MEMORANDUM TO MR. ZUCKERBERG AND MS. SANDBERG

MEMORANDUM
TO: Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, and Sheryl Sandberg, COO
FROM: a Facebook user pulling the plug
SUBJECT: the reasons I don't believe what you are saying, and goodbye
Dear Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg - may I call you Zuck and Sand? - I have been a Facebook user for many years, which you already know because your memo-reading algorithm has already listed all my personals for you. I have not opened Facebook for a couple of months, and for my 74th birthday (you already know it was 2 days ago) I am pulling the plug.
The reason is very simple - I don't trust you. Now, Zuck and Sand, you might be, probably are, very nice kids (at my age I can call you that); however, you have done a great and possibly tragic mis-service to humanity, as have the other major internet companies, by helping develop surveillance capitalism. You are keenly aware of the effects of your so-called "social network" tools. Many of your former colleagues, people who made millions/billions of dollars in the early years of Facebook, Google, WhatsApp and all the others, are now bemoaning where it all has gone, and what it is doing to society, including effects on children's brains.
I have heard both of you interviewed about this most recent Cambridge Analytica scandal and, to be blunt, I'm not buying what you are peddling. Your apologies are meaningless, and you know it. You both spoke from the same script, which included things like what Zuck said in one segment: “We didn’t focus enough on preventing abuse and thinking through how people could use these tools to do harm as well,...That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, hate speech, in addition to developers and data privacy. We didn’t take a broad enough view of what our responsibility is, and that was a huge mistake. It was my mistake.” Sand said mostly the same thing in an interview I heard on NPR. What is it those teenagers from the Parkland, FL high school say? "We say B.S.!"

For 2017, Facebook had $41 billion revenue and $16 billion profit. You have thousands of employees, all very smart people. You know exactly what your business model is; Facebook sells its user’s data as commodities to anyone who wants to buy them. Are you seriously telling us that you could not "focus enough on preventing abuse" and did not "take a broad enough view" of your responsibility to your users? Seriously? If your mega-company is so stupid, why would anyone trust you with their personal information? Of course you have known all along that you were not protecting your users, and of course you've known all along that your view is not broad enough, it is focused on one thing - maximizing profit.
I truly hope the Facebook and similar fads fade away and that the internet changes into a useful and usable tool that is not based on monetizing users. Companies can still make money in various ways, such as charging money for using the service (see my previous post). Most people already do this - Comcast, Spotify, Netflix, Apple Cloud and Apple Music, and on and on. We all pay for services we want to use because we know a simple rule: there is no such thing as a free lunch.
So goodbye Zuck and Sand, I am no longer harvestable data (well. actually I know that I don't need to be a Facebook user for you to collect my data, but let's pretend it's true for this post). I hope you make drastic changes to your business model, and I hope you come under some new form of realistic regulation soon, and I hope your monopoly is broken up.
And do let me know if your business model changes; I might re-join then.
---

TRUMP IS A MADMAN AND WE SERIOUSLY NEED TO GET RID OF HIM

We are in year two of the Trump presidency, and we keep telling ourselves every day that it can't get any worse, and it does.

This is a basic truth: Donald Trump is a madman. And while he tweet-rants and lies and reverses himself by the hour, and fires his cabinet members one-by-one, ad kisses Putin's ass...the evildoers he has put in charge of government are disassembling government and giving away everything of value to their corporate masters. And the citizens of America, those who are not in the Trump camp, the GOP leadership or the corporate masters of them all, are being ignored, abandoned and made less well-off than ever.

This is serious. Seasoned politicians, public servants, journalists and others are openly saying that American democracy is at serious risk, perhaps as never before. This is serious; seriously.

And where is Congress? The GOP majority in Congress is silent; they have nothing to say about their president. They are complicit in the destruction of American democracy, and they have to know it. With what devil did the GOP make a pact? How can they not act to at least limit the damage being done by their president and his appointees? This is outrageous!

We are all counting on the Mueller investigation to come up with the smoking gun, the silver bullet that will end Trump's presidency. It might. Let's hope.

But in the meantime, it is up to the Democratic Party and the millions of good people of America to set into motion a plan to push the madman out of office; we need a political coup. Soon.

Two avenues exist for this political coup, and I am not expert enough to know if and how; impeachment and invoking Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. In either of these, the Vice President would become President, and the prospect of a President Pence is also frightening; however, it could not possibly be worse than a President Trump (could it?).

We tell ourselves that the only course of action is to get a democratic majority in Congress in the 2018 mid-term elections. It could happen, especially if Democrats - including the far left and progressives - are smart, not stupid like they were in 2016.

But seriously, Trump is a madman, we need to get him out of the White House.

