federal agencies involved in reviewing and issuing permits for projects such as the Shell exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea have numerous experts in various scientific disciplines, as well as many other scientists at universities and science/engineering companies under contract. These reviews and permits are not conducted and issued by bean counters or anonymous clerks with rubber stamps!

OK, this is good stuff, keep up the conversation, and check your sources, of course.
---

ENERGY AND OIL DRILLING: BUT SERIOUSLY, WHAT'S THE PLAN?

People dangling from the St. Johns Bridge. Kayaktivists forming a blockade across the Willamette River.  The Royal Dutch Shell icebreaker trying to get out of Portland. Greenpeace activists and other greenies want to shut down Arctic Oil drilling.

I think we need to have a national conversation about the topic of energy policy, including sources, production and consumption. When it comes to hydrocarbons, we all use a huge variety of them every day. Look around you at this very moment. Anything made with plastic, polyester, nylon is made from hydrocarbons extracted from the ground. Almost everything you own is made somewhere else, and it has been transported to the store where you bought it, often from faraway places - have you ever heard of China? So I don't think we can simply stop using hydrocarbons.

Activists are protesting Arctic Ocean oil drilling (and drilling in other oceans), fracking, oil shale mining, Keystone pipeline, coal trains, oil trains, and other energy projects. But what is the Plan? Seriously. If all of these protests actually worked, what would we do for energy and all the materials we use made from hydrocarbons? Wind and solar are good alternatives, but not the complete answer.

As always, I like to use data to illustrate my points. Below are two graphs; one shows crude oil consumption in the United States, the next one shows the same for Sweden.  U.S. oil consumption has trended upward since 1980; Swedish oil consumption has declined drastically since 1980.   Sweden implemented a national policy with the goal of becoming the first European nation to be oil-free by 2020. (!) In 1970, oil accounted for 77% of Sweden's energy, by 2003 it was only 32%.  This difference reflects a difference in societal attitudes and government policy.

Is the Plan for energy policy in the United States based on delaying the Shell Oil icebreaker from leaving Portland? What about stopping the oil and coal trains; is that the new energy plan? Obviously not. The Plan has to start at the individual level and translate into a community and societal level. I don't have much faith in Americans to be rational and realistic about energy - there is little evidence for that. Sure, in liberal islands like Portland, Oregon there is a greater communal mindset that trends towards sustainability; however, we all know that this place is not the national norm.

So go ahead Greenpeacers, dangle from the bridge, fly your banners, paddle your kayaks, and more power to you - seriously. But until you show me The Plan for energy in the United States, and convince me that the majority of Americans are willing to think, act and purchase differently, I'll smile at your stunts, but I won't be out there with you.

In future posts I want to discuss what the Obama Administration has and is doing in terms of the energy plan. The present administration has actually accomplished a lot, even when faced with the Republican majority in Congress. Is drilling in the Arctic Ocean part of the plan? I think it is. I think the federal agencies that issued the permits for the drilling have imposed the most strict conditions ever included in these kinds of permits. The Shell project is exploratory, not production. If Shell demonstrates that drilling in the Arctic can be done safely and with minimal environmental damage, then we might see oil production there in 15 to 20 years. Keep in mind that all of the Arctic is not open to drilling, only very limited portions in a very cautious way.

---

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL, THE ARCTIC OCEAN, GREENPEACE AND ME

Fishman. P. A., R. S. Caldwell, and A. H. Vogel. 1985. Lethal and sublethal effects of oil on food organisms (Euphausiid: Thysanessa raschii) of the bowhead whale. U. S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, OCSEAP Final Rep. 43(1986): 617-702. 

My co-authors and I wrote the above report 30 years ago, under a contract between my consulting firm, Fishman Environmental Services (1983 - 2004), and the Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP). The report was published in Volume 43 of Final Reports of Principal Investigators, and included reports dealing with gray, Belukha and Bowhead whales in the oceans around Alaska. The OCSEAP spent many millions studying the environments of and potential ecological impacts on outer continental shelf areas under the future potential of oil and gas drilling and production.  

I thought about this project today as I looked at the news out of my city, Portland, Oregon, that a group of Greenpeace protesters are hanging by ropes from the St. Johns Bridge over the Willamette River in an effort to block the passage of a Royal Dutch Shell ice breaker that has been at a Portland shipyard for repairs. Shell intends to drill exploratory wells in the Arctic in an area between the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. This was the subject location of my 1985 report. 

So I guess I have a relationship with the protesters, Royal Dutch Shell, and drilling in the Arctic. Earlier today, in a short amount of internet search time, I found a 1990 environmental impact statement for an oil and gas lease sale in the Chukchi Sea that cited my report, and others, to support the conclusion that an oil spill from drilling for oil in the Arctic would not have significant effects on whales. OK, that’s cool. 

There is an adventure connected to the oil and euphausiid study my colleagues and I conducted. To do the research, I proposed collecting live euphausiids (or krill) in Alaska and transporting them to a laboratory in Newport, Oregon where tests could be conducted using Alaska crude oil. We arranged to have a barrel of Alaska crude oil shipped to Dick Caldwell’s lab in Newport where he set up the equipment to do the tests. I contracted with a graduate student in Juneau, Alaska to collect euphausiids with a plankton net towed behind a boat, pack plastic bags of seawater and the live animals in Coleman cooler chests with ice (might have been dry ice), and ship them to me in Portland on Alaska Airlines. I then drove the coolers to a meeting point about halfway between Portland and Newport, where Dick met me and took them to his lab. We did this 5 times between March and September of 1985.  

On one occasion, the euphausiids were put on a plane in Juneau and off-loaded in Seattle, as usual, to be then put on a plane from Seattle to Portland. I always called Alaska Airlines at each step to confirm that the coolers had been transferred and were on their way. On this trip, however, the coolers missed the flight to Portland. “Where are they?” I asked. “Sitting on the tarmac.” I was told. Me: “Can you put them in the cooler until the next flight?” Them: “We don’t have a walk-in cooler.” Me: “It is living material that is temperature sensitive, and it's a warm day, they will die!” Them: “Sorry, there is nothing we can do about it.” 

Well, in those days I didn’t have a corporate jet (I still don’t), so in desperation I did the next best thing; I called our friend Steve, a pilot with United Airlines. Me: “Hey Steve, are you busy?” Steve: “Not really, why?” Me: “How would you like to fly me to Seattle in your small private plane, pick up a bunch of Coleman coolers, and then we’ll fly them to Newport, Oregon?” Steve: “Sounds like fun; I’ll pick you up at your house and we’ll head to the airport.”  And so we did. The euphausiids were still alive when we got there, and they were fine when we got them to Newport and loaded them on Dick Caldwell’s pickup truck. 

By now you’re thinking, “OK, fine, nice story, but what does Fishman think about Royal Dutch Shell drilling in the Arctic Ocean?” Well, it’s a complex issue, and my answer isn’t definitive. If I had a choice, I would not drill for oil and gas in the Arctic if there were other sources for these hydrocarbons. If you do a bit of research, you will find that consumption of petroleum fuels (gasoline, jet fuel, etc.) is increasing in the United States and worldwide. To meet this demand, production of oil and gas is increasing. 