---

STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL: WHAT BETSY DEVOS DOESN’T WANT TO KNOW

Betsy DeVos, the Trump-appointed Secretary of Education, and a major Trump campaign donor, doesn’t know very much about education. This is not gossip, it is fact. She is known for her support of campaigns to create and support charter schools and private schools, rather than public schools. She is an ignorant person, with an agenda.

The death-by-gun tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida has grabbed the attention of America and the rest of the world not just because of the horrifying tragedy, but because of the students who survived. These “kids” - and I use that term in quotes because, in many ways, they are more grown up than many of the adults in the room - have drawn a bold red line and declared ENOUGH! They are poised, articulate, knowledgable and a new, formidible force in the decades-old gun control debate.

What Betsy DeVoss does not want to know, and will certainly not acknowledge, is that these are public school kids. Stoneman Douglas High School is in a wealthier area than many American schools. This translates into more extracurricular activities and opportunities, such as drama, debate, journalism and public speaking. These kids were ready to be in front of cameras and journalists, were ready to go toe-to-toe with politicians (like Sen. Marco Rubio), were ready to lead a movement because of the education they have. The irony is not lost that students in public schools, where the Trump administration is reducing resources, have taken on the Trump administration and its sycophants in the gun control debate, a debate in which the Trumpsters and the GOP are beholden to the gun lobby.

The lesson here is simple: stop cutting funding for public schools and start putting resources into all public schools if we want knowledgable, articulate and poised adults in the future.

Slate had an excellent article on this topic.

Sorry Betsy, you’re a loser!
—-

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS DON'T KNOW THE RULES OF POLITICS

Cameron Kasky, a Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student, asked Senator Marco Rubio a question during the CNN town hall following the killings at the school. It is obvious from the video that Mr. Kasky does not understand the rules of politics. Every journalist knows these rules. A primary rule is that if you ask a politician a question she or he does not want to answer, she or he will execute a pivot, change the topic to something he or she wants to talk about (usually a comfortable and well-rehearsed talking point). If the journalist asks the question a second time, and the politician again pivots, the rule is that you move on to another question.

It is interesting to watch what happens when Sen. Rubio realizes that Mr. Kasky does not know the rules. Rubio pivots, Kasky asks the same question, Rubio pivots, Kasky asks the same question, Rubio pivots, Kasky asks the same question.....until finally, Mr. Kasky says that the answer is obvious.

Watch this interaction here, and watch Senator Rubio squirm.

The problem here is that Mr. Kasky and the rest of the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have not received a good education and learned the rules of politics. And that's another failure of public schools!

---

GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA: THIS CORNER WILL BE TURNED!

I am having difficulty typing because my eyes are filled with tears. Tears of sorrow; tears of pride.

We joined family, friends and many thousands of neighbors today in downtown Portland in the March for Our Lives. Hundreds of thousands of people all across America joined with student leaders, young people who will no longer accept the death toll from guns. These children, and I do not think of them as children, are demanding an end to the fear and killing by guns. Their rallying cries of "ENOUGH!" and "NEVER AGAIN!" reverberate in the ears of America. They do not and will not take "no" for an answer from politicians, calling "B.S." to the things that we all know to be B.S. They are angry, they are empowered, they can't understand why the "grownups" have done nothing for so long. And they are finally taking it into their own hands to make change that is so long overdue.

I have been watching some of the student speeches from the Washington, D.C. rally earlier today. I am blown away by the passion and intelligence of every one of these young people, from the 11 year olds to the 18 year olds, women and men, of every background. Their strength amazes me, their fierceness cheers me, their solidarity encourages me.

The pain these children feel and experience is also at the surface. They are survivors, of killings in their schools and in their neighborhoods. Many have stories of family and friends who were felled by bullets. The tears are there, often barely contained. One amazing young woman, a high school senior from south Los Angeles, told how she learned to duck from bullets before she learned to read, and before her brother was killed by a bullet. A young man from Chicago told of his nephew who died from a bullet, and of the number of killings by gun in his city. Teens from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida told their stories, shouted out the names of fallen friends, and demanded an end to the violence.

These kids are a force to be reckoned with, and they truly have politicians scurrying for cover. They will not accept the status quo, the business as usual in the halls of Congress, the kowtowing to the gun lobby. It's different this time, and the young people are leading the fight.

My tears of sorrow are for kids everywhere who have to go through safety drills for the very real chance that a shooter enters their school. My tears of sorrow are for kids who have to grow up in neighborhoods where gun violence is the norm, where so many have family and friends who have been killed by gun violence, where schools become security sites with armed guards. This is not OK; this is not right; this has to change. These kids know that every dollar spent on building a "big, beautiful wall" or more unneeded weapons of war, or more profits and perks for the wealthy are dollars not being spent on education, mentoring, job creation, housing, schools and health care for Americans who need these. They understand this, they are not ignorant; in fact, they understand a lot more than many adults.

My tears of pride are for these brave, wonderful, beautiful children - these amazing young people - who have started a revolution to end the gun violence in America, and beyond. This revolution is long overdue, and the "adults" in the room better join or be swept out of the way. For the times they are a'changing!

---

FACEBOOK LOSING FACE

Perhaps it was inevitable. The social media giant Facebook is in trouble (again) for how user's personal data is protected or not. I have always questioned the term "social media" because these media are not really built for socialization but are built to monetize users. "Facebook has built its highly profitable social network off its users, selling advertisements based on their ages, interests and other details" (NY Times). Sure, Facebook users socialize on the platform, but they also provide mountains of data about themselves that are sold and bought and sold and bought by myriad companies to use for targeted advertising, including political uses. The recent flap involving possibly unauthorized use of personal data by Cambridge Analytica to influence voters raises many concerns by users, regulators and analysts.

I've wondered if a time would come when Facebook is no longer relevant or desirable. Could the Facebook empire come tumbling down if some new upstart offered a non-intrusive way to socialize on the internet? It could happen. What if a non-profit organization offered inexpensive subscriptions to a social media platform that did not harvest user data because it ran solely on subscription revenues and donations? There are already models for this.

Think about it, Facebook has 2.2 billion active monthly users. If Facebook charged $5 per month and guaranteed not to harvest user data (except those data needed to operate and improve the service) and never to sell or share the data, they would have an annual revenue of $132 billion. If only half that number of users paid the subscription, it would generate annual revenue of $66 billion. Does any company need more than that to operate?

I'll ask you to think about it, again. If the purpose of the "social network" Facebook is to provide a real-time service on which people can socialize, then any amount of profit is good because it keeps the doors open and provides capital for operations and improvements. If, on the other hand, the purpose of Facebook is to make as much profit as possible, then they are doing a good job now.

Here is a graphic:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/277229/facebooks-annual-revenue-and-net-income/

For 2017, Facebook had $40.653 billion in revenue, and $15.954 billion profit (net income). The majority of Facebook income is from advertising; in other words, harvesting data about you and selling it to advertisers.

So, I am looking forward to the true social network app that does not harvest user data, does not push advertising to users, and is open and transparent. I would gladly pay $5 or more per month for this service. Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is always a cost. We should not expect to get internet services for free, and we don't.

---

THIS IS SO NOT PRESIDENTIAL

America - what kind of man do you have in the position of President?

(below: tweet by Donald Trump)
——————————-
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI - A great day for Democracy. Sanctimonious James Comey was his boss and made McCabe look like a choirboy. He knew all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels of the FBI!
9:08 PM - Mar 16, 2018
———————————

SHITSTORM IN THE WHITE HOUSE: SEASON 2

Shitstorm in the White House: Season 2

• All new episodes; each more bizarre than the previous.
• The Donald tells even more lies than in Season 1.
• More Tweet Firings!
• Gathering porny Stormy clouds cast a shadow on the Donald. Will his cover be blown?
• Will the First Lady become the Third Lady left in the dust?
• More trouble for The Donald's spawn and spawn-in-law.
• Marvel at the number and pace of Cabinet replacements.
• Will The Donald meet face-to-face with The Un Donald? Will they match button sizes?
• How long can The Donald keep his head up Putin's butt?
• How long can the GOP members of Congress keep their heads up The Donald's butt?
• Watch in amazement as, episode after episode, American allies turn away.
• Will the ghost of Bannon appear to haunt The Donald, as promised?
• How much more fake news will The Donald tolerate before he has all journalists deported? 
• Will there be a Wall? Will it be Big? Will it be Beautiful? Will Mexico pay for it at last, in pesos?
• What will become of the mystery Mueller? 
• Watch for a surprise collusion conclusion! 
• Watch as Scary Huckleberry Sandbagger runs out of ways to spin.
• Don't miss a single episode!

New episodes will be run daily on every channel, everywhere you look. 

REX OUT, MIKE IN: THIS IS BAD NEWS

I was not a big fan of Rex Tillerson as U.S. Secretary of State; he had no government diplomatic experience, was very aloof within the agency, and was making drastic cuts. HOWEVER, Rex looks good compared to Mike Pompeo. One thing Rex brought to the job was an understanding that diplomacy should almost always be the first option, and he tried many times to sway Trump away from reactive Trumpism. He did not agree with the president on numerous positions; we know this from Twitter Trump himself. And hey, Rex was spot on when he purportedly called Trump a "fucking moron."

Mike Pompeo is a different breed altogether. He is a dyed-in-the-wool hard-line hawk. He was a Tea Party congressman. He and Trump seem pressed from the same mold. He, like Trump, is against the nuclear deal with Iran, will not give any concessions to the North Koreans in order to advance peace, is anti-trade agreement and anti-immigrant, and agrees with moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem now.