Here are some interesting data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA):

Source: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm 

Shell, like the other players in the hydrocarbon industry, is looking at the long-term. If they find oil/gas beneath the Arctic ocean, it will take them about 15 years to get to the point of having production wells. Experts estimate that the resources beneath the Arctic oceans represent anywhere from 15-25% of untapped global oil reserves. As long as there is a market demand for petroleum, companies like Shell will find and produce it. Do we need petroleum hydrocarbons? Yes, and the demand for them is increasing. 

It all comes down to acceptable risk. Remember, one of the basic laws of ecology is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Wind and solar-generated power, electric and hybrid automobiles, LED light bulbs, recycling, LEED buildings, bicycles and all other sustainable things are the way to move forward, but each has a set of costs, including environmental ones. So we have to be smart. We have to think clearly about all of the connections (another basic law of ecology: everything is connected to everything else). We need to accept certain levels of risk in order to sustain human societies in an ever more modern and interconnected world.

The Greenpeace bridge-hangers are conducting a great stunt that is calling attention to the prospects of Arctic Ocean oil and gas development. Will their actions stop Royal Dutch Shell from drilling in the Arctic? Of course not. But I hope the stunt stimulates a wider conversation about energy consumption and sources, acceptable risk, and the bigger picture of human societies and the planet.

—-

IT'S NOT ABOUT YOUR FLAG: MORE COMMENTS ON RACISM IN AMERICA

Our dear friend Linda summed it up in a single statement the other night. We were having a group discussion about the murders in the AME church in Charleston, South Carolina, and Linda spoke so passionately about the racism in America. At the end of her emotional comments, she stated emphatically "Come on species - get your act together!!" Exactly.

Another mass murder in America; but this time there was an important difference. This killing was motivated by racial hatred, and the killer said later that his intent was to start a race war in America. This is an act of terrorism, and we citizens of America need to stop, think, and carefully consider the iceberg under this tip.

Humanity, Homo sapiens, is a species of apes that has evolved a large brain that, combined with manual dexterity, has allowed it to develop into the dominant organism on Earth. Humans have reached the point at which our actions are changing the climate of the planet.  (I will leave for a future post the wide-ranging changes implicit in the term "climate change;" however, suffice it to say that every physical, chemical and biological system and process on Earth related to climate is being affected.)  Yes, we are such an advanced species of animal that we are making our own habitat less habitable.

But how advanced are we, really? Unfortunately,  closer examination leads us to conclude that we are not very advanced at all. Sociologically we are relatively primitive. We still cling to outdated ideas, mythologies and superstitions. We retain strong group bonds at various levels, bonds that often result in acts of cruelty. We are shocked to see on the news that ISIS has beheaded their captives - the barbarians! How convenient it is that we overlook the fact that good, white Christians have a history of beheadings, burnings at the stake, disembowelment, rape, torture and genocide. (No, I'm not part of the War on Christians; I'm simply using the Euro/American majority for my example.) Look around, and you will find that our mass behavior hasn't really changed so much, even though our technological achievements are rapid and astounding.

And this brings me (at last!) to the Confederate flag. I'm sorry to tell you that it's not about the frickin' flag. The Confederate flag is, and has been for a long time, an insult to everyone. Senator Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.) stated that the flag is "who we are" for South Carolinians (to be fair, you should listen to his remarks in context here). That flag has a place in history, and it's fine to display it as part of telling that history. Flying the Confederate flag at the Statehouse in S.C. simply says; "This flag symbolizes our history of slavery and the war we proudly fought to preserve it."  Politicians in South Carolina have rushed to now remove the flag from the Statehouse - great - but this is not the story.

Walmart, Sears, Amazon, eBay and other retailers have announce that they will no longer sell items with the Confederate flag. Um, OK, but what took you so long? In other words, you've been selling this stuff up until now, but now you'll stop? So, the flag was not a problem, was not a symbol of slavery and racism, until a terrorist killed 9 Black Americans in their church? !!!

The Confederate flag is an insult to all of us when it is displayed by state or local government. But the flag is not the issue that needs our focus, and all the hoopla about it is a red herring meant to distract us from the real issues.

The main issue at play here is human nature. The fact that one human can brutally hurt or murder another innocent human is the real "who we are." If evolution can't change this behavior of our species, then we must consciously do it ourselves. The alternative to changing human behavior is a continuation of the human behaviors that result in hatred and murder. This has been for a long time, and continues to be the norm.

So yes Linda, I agree: "Come on species - get your act together!"

TERRORISM IN AMERICA

It is still too early to know conclusively, but the killings at a church in Charleston,  South Carolina appear to be an act of terrorism. There is a dark underbelly in America, comprised of white people who are filled with racial hatred against Black, Jewish, Muslim and other Americans. In the Charleston case, a young white man shot and killed 9 people in an African-American church.

This isn't about gun control. This is possibly not about mental illness. This is about racial hatred expressed as an act of terrorism.

We Americans wonder how young people in other countries are attracted to join radical Jihadist groups, such as ISIS/ISIL/IS in Syria, Iraq and other areas. (And yes, even young people here in America.) What fills them with such hatred and zealotry that they can willingly kill innocent people and commit other acts of atrocity in the name of their god or their movement?  Well, an answer will likely be revealed as the investigation and trial of the young killer in Charleston proceeds. There are early indications that this young man had some connection to white supremacy literature and organizations, sources of hatred spread by adherents to recruit others to their cause. And their cause is to save the white race from the ravages of the "others."

We have so much work to do! The we I refer to are all Americans who are repulsed by hate-inspired acts carried out in our midst. This is not a problem solely for the African American community; this is a problem for the American community. Let's not get sidetracked; let us bring a laser focus to the issues of racism in America. We cannot allow hate groups to gain any foothold in society, and we must root them out where they already exist and expose them for what they are. At the same time, we need to shine bright lights on institutionalized racism in our society, and expose it for what it is.

We can do this. We have to do this. It has taken too long.

---

CALIFORNIA DROUGHT - CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL: HAVING IT BOTH WAYS?

Congressman Devin Nunes, Republican from California, seems to think he can have it both ways regarding climate change. Nunes is a known climate change denier, one who poo-poos scientific facts concluding that human activity has resulted in drastic changes to our atmosphere and climate systems. But he has a different opinion when it comes to the California drought.

For the past several years, Nunes has been telling anyone who will listen, and speaking and blogging about the "man-made drought" in California. Aha; so he does believe the drought and other extreme climate events are caused by human activities releasing carbon into the atmosphere! Gotcha!

Well, actually, no. What Nunes is saying is that "this is a drought that's been created by government, by their big supporters in the radical environmental groups."  Oh. In his view it is the Endangered Species Act that is the culprit, because water is being kept in rivers for threatened and endangered fish, instead of being released to farmers for irrigation. Sure, there has been less rain and snow for a few years, but the government is holding back a lot of water for "3-inch bait fish" (the Delta smelt) and thus creating the drought that is so severely affecting farmers in California. Oh my......