We have learned that Pompeo personally took the morning intelligence briefings to the White House very often and read them to The Donald. It seems the two men have become very close. It would not surprise me if Pompeo was in on the idea to have Trump meet with Kim Jung Un, knowing that Tillerson would probably not agree, and that this was the opening Trump wanted to dump Rex.

(And by the way, unlike so many of the pundits and experts who think a Trump/Kim Jung Un meeting is a good idea, I think it is a really bad idea. Trump is an idiot who knows nothing about Korea (north or south), will not study for the meeting, is not diplomatic, and will immediately go off-script and blow the whole deal; maybe even blow up the whole world!)

Under Mike Pompeo, we can expect the U. S. State Department to become less about diplomacy and more about pushing others around in order to "make America first." I might be wrong about this; I hope I'm wrong. The thought of these two men conspiring on a foreign policy is chilling.

The world of Trump seems bad every day, and gets worse every day.

Sigh.
---

THE YOLK'S ON US

I like eggs, especially those produced by chickens and flying fish. Buying chicken eggs (I'll just say "eggs" for the rest of this post) has gotten to be a confusing conundrum. There are many brands of eggs, and within each brand are white and brown and free range and cage free and pasture raised and hormone free and GMO free and.....you've seen it.

What does it all mean? I'll summarize it for you.

Here is a graphic to help:

Cage free (a USDA defined term) means the hens are not kept in cages. They might be, probably are, in a huge barn and have at least 1 square foot (sf) of space each.

Free range (USDA) means the hens have access to an outdoor space of at least 2 sf each; however, the outdoor space might be a dirt, concrete or other surface, with or without a bit of grass, and most hens probably never go out there.

Pasture raised (not regulated by USDA) means the hens spend time outdoors in a real pasture, and have access to indoor space when they want it.

Other things you will see on egg carton labels:

Brown vs. white eggs: there is no difference in taste or nutrition. Different breeds of chickens lay different color eggs.

Non-GMO Project Verified: the chicken feed does not contain any ingredients that are genetically modified.

Certified Humane Raised & Handled: the facility is certified to use humane practices, and certain standards have to be met, such as a minimum of 1-1/2 ft of space for cage free raised hens instead of at least 1 sf.

Organic: the chicken feed ingredients are certified organic.

Vegetarian Fed: this one amazes me; chickens are not vegetarians, they are omnivores.

Omega-3: the chicken feed contains certain ingredients that boost the amount of Omega-3 fatty acids in the egg yolks; however, the amount is only slightly more than regular eggs, not enough to meet any recommended daily amount, and other sources of Omega-3 are less expensive per unit.

Corn and soy free: I have no idea what this is about, and I'm afraid to research it.

There are more items found on egg carton labels than what I've listed here, but this is a good start. I recently decided to try to buy local, pasture raised eggs if they are available. There is one brand of eggs labeled "pasture raised" and displayed prominently in our local food store chain that is not local (I think they are from Texas), which means the environmental cost of transporting them here (big refrigerated trucks) makes them a poor choice for me. One store we shop has pasture raised eggs from a local farm, and they are my first choice. These eggs cost a lot more than the regular cage free or free range, but at $10/dozen (or a bit less), or 83 cents an egg, I think they are a bargain. And I picture the hens roaming around a pasture, eating bugs and worms and spiders and plants....they are probably fed some mixture of grain, too. One of these days I'm going to stop in at that farm and see exactly how the hens are raised, just out of curiosity. The farm is a small operation (I looked at it on Google maps) and probably produces a small number of eggs per day, which is why we only see them in one of the stores of the chain we shop (New Seasons Market). And that's a good thing, in my opinion.

Happy fried, scrambled, boiled and omelette egg eating! (And don't forget the tobiko, or flying fish eggs, on your next batch of sushi.)
---

RETAIL PRETENTIOUSNESS

I enjoy mocking pretentiousness, especially when it is not my own. I just couldn’t resist this offering of pretension that was delivered to our mail slot by our letter carrier. It was a slick, glossy full-color catalogue of outdoor furniture and furnishings from RH. What set me off immediately was the size and heft of this monstrosity: 9.5 inches wide by 11.25 inches tall by 0.5 inch thick, and weighing 1.75 pounds (yes, I weighed it). The letter carrier rolled his eyes when I asked about carrying these around, and said it is quite a burden when he has a dozen of them in his bag.

So my first flareup was, what the hell, why is RH mailing these things to people who never asked for them (I’ve never heard of RH)? Do they understand the environmental footprint, the carbon burden, associated with printing and shipping these things? The cover has a chasing arrow recycling symbol and the FSC logo and the statement, in tiny print, “Promoting responsible forest management.” Nice touch. Nice greenwash.

RH is in San Francisco; however, they are opening a Portland store - oops, not a store - a “design gallery.”

And now the pretentiousness.

pretentious: adjective. 1. Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

From inside the front cover, we learn the following:

RH INTERIOR DESIGN
We respect the hierarchy and relationships between architecture, furniture and decor that create harmony. It’s a discipline of addition through subtraction, where less becomes more, and calm is created through continuity. Our designers place you at the center of the creative process, working to realize the potential of your home, and bring your vision to life.

RH DESIGN GALLERIES
Our new design galleries are a reflection of human design, a study of balance, symmetry and the golden mean. We are building inspiring spaces that blur the lines between residential and retail, home and hospitality, indoors and outdoors. Our rooftop parks, garden courtyards, design ateliers, restaurants, wine vaults and coffee bars are contributing to an evolving conversation about a new and inspiring way to live.

Oh brother, I can’t wait to get some of that harmony, some addition through subtraction, some less becoming more, and getting calm through continuity. Give me some of that good old “golden mean!!” I want my home to be a blurred line between residential and retail! I can’t wait to find out what a “design atelier” is. And then, hey sweetheart, do you want to go to the park (on the rooftop of a store), or out to dinner (at a retail store) and a glass of wine (in a vault) and go to coffee at the bar in the retail store? What a truly “new and inspiring way to live!!!!”

Damn, I can be nasty!

OK, OK...what are they selling, anyway. Well, I flipped randomly through the slick, glossy catalogue and found:

Outdoor pillow covers $99-109 each (pillows sold separately)
Weathered teak side table $795
LED cantilever umbrella starting at $11,000
White aluminum dining side chair. $465
Wicker sofa: frames starting at $1,495; cushions starting at $665 (4 needed).

Wait a minute - this will be in Portland, Oregon? Huh?

Bottom line: Dear RH, good luck with your new Design Gallery in Portland - seriously, I hope you succeed and hire a lot of local people and pay them a living wage with good benefits. That’s great. But do everyone, including the planet, a favor: stop printing and mailing environmentally obscene catalogues. You have a web site, so if you need to do mass mailings, mail a nice flyer with some sexy furniture on it and your web address in big, bold letters. Seriously, anyone who can afford your stuff certainly has a laptop, a smartphone, a tablet, an Apple watch and.....you know...money.
—-

POLITICAL PORNOGRAPHY

The Age of Trump will be seen by future historians as the Golden Age of Political Porn. The bizarre and obscene have become normal. The goal of the administration and its fellow-travelers is to screw everyone except the wealthy, funding class.

Consider for a moment the Pornographer-in-Chief, Donald J. Trump. We know that many former presidents and other high-ranking politicians have had affairs outside of their marriages (affairs being the polite way to say that they were having sex with others). The present president, however, has taken this to new lows, and is currently being sued by a porn star. It's tawdry business, this Stormy Daniels episode, involving sex, payment of hush money, junkyard dog lawyers, and lots of press coverage. The First Lady, by all appearances, is silently fuming, and seems to not want to be with her husband in public (who can blame her?). The porn star herself is having her 15 minutes of celebrity, complete with photos in every media, and interviews on T.V. talk shows. Stop and think about this for a moment; a pornography star, a person who makes a living (and I hope she does make a good living) by performing every conceivable type of sex act on-camera for public showing, has been normalized. Well, why not? Think about the not-quite-hidden glee journalists (print, online, radio and TV) had when it was decided that using the word "shithole" was OK because the President of the United States said it. This is the Golden Age of Trump.

The Republicans in Congress are part of this pornography ring centered in the White House, in the sense of the political porn they promote. Let me define terms here. One definition of pornography is: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction. A legal definition includes this statement: Pornography has been regulated by the legal standards that govern the concept of Obscenity, which refers to things society may consider disgusting, foul, or immoral, and may include material that is blasphemous. And so my concept of "political porn" includes those actions and statements that are purposefully sensational and designed to arouse intense emotional reactions (i.e. Trump tweets), as well as things many of us find disgusting, foul, immoral and even blasphemous (in regards to the Constitution, our guiding "bible").

Every day under the Trump administration, Trump-appointed hit men and women in charge of government agencies, the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Republican-controlled states, counties and cities are taking actions to promote the Trump/GOP agenda of making America white again, making the wealthy wealthier, eliminating anyone who is different, screwing the environment of the United States and Planet Earth, elevating the threat of nuclear weapon proliferation, and promoting hate and misery on a global scale. This is not me over reacting; this is the new reality, the new normal in the age of political porn.

We should not allow our attention to be too diverted by the pornography of the moment in the popular media; the Stormy Daniels' of the day, the 3AM tweets from the golden throne, the hilarity of politicians inventing ways to justify and normalize their kissing of the royal Trump butt no matter how politically obscene the most recent POTUS statement. In other words, it is OK to watch this political porn, but if we get aroused, it should be with righteous anger and a vow to dump these purveyors of porn the next chance we get (2018 and 2020).