How convenient to have someone to blame: the damn government and radical environmentalists. Yes, the Endangered Species Act, passed during the administration of, and signed by, President Richard Nixon (wasn't he a Republican?). Well, all of this righteous smoke about a smelt is really a red herring. The drought in California appears to be caused by natural phenomena. Is there a relationship between the drought and human-forced climate change? Probably not, as explained in a recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report:

It is interesting that the Republicans have adopted "man-made drought" as one of their new mantras. Carly Fiorina uses it (Remember her? She drove HP into the ground before being fired as CEO, and now wants to be President of the USA.). John Boehner uses it. Lots of other Republicans use it. And, of course, they are tying it to the Obama administration.

So don't get excited when you hear the likes of Devin Nunes talk about the man-made drought in California He hasn't changed his deniers tune on climate change; he's just playing politics as usual.

---

ENDING RACISM AND OPPRESSION IN AMERICA: WE NEED TO PULL TOGETHER

Americans celebrate our revolution against tyranny and oppression every July. Yet we allow tyranny and oppression to exist in our everyday lives in the form of police brutality, hunger, poverty, disease, unemployment, homelessness and many others. 

Of particular notice in the media are the almost daily incidents of Black Americans, mostly young men, dying at the hands of police officers. Today the media are focused on Baltimore; tomorrow will be yet another American city. What is the cause, why is this happening, who is to blame? 

America is to blame. Racism is firmly institutionalized in the American system. Slavery and Jim Crow have been replaced by a more insidious and mostly hidden form of institutionalized racism that is difficult to put a finger on and even more difficult to root out. If you read past the headlines, you have at least a general sense of the issues in the Black neighborhoods of American cities. You certainly have seen the numbers of young Black Americans in prison or with prison records, mostly for crimes related to drugs. You have read about the level of unemployment, poverty, and lack of education of our young Black American men. Too many of us shake our heads in dismay, talk about how terrible this is, and move on to other things.

And all too often we blame "the police" for the problems. Yes, police brutality and excessive use of force are too prevalent in our cities. Yes, police departments across the country must be forced to change institutionally, and police culture must be changed drastically. In too many cities, the police departments include militarized units that in practice are occupational forces tasked with controlling the population, specifically in poor and minority neighborhoods. But the police are not the root of the problem.

The root of the problem is the American system that creates the poverty, unemployment and  substandard education that keeps a large segment of our fellow citizens in a state of subjugation. A variety of barriers are erected to keep these citizens separated from the more affluent segments of our society, and the police are given the job of maintaining that separation. As the desperation of the subjugated class grows, the level of repression increases in the form of violence by police officers. 

These are complex problems that need complex solutions. It is fair to say that government as we know it today is not going to solve these problems; if that were the case, we wouldn't be in this situation now. And rioting will not solve the problem, either. So what do we do?

First, by "we" I mean every American, not just Black Americans. We need to pull together over this set of issues and work within our communities to level the playing field. And all communities need to coordinate nation-wide to take actions at a national level, or that will get attention from national news media. We need to work together to get from a society of greed to a society of collaboration. We need to push our local economies to create living wage jobs and find ways to get people who need them into those jobs. We need to find ways to improve neighborhoods without forcing out the people already living in them (i.e. gentrification). We need to push our school systems to be inclusive and to act as community institutions that address the problems of poverty and education by lifting families as well as children. 

And that's my opinion.
---

HOORAY FOR NURSES

I am once again thinking about the health care system as I help my wife recover from back surgery. People always talk about their surgeon, and how fantastic he or she is. And this is usually, thankfully, true. The neurosurgeon and the anesthesiologist who conducted the back surgery on Sherry did a terrific job, and they were both friendly, caring and patient the times we met with them.

But the real kudos go to the nurses. Sherry was in the hospital for only 6 hours, but the nurses who cared for her, Steffanie, Kelly, Patty and student nurse Rachel were the front line staff who made the experience not just tolerable, but comfortable and, at times, even fun. They are professionals; they are also warm, friendly people who enjoy their jobs and are truly interested in the people to whom they provide care. So yes, my wife's surgeon was terrific, but her nurses were out of this world!

I learned recently that health care workers have one of the highest rates of work-related injuries.

October 1, 2013 - WorkCompWire

Chicago, IL -(PRNewswire)- Workers in the healthcare industry suffer higher on the job injuries than most other professions, with more than two million reported lost work days in 2011. Despite this, the focus of safety in healthcare facilities has been primarily on patient safety, according to Safety Culture in Healthcare, The $13 Billion Case, a peer-reviewed feature in the October issue of Professional Safety, the American Society of Safety Engineers’ (ASSE) journal.

It seems that most hospitals put profit before the health of their staff (this includes the so-called not-for-profit hospitals). National Public Radio did a series on this topic. In my humble opinion, the big hospital systems are making big profits on the backs of their workers - literally. 

So let us all say hooray for nurses, nurses aides, orderlies and all other health care workers. And let's also protect the health of health care professionals. It's an old saying, but people before profit applies here. 

--- 

THE SAD STATE OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL (JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD)

Many months before the recent election in Israel, before Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu gave his speech to the U.S. Congress, I had in mind writting a post about Israeli politics. The title would have been something like: "Why does Benjamin Netsanyahu Keep Stabbing Me in the Back?" It seemed that every time I posted my thoughts supporting the right of Israel to defend itself against terrorists (e.g. Hamas in Gaza), Mr. Netanyahu slipped a knife between my ribs by announcing more settlement building. It got to the point of being predictable, and infuriating.

In the runup to the Israeli elections, Netanyahu collaborated with the worst elements of the congressional Republican right wing in the U.S. to bolster his cred with the Israeli right wing by dissing our President and our very serious negotiations with Iran concerning nuclear weapons. This was blatant electioneering supported and abetted by the Republicans in the U.S. Congress. Senate Republicans (47 of them) then sent an amazingly stupid and embarrassing letter to the leadership of Iran, further endangering the success of the negotiations between a coalition of world governments and Iran. (Although a clear evidentiary path has yet to be illuminated, some analysts think that the letter was the idea of Netanyahu's Likud Party and possibly written by the American lobby group AIPAC (see Note 1) In any event, the concept and execution of The Letter remains a very interesting political maneuver.). 

In the final days of the campaigning in Israel, Netanyahu took the low road to bolster his support by the Israeli right wing and ultra religious groups and stated that if elected, he would ensure that there would not be a Palestinian State, the elusive two-state solution. 

Netanyahu has now won what was supposed to be a very close election. This is a very big problem for liberal and progressive Jews and other people who support the existance of Israel as a democracy in which Jews have the national security they lack in many other parts of the world. The reaffirmation of Netanyahu and his policies is a blow to the open support of Israel, which is now clearly dominated by right wing, nationalistic politics. The election result fans the flames of anti-Israel sentiment and activities, and, by association, bolsters anti-semitism world-wide. 

I swore loudly when I woke up this morning to the radio news that Netanyahu had won the election. I had hoped that more moderate political forces would gain control of the Israel government and try something new regarding relationships and peace negotiations with Palestinians. This election result is a disaster for the Israeli peace movement and the Israeli left. It is also a disaster for support of Israel in the rest of the world. It continues the disaster for Palestinians who want peace,  political and economic power. 