--- 

NRA'S WAYNE LAPIERRE: PROFESSIONAL DEATH MONGER

Wayne LaPierre, the sulfurous executive vice-president of the NRA, spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (C-PAC) yesterday. (Dana Loesch, another mouthpiece for the NRA, made every reasonable human vomit at the Parkland Town Hall meeting on CNN earlier in the day.)

LaPierre trotted out his usual speech following mass murder events using guns, blaming everyone but the NRA, and especially Democrats and liberals and the mysterious socialists among us.  I won't mince words here (do I ever?); LaPierre is a crackpot who has made a living as a Death Monger for an organization that peddles guns and attacks anyone who doesn't toe their line.

It's worth watching a few minutes of his speech at C-PAC - keep a barf bag nearby, and soft slippers to throw at the screen - to understand the death and hate-mongering he and his organization spew. Keep in mind the hold these crackpots have on the U.S. Congress and the current Administration - they spent $30.5 million on Trump's 2016 campaign, and many millions more on other campaigns (including Sen. Marco Rubio).

Here are a few phrases from his opening couple of minutes at C-PAC, which I have annotated:

"...keep the families and communities in our prayers..."
Ah yes, thoughts and prayers - the standard trope following each and every gun tragedy; as if these have ever made any difference.

"...as usual, the opportunists wasted not one second to exploit tragedy for political gain..."
Who are these "opportunists?" Oh, it must be the teenagers who survived a mass murder at their school, and the parents and families of the murdered children and teachers, and the teachers who survived, and the County Sheriff and so many others who are speaking out and organizing for meaningful gun control. And what "political gain" are these "opportunists" seeking, Wayne? In fact, Wayne, you are the biggest opportunist of all!  

"...national media eager to smear the NRA..."
No one needs to smear you or the NRA, Wayne, as you have been smearing yourselves with the excrement you peddle for years. 

"...call for even more government control..."
"Even more government control" of what? Do you mean government control of instruments of death, like semi-automatic rifles, large-capacity magazines, bump stocks and other weapons of mass destruction? If that's what you mean, you putrid excuse for a human, then yes, the majority of Americans want more of this kind of government control!

"...they hate the NRA, they hate the Second Amendment, they hate individual freedom..."
You're correct about the first one - we do hate you. As for your Second Amendment crutch, we don't hate it, we simply think it is not relevant today, especially the way it was written more than two centuries ago. And the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with individual freedom, unless you think that means the freedom to kill masses of people and to terrorize children and entire communities.  

"...the elite don't care one whit about America's school system, and America's school children..."
Whoa up a minute there, pahdner...who are "the elite?" Do you mean people like you who get paid somewhere between $1 million and $5 million per year to peddle death and destruction? So yes, it's true, people like you don't give a whit about schools or kids, they are simply collateral damage in your campaign to sell more and more and more guns. 

"...their goal is to eradicate the Second Amendment, and our firearms freedoms,  so they can eradicate all individual freedoms (applause)."
I'm not sure what to say here....this is genuine, 100% unadulterated crackpotness. Wayne, maybe you didn't pay attention in school (were you too busy cleaning your weapons?), but individual freedom is not limitless in a democracy, it is regulated for the good of society. Your brand of freedom sounds like anarchy, and that is really the nub of what the NRA is peddling, unregulated individual freedom backed up by a pile of guns in every household. No thanks, Wayne, I'll take my individual freedom with a good dose of social responsibility and government regulation for the benefit of all. 

Finally, it is instructive to see the speech that Wayne LaPierre plagiarized for his stock speech. This is a must see, because it truly explains everything. Here is the link.

---

BREAK THE HOLD OF THE NRA

I don't need to go into detail about the strangle hold the National Rifle Association has on the U.S. Congress and President. The NRA spent an unprecedented amount of money on the 2016 election, and was a major factor in the wins by Donald Trump, Senate candidates in key states, and other down-ticket victories in the gun belt.

And deaths by gun continue in this country on a daily basis, including school shootings. If you want the chilling facts, do an internet search, this is well covered by the media and non-profit organizations such as Gun Violence Archive (gunviolencearchive.org).

Many elected politicians take money from the NRA, and to be fair, a small percentage of them favor some level of gun control law. But for the most part, the NRA-supported politicians don't talk about gun control. They “don't want to politicize”mass shootings when people are grieving, they can only say the standard catch phrases that have tried and true terms such as “thoughts and prayers” and “we have to deal with mental illness.” This is all a cruel insult to everyone, most particularly the families and friends of shooting victims, and the victims who survive.

The number of deaths and injuries by gun keep increasing in the U. S., and the amount of time spent by the media on the larger mass shootings (more than 4 victims) continues to decline. Gun violence has become normal, and only the most egregious and shocking incidents hold our attention for very long.

U.S. society is crazy, and getting crazier. We have become, by so many metrics, a true “shithole” country, and one that is shot full of holes.

—-

BICYCLE ELITISM

I pedal around Portland a lot, and more and more I am running into elitism and discrimination by the transportation bureau in Portland. I try to ignore it, and I always break the rules (perhaps even break the law?).

I took this photo today to illustrate the situation.

As you can clearly see, there are signs that prohibit vehicles other than bicycles from using certain streets. Signs reading “Do Not Enter except bicycles,” or “Bicycles Only” are everywhere around Portland. This excludes me because, as you can see in the photo, I ride a tricycle! Think about those people in town who ride unicycles! What about skateboarders? They, too, are victims of this elitism and discrimination.

Portland prides itself as a great bicycling city; well, it would be a great tricycling city too, if it removed those discriminatory signs and allowed all human-powered vehicles to go wherever bicycles are allowed. What do I have to do, start a class action suit?

So far I have avoided being ticketed or arrested for ignoring these ubiquitous signs and going where bicycles are allowed to go. But I secretly hope I get busted by the bike cops so I can fight City Hall!

Resist bicycle elitism; ride a trike!!

—-

A FEW FACTS ABOUT FACEBOOK

Facts, just the facts.

For 2017:

• Facebook had revenues of $41 billion
• Facebook net income was $16 billion
• Facebook has approximately 2 billion users world-wide
• Therefore, Facebook brought in $20 of revenue per user in 2017, and had a net income of $8 per user.

source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/277229/facebooks-annual-revenue-and-net-income/

Now you have an idea of what a Facebook user is worth to Facebook.

Mark Zuckerberg has a net worth of $76.7 billion

Facts, just the facts. 

---

HOMELESS CAMPERS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Like so many American cities, Portland, Oregon has thousands of homeless persons living outdoors, and solutions are elusive. A recent event highlighted the issue of people camping in "the woods" and raised questions about the pros and cons of these situations. 

Kaia Sand, the executive director of Street Roots in Portland, wrote an interesting opinion piece suggesting that when the city cleared out this camp it might have been a lost opportunity. In Kaia's words: "Rather than continuously throwing public funds at moving our homeless neighbors out of public parks and other natural areas, why not involve them in the ecological care of the land on which they camp?" It's a good question, and one that deserves discussion. (Note: there are a number of issues involved in this story related to homelessness, police sweeps of camps, displacement of people, and others that I cannot cover in this focused post. I suggest reading Ms. Sand's editorial, linked above.) 

I agree in principle with Kaia's thoughts, and the actions of various advocates around this question. In my work as an ecologist and consultant, I have had some experiences in which people living outside near one of my projects have wanted to know what we were doing, and how they could assist. In a couple of instances, we asked these folks to keep an eye on things for us and do some easy maintenance of fencing or signage. Although they didn't ask for anything in return, we always brought them things we thought they could use, including gift cards for the local market. Some of these people were very interested in being good stewards of the environment (and we were careful not to use them as unpaid labor).

On the other hand, I have also had some not very pleasant experiences on project sites. At a recent large project site, campers pulled up newly planted trees and shrubs on the restored riverbank and excavated soil to make flat areas for their tents. We found piles of garbage and broken glass strewn around, and also hypodermic needles. These folks weren't being good stewards of the environment. 

There are larger issues here that need to be part of the conversation. In her editorial, Ms. Sand asks why we need to move people out of our "public parks and other natural areas." Part of the answer is contained in her question; these are parks and natural areas, not campgrounds. As a consulting ecologist, I have spent a career looking at environmental impacts from a science-based view. If we want to allow people to live outdoors, for whatever reasons they have, we need to be thoughtful about where we allow them to camp. No matter how careful people are (in the example of the camp in question, the campers tried to have a light ecological footprint), there are always unintentional ecological impacts. 

I support allowing people to establish camping areas if they have no other options, but only in locations that have been designated for this activity after careful analysis of environmental and social impacts associated with the camping. Allowing camping in a location designated and managed as a natural area is not a good idea, no matter how careful the campers are. In fact, allowing people to camp wherever they want is not a good idea, either. Some examples. On one of my projects, I found about a dozen people camping on the private property. They had dug into the ground to make flat areas for tents and shallow pits for fires. The property, however, was contaminated, and by excavating the soil, these folks were at risk of being exposed to contaminants that could affect their health (there were warning signs posted around the property). On another project years ago (along the Columbia Slough) I saw people using the slough water for cooking; this was a water body that had raw sewage flowing into it. At other locations, campers were using shallow pits as toilets, and the seasonally high water table created a pathway for fecal bacteria to contaminate the adjacent stream. 