I have, for several years, stated that I believe the conflict between Palestinains and Israel has no end point in sight, but that the two peoples are locked in a cycle of violence that is self-perpetuating. Based on history, I don't believe that Israeli political leadership of the past couple of decades, or more, have any real interest in peace and the creation of a Palestinian State. They have been two-faced, talking peace out of one side, while continuing the occupation and the illegal land grabs out of the other side. (see Note 2) Yes, the Israel-Palestine situation is very, very complex, and simple answers do not exist. But smart and serious people on both sides can certainly find a way to interrupt the cycle of violence and find solutions. Benjamin Netanyahu, and the interests he represents, are not these people. 

I am more disappointed than upset by the Israel election result. The state of politics in Israel is, after all, not much different than the state of politics in the United States and the rest of the world. Have we Americans already forgotten George W. Bush? We elected that dangerous politician twice! And we are still dealing with the result of those elections. Our House and Senate are now controlled by the Republican right wing. America is dancing with fascism. What about Europe, China, Russia, the Arab states, Africa, South America? Israel absolutely has no lock on right wing politics. 

Does the election really mean that a two-state solution is out of reach? Maybe; maybe not. After all, above all else, Benjamin Netanyahu is a politician. And politicians very often say one thing during a campaign, and another thing once elected. But maybe this is a good turn of events. Maybe the clear admission by Netanyahu that he and his backers will not endorse a two-state solution is a way to move the discussion to a different level. Join fact, it appears that there were some very important gains in the Israel election for women, Arab Israelis and other groups.

The real losers here are the Palestinians, such as those in the West Bank, who are faced with a continuation of an illegal and often brutal occupation.

It might be that the world has entered a period of human right-wingism that will last for some time until it plays itself out. In that case, we progressives and other left-of-center folk need to hunker down for the long-term, and do all we can to fight back (and drink more red wine).

What we don't need to do is bash Israel alone for it's right-wingedness; after all, this seems to be the    sad state of affairs of most of the world.

---  

Notes:

1. The article is here. It first appeared in Middle East Eye, and this is a link to the "who is" Middle East Eye. I am not certain yet about the credibility of this source; however, the link described would not surprise me.  
2. There are some notable exceptions to this conclusion, such as the efforts of Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin.  

WHY IS PADDLING IN PORTLAND SO PROBLEMATIC?

View downstream, north, from the tip of Ross Island.

Portland, Oregon is a river city, or so it is said by some. Yes, the Willamette River runs through the middle of Portland on its way to the Columbia River. The meeting of these two rivers is also in Portland. One would think that Portlanders are river people, by which I mean they use their river for many different activities and consider it one of the most important parts of the Portland identity. Well, that is not the case.

Like so many other American cities, Portland was developed along the river, but the river was considered only a place of business between land and water, and a place to dump things people wanted to get rid of. In the past few decades, however, Portland has changed its mind about the river in many ways, and the land along the river is now seen as an amenity and a public and natural resource.

But there are still problems in regards to Portland truly becoming River City. One of those problems is access to the river, not visual access, but physical access. This is especially true for people who want to put a small, human-powered water craft in the river in the downtown area (I'll call these people paddlers). I am a paddler, and the portion of the river that flows through downtown Portland offers a variety of interesting experiences, if I can get to it.

The new Tilikum Crossing transit bridge behind the Ross Island Bridge,
viewed from Ross Island.

This morning Dry Bag Dave and Paddlin' Paul (that's me) loaded our kayaks and gear and headed off to do an easy and relatively short paddling trip. Our goal was to paddle under the new transit bridge, a cable-stayed beauty named Tilikum Crossing, Bridge of the People. The new bridge, that will open in September, will only have light rail trains, buses, cycles and pedestrians; no automobiles or trucks.

So we decided to launch on the east side of the Hawthorne Bridge in Portland and paddle a short distance upstream and under the Tilikum Crossing. There is a low floating public dock just upstream of the Hawthorne Bridge designed for use by rowing and paddle craft where we have launched before. When we arrived there, we found that there are some visitor spots in the parking lot, but parking is limited to 2 hours; not enough for a paddling trip. Parking there used to be for as long as desired. So we got back in the car and drove to the downstream side of the Hawthorne Bridge because it seemed to me we could launch from the dirt beach under the bridge. I know that the Human Access Project has cleared a lot of rocks from that beach so people can get into the river. There were some parking spots in the lot near the Eastbank Esplanade (pay parking, of course), so we figured we could carry the boats to the beach under the bridge. Well, the river was high, and that spot did not have a safe or easy place to launch kayaks.

We had spent a lot of time trying to find a place to put into the river. Our fallback was Willamette Park on the other side of the river and a few miles south of the Tilikum Crossing bridge. We arrived at Willamette Park and found an almost empty large parking lot. I went to buy the parking tag, and it was $1 per hour, or $6 for all day; pretty reasonable. I figured I would put in $4 for 4 hours - plenty of time for our paddling. But as I pushed the time button on the meter, the dollars kept going up, but the hours stayed at 3. Hmmm; well I read the fine print, which informed me that after 3 hours, a full-day fee would be charged. Really? OK, well the Park Bureau needs the money to maintain the park, so I was kind of OK with this scheme.

I went over to the restroom building at the park to get rid of some excess liquid - and the restrooms were "closed for the season." What? No bushes nearby, either. Luckily for us, there were 2 porta-potties on the other side of the parking lot, probably related to work going on in the park. OK, problem solved, but still, I paid my $6, what did I get for it?

We had a terrific paddle of about 7 miles round trip and spent about 3 hours total. But I was disgruntled about the experience of paddling in Portland.

Why isn't there access for paddlers to the Willamette River in the downtown area of Portland? The public dock on the east side and just upstream of the Hawthorne Bridge is a convenient location, but parking is limited to 2 hours. (I later found out that after 3PM parking time is unlimited, but that really only works in the summer when days are longer.) The only places to launch from close to and south of downtown are Willamette Park and Sellwood Park. Going north from downtown, I can only think of Swan Island Lagoon and Cathedral Park, both very far from the downtown area. These four launching opportunities are shown on the map below.

The only four formal and convenient launching spots for paddlers in Portland are shown as red stars.

And by the way, Willamette Park, operated by the Portland Bureau of Parks and Recreation, is set up for power boats. The parking lot is mostly long spaces for trucks and trailers, with a much smaller number of spots for cars (and you get ticketed if you park a car in a truck-trailer spot, even if there are very few truck-trailers in the lot). The ramp into the river is concrete that is deeply ribbed for tire traction - real hell for the hull of my wood kayak. There should be a gravel ramp into the river for canoes, kayaks and other paddle craft to make this facility truly convenient for paddlers.

There is a new ramp that is being described as a kayak launch in the South Waterfront Central District immediately south of downtown; it will be open later this year. It is a narrow concrete sidewalk that I consider to be a tricky launch spot at best, and a dangerous spot especially when the river is low in the summer. Because there is no way to drive a car close to the ramp, and public parking is not located nearby, it will likely be used mostly by people who live in the condos in the South Waterfront who can cart their boat to the ramp without a motor vehicle. This does not solve the problem for the rest of us.

City planners know that river access is a problem, and they are working on ideas to create more and better access. They will need to change some city codes, figure out access and parking for motor vehicles, and also deal with federal agencies that discourage river access because of alleged issues with fish habitat. In the meantime, I'll paddle the downtown stretch of the Willamette once in a great while, and drive to other places on the edges of or away from Portland that are more welcoming to paddlers.

---

WHY I AM CONSIDERING ENDING MY (DIGITAL) LIFE

I am a 70 year old man who tries to keep up with the digital age in which I live. I have a smartphone (Android OS), a tablet (iPad) and a laptop  (MacBook). I spend a lot of my time using these marvelous devices in a variety of ways. And it has truly ruined my real life.

My digital life is dominated by the apps on my smartphone, the apps on my tablet, and the software on my laptop. All of my devices are synced in various ways, mostly in the cloud. The apps shared by me and my wife, such as google calendar, enable us to keep track of our individual as well as shared schedules, as long as we don't make any mistakes when entering data (which we sometimes do). My consulting business relies on my devices, apps and software to communicate, coordinate, collect information, create reports and letters and memoranda.

I have 92 apps on my smartphone (probably a small number compared to many people), including apps to: measure the amount of propane in the tank of my outdoor grill, measure the inclination of a hill, do mathematics, magnify and take photos of things, measure sound level, convert units, convert money, translate languages, record sounds, check the river level, check the weather, buy movie tickets, waste time on facebook, check email, send and receive text messages, take photos. And cables and chargers and dongles - a boatload of them because Apple cables don't fit Android devices and visa-versa, and every device has it's own charger, and I carry a travel-size extension cord when we travel because most hotel rooms don't have enough outlets for the phones and computers we carry.

Photos - I have taken uncountable thousands of pictures with various cell phones and digital cameras. I have these scattered throughout the cloud in various free storage services, most of which I've maxed out without paying an annual fee. This is why I now have a flickr account - they give me 1 terabyte free! But what do I do with all of these photos? Nobody else can see them unless I post them somewhere like facebook or google+ (has anyone heard of google+?). But there are so many photos I don't even remember what they are, or how to find the ones I do remember.

And the convenience of my digital life. I don't have to leave the coach to go shopping - Amazon.com is all I need. (Does anyone else remember when Amazon was just a book seller?) And books - I read on my iPad. I have a banking app on my smartphone, so I can deposit checks and pay bills and all of that from - yes - the couch.

My digital life is becoming more of who I am than my biological life. I have a lot of friends - digital. A lot of people "like" me - digital. I go to exotic places in the world - digital. I read a lot of books, newspapers, magazines and technical journals - digital. I map out where I am driving or cycling - digital. I write to people and have nice chats with them - digital. I have discussions with people who see me and I see them - digital. I write about life and politics - digital. I schedule events and appointments on a calendar - digital. I watch movies, TV shows and listen to music - digital. I keep notes and journal items - digital. I print labels and postage on packages and have them picked up by the postal service - digital. I explore new digital applications for my digital devices - digital!

My digital me is always afraid. My digital being is constantly threatened by hackers who want to steal my identity and rob me of my credit and money. To defend my digital self I need passwords - lots and lots and lots of passwords and user names and secret questions with answers I'm supposed to remember. And the passwords can't be simple, they need to be complex. And I am told to change every password frequently. My digital self is so nervous about safety that I think I need digital drugs to calm me down!

I am no more than 0's and 1's, a vessel of data harvested every nanosecond of my digital life. Minions of madmen ad men algorize my digital being non-stop looking for clues and patterns so they can sell me to those who push advertisements at me. I have no secrets. My own government tracks my digital self everywhere I go, every key stroke I make, every search I google, every email, text and chat I have is harvested and analyzed and stored for the future in vast server farms scattered around the planet. My digital self consists of billions of fragments.

I grow flabby from lack of exercise because more and more of my shopping, banking, communicating and everyday activities are as a digital being rather than a biological being. How will this end?

Can I end my digital life? Is it possible to commit digital suicide - digicide? Is there life after the digital life? After all, my jillions of on-line posts and photos and messages will still be in the cloud even after I've pulled the plug.

If I do commit digicide, how will you know? Maybe you will notice that I haven't posted stupid things on facebook for awhile, or posted to this blog, or tweeted or tooted. Will you notice? Will anyone?  Especially once I install this new DigitalMe app; you know, the one that analyzes everything I have ever done on-line and then starts to generate posts from the digital me, without the biological me having to do anything. The ultimate app for digital immortality!

In fact, how do you know if the digital me or the biological me wrote this blog post?

---

RACISM, COPS AND COMMUNITY - WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

I would say that this is like a bad movie, but that would make light of a very serious and real situation in America. If you didn't live here and were reading the headlines every day, you might think that being a Black man or boy is a crime in America, punishable by death on the spot. Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York, 12-year old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, and Rumain Brisbon in Phoenix are the most recent Black men and boys killed by police, but certainly not the only ones.

"Nearly two times a week in the United States, a white police officer killed a black person during a seven-year period ending in 2012, according to the most recent accounts of justifiable homicide reported to the FBI" (USA Today). This statement is based on data submitted to the FBI by police departments, and it is a very incomplete and, some think, very flawed database. However, the stark reality is clear, young Black men are killed by police at a disproportionate rate compared to young white men killed.

Propublica has a good summary of these data in a recent article. The graphic below is from the Propublica article.

But rather than get lost in the data, which is readily available on the internet, I want to stick to my opinion, which is, after all, what you are reading.

Racism is alive and well today in America; however, in my opinion the core issue is not racism of individuals but racism inherent in our institutions. A lot has been written on this topic, and should be required reading for every US citizen, not as a guilt trip for white readers, but for the sake of educating all of us. 

There is a lot of justified anger in minority communities, as well as in a large proportion of society in general, concerning the treatment of Black men and boys in law enforcement and the judicial system. (Note that this is true in the Latino community as well.) Some of this anger spills over as rage, and mob mentality has taken over in some places resulting in destruction of property and looting. These actions are not by the majority of protesters and demonstrators, no matter how often the media shows us video and photos of the flames. 

There is a growing movement nationwide focused on police brutality and judicial indifference. Some commentators predict it is a new phase of the civil rights movement, and could grow into a major movement. I hope this is true, and I also hope that leaders emerge who can coordinate strategies, put forward a consistent message, distance the movement from the fringe groups and individuals who favor violence, and organize support for change by a majority of Americans. 

I don't condone war against the police; this is not productive and is a losing campaign. Nor do I condone blaming and labeling all cops as racist. There are many statements and interviews in the media right now by active and former police officers who admit that there is a problem, and state that some small percentage of police officers are "bad cops" who do bad things, and should not be in these positions. They also admit that the majority of cops typically don't speak out when they know what the bad apples are doing, either because they don't want to get involved, or they are concerned about their own careers. This obviously needs to change.

It is not just the bad cops that are the problem, however; it is the system, the institutions of law enforcement and justice, that not only allow these individuals to be in positions of authority, but protect them when they do bad things. The death of Eric Garner by policemen, ruled a homicide by the coroner and seen by millions in a video on the internet, was not considered worthy of a trial. This is the outrage. A policeman killed a citizen whose potential crime was selling cigarettes, and the cop was not indicted.  Would Eric Garner be alive today if he was white? Would the cop be on trial if Mr. Garner had been killed and was white? It is not OK for a cop to kill someone without justification; but it is even more egregious that the justice system takes a pass on it. 

I have been working closely with the Portland Police Bureau over the past year to address issues in our neighborhood. The police formed a special unit, based on what they are calling relationship policing, to conduct daily walking patrols in a few neighborhoods. This has been a pilot project, and has been very successful. The officers assigned to the unit were selected using a set of criteria, including their communication skills. Many cops feel that the public hates them, and they are reluctant to get out of their cars and walk around. But the community response to these walking patrols has been overwhelmingly favorable, including many "street people" who are afraid of the bad elements on the street. The goal of this pilot project is to have cops and people in the community get to know each other, on a first name basis, and to have the cops out there to help people who need assistance, diffuse tense situations, address issues of behavior in public places, and help build a greater sense of community. As Ric, the Sergeant in charge of the unit often says, good parenting is not ignoring your kids until they do something wrong and then punishing them, but that is how policing has worked for too long (and he is quick to point out that police are not your parents!). The situation in our neighborhood has improved greatly, and by the way, this special unit of officers made very few arrests and issued very few citations, not because they weren't doing their job, but because they were doing their job in a different way.

I am hopeful that, working together, we can make needed changes in our society. I'm not yet delusional enough to think that this will be a slam dunk; it will be hard work. Institutionalized racism is buried deep in the core structures of our public institutions, and there is a tremendous amount of inertia to keep it that way. We need to change laws, we need new legal precedent, we need individuals inside federal, state and local governments, including police forces, to push from the inside, we need citizens to participate in public discourse and to vote. 

Next time you see a cop walking around your neighborhood, stop and say hello. Introduce yourself, get into a conversation, talk about what's going on. Build community. 

---    

REALLY? PRESIDENT OBAMA IS "POISONING THE WELL?"

AAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!! Driving home today I was listening to a local talk show (Think Out Loud) on our NPR affiliate, Oregon Public Broadcasting. In the news roundtable segment the host asked three guests (journalists) what the top story of the week was for each of them. One of the two men said that his top story was wondering why President Obama is reportedly going to "poison the well" in Congress by acting on immigration reform through Executive Order. 

WHAT? First of all, why is a journalist using the Republican playbook term of the month? Almost immediately following his reelection to the Senate, Mitch McConnell used the term "poison the well" in his acceptance speech: "In an ambitious speech hours after his party gained control of both houses of Congress, McConnell warned Obama not to “poison the well” by pushing forward with unilateral action on immigration reform...." (source). 
Two days later House Speaker John Boehner warned that "the president will "poison the well" for the new Congress if he takes executive action to address the deportation of undocumented immigrants" (source). The floodgates were open, and every news outlet repeated the term "poison the well" over, and over, and over ad nauseum. 

And so, once again, the popular media are following the playbook of a political party by parroting a catchy phrase designed to stick in the heads of the public and sway their opinion. Some consultant to the Republican Party earned her or his pay for that one. 

But there is another, even more important aspect to this discussion; the assertion is false! For the past 6 years the publicly stated goal of the Republican Party has been to thwart every effort by Barak Obama to get things accomplished. McConnell and Boehner each are on record with this message. The Congress during Obama's term will go down as one of the most do-nothing Congresses in the history of the United States, to date. If anyone has poisoned the political well, it is the Republican Party.

And let us not forget the liberal Democrats who have very loudly criticized Obama for not getting tough, going toe-to-toe with the obstructionist Republicans in Congress. What a wimp! What a dish rag! What a disappointment! As if President Obama is the reason the Republicans have stymied every effort by the administration and the Democrats to move things forward. 

The Republican Party is The Poison in the well that all Americans drink from. Name any social issue in this country, and the Republicans are on the front lines to stop any progress. I salute President Obama for his patience and his persistence. He has accomplished a mountain of important things, and yet, for some strange reason, the American public and the popular media allow the Republican Party to write the script and coin the phrases.

I truly hope our President uses his executive authorities to make long-overdue and much needed changes to immigration policies, environmental policies, energy policies, and many more. And truly, if there is poison in the well, we can only hope that the Republicans in Congress drink from it soon! 
---
P. Fishman - November 14, 2014 

MEANWHILE, 44 YEARS LATER, HAS ANYTHING CHANGED?

I have two books of political cartoons by Ron Cobb published in 1970 that I probably bought within a couple of years of publication (my copies were 2nd printings in 1971).  Raw Sewage is about the environment (remember, the first Earth Day was in 1970). My Fellow Americans is about politics in this country at the time.  I took these books off the shelf a few days ago and paged through Ron's cartoons, truly a trip down memory lane. I expected to laugh again, the way I did 40 some years ago. I was dismayed, however, that it seems things have not changed very much in the past 44 years. And I didn't laugh this time around.

Below are a few of my favorites from these cartoon books, with some commentary.

from Raw Sewage

This was always one of my favorite ecology cartoons by Ron. The grin on the old man's face is perfect. I have to say that in many cities, such as Portland, OR, there has been a push to incorporate plants into the urban landscape. So perhaps there has been progress on this item over the past 44 years. 

from Raw Sewage

Does anything ring a bell here? I think more people know the word "ecology" now than in 1970. We also are very familiar with the term "climate change" because it is in the news media so much. But we are experiencing more severe storms and other major changes in climate patterns than we did then. Katrina and Sandy were not beautiful women but horrific storms that destroyed and killed. Where are the changes needed to slow down this human-induced process? So far, it looks like we will all be sitting on the roof of the car wondering why these things are happening. 

from My Fellow Americans

How true, and how sad. The Civil Rights Movement - the one fought for racial equality - forced numerous positive changes in our society. And yet, 44 years after this cartoon was inked, it seems that beatings and killings (and incarceration) of young men of color by police is more normal than ever. The numbers are chilling; the stories are mind-numbing. How is it that here, in America, racism has become more institutionalized than it was 44 years ago? Didn't we fix this already? Sadly, we didn't. 

from My Fellow Americans

How did Ron know? Thanks to Edgar Snowden and others, we now know so much more about the surveillance state in which we live. How many of us knew what NSA meant just a couple of years ago? We now have surveillance cameras proliferating everywhere, police departments have weapons and vehicles designed for the military (thanks to grants and gifts by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security). What Ron didn't know then was that we would all have smart phones that know where we are all the time, as well as Google, Facebook, email, Twitter and millions of other internet data collectors that the government can hack into (or simply demand from the providers). 

from My Fellow Americans

Do I even need to comment on this one? The most reliable numbers are that more than 30,000 Americans are killed by guns every year! This insanity is perpetuated by organizations like the National Rifle Association that have a strange stranglehold on our elected legislators. This is nuts! 

And so, sadly, I must conclude that many important issues in our society have not improved since 44 years ago. I continually ask myself what went wrong, why we haven't collectively improved these egregious facets of human community. Is this really the world we want to inhabit, and leave for our children? 

And I'm still not laughing. 

---

Sources:

My Fellow Americans 1970. Ron Cobb. Price/Stern/Sloan Publishers, Inc. - Sawyer Press
Raw Sewage  1970. Ron Cobb. Price/Stern/Sloan Publishers, Inc. - Sawyer Press 

AND JUSTICE FOR ALL (EXCEPT THOSE WHO DON'T HAPPEN TO BE WHITE AND HAVE MONEY)

Many people in Europe, America, and Iran are upset and protesting over the jailing of a young woman in Iran for political activism. Ghoncheh Ghavami, a British-Iranian law student in London, has been in jail for 100 days without trial, and she has started a hunger strike. Support for her cause is growing.

Meanwhile, right here in the U.S. of A., a large number of people are incarcerated and awaiting trial under circumstances that are beyond belief. Take the case of Kalief Browder, recently released from prison in New York after spending 3 years (yes, three) in jail without a trial for something he claimed he had not done. Kalief was stopped and arrested when he was 16 years old. Someone had identified him as a person who had stolen his backpack several weeks prior to Kalief's arrest. Because his family could not raise the $3,000 bail, he went to jail awaiting trial. The nightmare of his incarceration for three years without trial is detailed in an article in the New Yorker magazine, and it will make your blood boil. You should read the article; it is infuriating.

Kalief missed his last two years of high school. He missed his prom and being graduated from high school. He missed developing skills for life as a teen because he spent three years behind bars, a major percentage of the time in solitary confinement. The court system in New York has a process for speedy trial if one is requested. Once the request is made to a judge, the trial must take place within 6 weeks. There is a major catch, however, which is played to the hilt by the public prosecutors: if the prosecution asks for a delay (typically because they "aren't ready"), the judge will usually grant a delay of a couple of days. The courts are so overloaded, however, that the new date is usually 6, 8 or more weeks out. But because the judge granted let's say a 2-day delay, the time until the new date is only counted as 2 days towards the 6-week limit. By doing this repeatedly, Kalief spent 3 years of his teenage years behind bars, in very poor, and dangerous, living conditions. 

Kalief was offered plea deals during the three years. If he plead guilty, he would only get something like a 3 to 5 years sentence and his time already spent in jail would count against it. If he didn't take the plea, he was advised that he might lose at trial and get 15 years. Kalief insisted on his innocence, and refused the plea bargain deals. 

Kalief was finally released after a new judge on his case pressed the prosecution when they asked for yet another delay. The reason for this delay was that the accuser had gone back to Mexico and they could not find him. The judge finally said "enough" and dismissed the case against Kalief; he was released.

The life of this young man has been irrevocably changed. He suffers from depression and has contemplated suicide. He has few friends, is awkward socially, is fearful of crowded places (like prison, where people were often beaten, by inmates and guards, or stabbed), and has trouble finding work. He now has an attorney and is suing the City of New York and the New York Police Department.

The case of Kalief Browder is beyond sad, and one has to wonder how this could happen in America. But his case is symptomatic of a common trend in the justice system in this country.  The studies and statistics are chilling; people who are not black or Hispanic and have money generally do not have these experiences. And once in the legal system, it is often difficult to get out or, as in Kalief's case, even get a trial. The plea deals offered to inmates waiting for a trial are too attractive, compared to languishing in jail for an uncertain outcome. "In 2011, in the Bronx, only a hundred and sixty-five felony cases went to trial; in 3,991 cases, the defendant pleaded guilty." I don't know about New York, but in many states a conviction for a felony (i.e. guilty plea) results in the felon not having the right to vote, cannot get public housing, often cannot find a job and faces other social and financial restrictions. Keep in mind, many people take a guilty plea deal even if they are innocent, just to get out of jail and back to some semblance of normalcy.

Racism in America is institutionalized. It is inherent in policing, in the justice system, in the financial system and many other areas of our society. It is often hard to get a grasp on racism and hold it up for scrutiny because many individual acts are not on their face intentionally racist. But taken as a whole, too many parts of our democracy have inherent bias against poor and minority people. 

We need to shine a bright light on the cases like Kalief Browder. There need to be severe consequences for people in the system who perpetrate these outrages. There need to be major changes in how the machinery of "democracy" works in order to guarantee justice for all. 

---

WASHINGTON D.C. FOOTBALL TEAM OWNER ANNOUNCES NAME CHANGE FROM "REDSKINS"

The owner of the Washington Redskins football team, Dan Snider, has announced a name change for the NFL team. Snider's statement referred to the controversy surrounding the name, for which one poll found that 9 percent of Native Americans polled found the name offensive (90 percent did not).

Snider was very circumspect when he announced that the new name of the football team will be the Washington Foreskins. He remarked that the name change is very sensitive to non-majority populations. Polling and focus groups found a 50:50 split about whether the new name is offensive or pride-inducing among Jewish people, particularly men.

The Foreskins management is proud about the way the team rose to the occasion, explaining that it was a hard decision.

The new team mascot is still shrouded in secrecy; however, an announcement is expected soon. Insiders, speaking anonymously, have identified several possibilities being considered, including a mohel, kalamari, or four people wearing SCUBA gear.*

With this name-changing decision, team management is hopeful that the public will focus on the team's dismal record rather than their dismal name.

---


* It is well known that the method of circumcising a whale involves four skin divers.

TIME FOR SOME MOVIE REVIEWS: "LUCY" and "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY"

OK kids, this is a new feature for readmyopinion, a movie review! I will warn you when there is a potential spoiler.

Lucy had the potential to be interesting science fiction, but I will say up front - don't waste your time and money. I don't love Lucy. Lucy is a predictable how-many-guns-can-we-shoot, how-many-cars-can we-crash overly loud so-called action film with a pseudo-intellectual premise, and a handful of big stars to try to recoup the cost of making it. They could have saved a lot of money, and saved the audience by throwing the script in the trash bin.

Let's start with those damned car chase scenes, shall we. There is really only one question that needs to be asked - why? The car chase scene has absolutely nothing to do with the story (to be fair, these gratuitous scenes of car derby destruction almost always have no relationship to the story). Where is it written that every movie has to have a car chase scene where hundreds of people are likely injured or killed, cars go flying through the air - usually the cars of the hapless police (see below) - and the heroes walk away unscratched. This scene in Lucy was totally absurd and a major distasteful distraction from the tiny shred of story line.

Oh yes, there was a story line, posed as a scientific theory lectured about by renowned Professor Morgan Freeman: what would happen if humans used more than the 10 percent of their brains that is actually used (and this number, by the way, is not scientific fact)?

Another very bothersome device used by these film makers is stereotyping. The police are hapless. They never seem to be around when people are being killed. When they are called to protect the university building where Professor Freeman and company are located, they walk right by and don't notice a fleet of big black SUVs across the street with a mob of Asian thugs dressed in all black unloading enough assault rifles and bazookas to fight a war! And of course, the army of thugs walks right in to the building and starts killing people. Oy.

Want some violence? Want some blood - lots and lots of blood? Blood squirting all over peoples faces who happen to be too close to the butchering? Random and senseless shootings, stabbings, and other truly gruesome forms of death? Lucy has a lot of it, go for it! We truly don't know why so many people are simply murdered in such seemingly casual ways. The bad guys are really bad guys, and to prove it, each one must have a quota of senseless murders to pull off per hour. The story thread involving the horrifically terrible bad-ass killer gang lord has nothing much to do with the plot of the film, except as a device in the beginning that creates the Lucy character. The rest of that thread is nothing more than gratuitous blood and guts violence for the sake of showing a lot of blood and guts violence. Meh!  

And then there are the scientists. Professor Freeman is dressed in university tweed. His lecture to a university audience (we have to assume) is one of the high points of the film; it is actually educational as well as entertaining, with terrific slide-show graphics and animations and simply beautiful nature video. The group of colleagues he gathers to meet Lucy (Scarlett Johansson)  are all in long white laboratory coats (and dark-rimmed glasses?). Why? They all look like Gene Barry's Dr. Clayton Forrester in the 1953 War of the Worlds! They are just there to talk to someone named Lucy. They stand in a group, in their white lab coats, and simply look incredulous as Lucy performs a bunch of magic tricks for them. "Ooh," "Aah," "What is she doing?" they say in science-geek unison. Ridiculous!

This movie actually goes nowhere in the 89 minutes of ridiculousness the audience has to endure. [POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT] The ending is a poor copy of the ending in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968 Stanley Kubrick), and made me want to yell out to director Luc Besson, in as much pain as I could, the immortal words of the HAL 9000 computer:  I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Luc. Luc, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid.

I guess if I need to say at least one positive thing, it would be that Ms. Johansson does a good job with her character, and she is, of course, pleasant to look at. 


OK, so the supposed sci-fi film wasn't worth the time and money (we were in beautiful downtown Burbank, where matinee movies were very expensive compared to my small town of Portland - and no senior discount!). But a few nights ago I walked down the street with a grandson and my favorite granddaughter to the Bagdad Theater, got some pizza and beer (they had pizza without beer), and settled in for Guardians of the Galaxy. 

First, you have to understand that this is a Marvel comic book movie. You have to say this to yourself before you walk in; it's a movie based on a comic book. If you don't like comic books, well, I suggest you go anyway.

I LOVE THIS MOVIE! I will see it again at least once. I laughed my ass off, loudly and frequently. The writing is brilliant, the characters are sublime, the actors, including those doing voice-overs, nail their roles spot on. A lot of the actors looked and sounded familiar, but I'm sure most of you readers know them better than I. Chris Pratt, as Peter Quill, aka Star-Lord, brings it with perfect comic timing. That's correct, he brings the "comic" to the "comic book." Quill is instantly lovable due to his preference in music - a 1980's mix tape; however, his boy-as-man manner, complete with puppy dog eyes when needed, his rapid quips, his seeming nonchalance with a hair-trigger violence switch all add up to one very likable character indeed. 

The script is replete with one-liners that almost made me pee my pants from laughter, they are that good. One reason I need to go again is to catch all of these sometimes obtuse historic lines and references to previous movies. Usually when the film makers mix a bunch of beings from different places in the universe into one crew, we ignore not only that they all speak English, but that they all understand everything each is saying. Not so in Guardians. Star Lord Quill uses a lot of Earth colloquialisms, which cause various other characters to stop and ask the obvious question. When Quill mentions that someone has a stick up his ass, Gamora (beautifully played by Zoe Saldana) stops, and asks with a puzzled look: "who put a stick up his ass, and why?"  

The Guardians is a group of sketchy characters who are thrown together despite their desires to kill each other. They are an interesting crew; an Earthling, a blue-skinned warrior lady, a kind-of tattood hulk of a humanoid, a raccoonish animal named Rocket (not Rocky), and a very talented tree named Groot that has a 3-word vocabulary. It turns out that, in spite of all the dislike between them, they actually work well together when they need to.

Yes, there are chase scenes in this movie, using spacecraft instead of cars. But the chases fit the story perfectly, good guys running from bad guys for a reason. 

The five Guardians have a knack for getting into and out of a lot of tricky situations, and gradually grow to respect and trust each other. And maybe that's the big take-away of this movie. We see each character learning some lesson about him- or herself, and also about the value of having comrades you can rely on. It actually gets a bit sappy (no, not dripping from the tree creature) at the end, but in a good way. How great is it that you can watch, and be sucked into, a comic book movie with absolutely terrific action sequences, dialogue, character development, cinematography and special effects, and walk out thinking about the lessons the characters learned? Lessons that we Earthlings better learn ourselves, and soon! 

The setups in this movie for sequels and prequels are obvious, and I can't wait, if they are as well done as this one.

All thumbs up for Guardians of the Galaxy. We are Groot! 

---

LET'S MAKE IRAQ THE 51ST STATE IN THE UNION

The United States has shipped gobs of money, people, equipment, and building materials to Iraq. And we've lost way too many people fighting a prolonged war there. We pulled out a couple of years ago, but are now being drawn back in to fight an even more barbaric enemy than before, if such a thing is possible. What should we do?

I propose that we make Iraq the 51st state of the United States of America. Here are 10 good reasons:

1. We won't continue to spend money and resources and lives in another country; it will all be spent at home; and it can be in the form of federal payments to the state for health care, education, other so-called entitlements, transportation, environmental regulation, agriculture, natural resource development and management, and defense in the form of National Guard;
2. Iraqis who want to fight other people can join the Armed Forces of the United States and find their dream career firing guns, throwing grenades and launching rockets all over the world;
3. The domestic production of oil in the United States will increase to a level at which we will no longer need to import the stuff, and we can even spurn the environmentally unfriendly tar sand oil from Canada;
4. The President of Iraq will become the Governor of the State of Iraq;
5. The President of Iraq, Mr. Maliki, will be a perfect candidate for the US Congress: he is experienced in crony capitalism, is fiercely loyal to his tribe (aka political party), and can get Absolutely Nothing accomplished as well as or better than the best of our people in Congress;
6. Candidates in federal elections will spend more time in the State of Iraq than in other states because the turnout in their last election was greater than 60 percent, compared to less than 60 percent in the USA for the 2012 elections;
7. The Tea Party can open field offices in Iraq to help focus Iraqi voters on which government they should hate;
8. The National Rifle Association will move their headquarters to Baghdad, where they will be so much more appreciated;
9. American vacationers will have a new domestic vacation destination, and tourism will boost the State of Iraq economy;
10. The US President can appoint Sarah Palin to a special State of Iraq post in the mountains near the far-eastern Iraqi town of Penjwen, where she can keep an eye on the Iranian Supreme Leader from her kitchen window.

I'm going to start a petition campaign, please sign on.