I am of the opinion that the city, county and state should designate locations, and develop them as campgrounds, where people can have temporary shelter, including needed facilities. As a society we should not hide people "in the woods" but rather, designate public spaces within our neighborhoods where people can find secure shelter outdoors until they can be helped into permanent housing. These camping areas should have drinking water, toilet and shower facilities, garbage and recycling facilities, and secure lockers for personal belongings. There should also be rules of behavior, and a method to enforce them. Finally, social services should be available for people who want assistance. These locations need not be out "in the woods," but would be better within the urban setting, maybe on vacant properties that could be leased or owned by government entities or NGOs for this temporary use.

There is a lot of talk lately about including the homeless in our concept of "neighbors," and I agree that anyone who lives in the neighborhood is part of the community. I would like to find ways to involve our homeless neighbors in the social fabric; however, our tendency is to not want to really see them, let alone interact with them. If we allowed people to set up temporary housing (tents) in a designated location in the neighborhood (even part of a city park) in a very structured way, there would be more opportunities for two-way social interactions. Importantly, the housed and unhoused neighbors would all have to agree to being socially responsible; in other words, good neighbors.

I have to add that the above might sound very altruistic to those of us, myself included, who have been struggling for years with very serious issues involving what we call "street people behaving badly" in our neighborhood. Whether or not these people have housing, they engage in inappropriate and often unlawful behaviors that have had serious negative impacts on merchants and residents, and have reduced the livability of the neighborhood for everyone. Unlike some of the homeless people we know in the neighborhood, these people have no interest in being good neighbors, and these are not the folks I would want to see in a neighborhood campground. 

Finally, I have to say that designated camping locations is not a solution to the homeless issues in our society. At best it is a bandage that can provide some benefits until we implement permanent measures to house people who are without it. 

Thanks for the thought-provoking opinion piece, Kaia. 

---

MY PRIVACY MATTERS

We have all freely given up a lot of our privacy in the Digital Age. We use web sites knowing that each site collects data about us. We put things online, in public, that tell many things about who we are, where we are, who we are with, what we are feeling, what consumer habits we have, what we "like," and so much more. We use email, texting, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, Spotify, Pandora, Google, Yahoo and so much more. Amazon - not just a bookseller anymore - has become a larger and larger part of our lives for so many of us.

For many of us, this is fine; we have nothing to hide, we get a lot of access and services for free or for a relatively small cost.  But for me, and some people I know, there is a dark side that has become less and less acceptable. I have read numerous articles and analyses about the dark side of the internet. I'm not talking here about the hacking, criminal side of the internet, but rather the companies, known to me and unknown to me, that see me as a revenue source, a container of data waiting to be harvested and sold. This has always bothered me, and it has finally come to dominate my view of the internet and how I use it.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has vowed to change Facebook in 2018 as a response to the role it played in the Russian hacking of the US elections. The problem Zuck has is that Facebook is a public company with shareholders, and anything he does that reduces profits will not be taken lightly by the shareholders.

Facebook isn't the problem; the problem is a set of concepts that include "social media," "sharing economy" and similar. These all sound terrific in an abstract sense; however, everything has a price or a cost, and every internet venture has to be funded somehow. For those of us who were around before the internet, its coming was heralded with unbounded idealism about how it would change the world in so many good ways; it would be free, open to everyone, safe, a glorious "information highway" in the clouds. Well, yes, some of this is certainly real, but so much more has been co-opted by capitalism and criminality.

And so... I am taking steps to protect my privacy on the internet. This will affect some of the ways I communicate with friends and family. It will also, hopefully, reduce the harvesting of my data.

Initial steps:

1. I will stop using Facebook, with the goal of closing my Facebook account. Facebook has some benefits, but I find that the down side outweighs the up side for me. I will post to Facebook the message that my Facebook friends can get my email address and phone number by sending me a message (a Facebook message if they don't have my other contact info).
2. I will transfer my email from Google gmail to Proton Mail. Proton Mail is a fully encrypted service (end-to-end if both users use it) based in Switzerland (including their servers), which has much more strict regulations of the internet than the USA. 
3. Google - this is a tough one. I am looking into the privacy policies for this blog platform that is a Google product. I do use a number of Google products all the time, so I will start by enabling as many of the Google privacy tools as are available. I already use Duck Duck Go as the browser when I am on Safari (the Apple browser). Our mobile phone provider, Project Fi, and our mobile phones (Nexus) are Google products. So yes, I/we are tied closely to Google, and I'm working on that.
4. Amazon - another tough one. I use Amazon for a lot of my shopping, and we subscribe to Amazon Prime for streaming video and other uses.  I'm studying this one, too.
5. VPN - virtual private network - I use a VPN on all of my devices. This hides the identity and location of my computer, and is a layer of protection from hackers. Some web sites will not allow me to connect if my VPN is on, so this can sometimes be an issue. It is invaluable when traveling and using a wi-fi mobile phone or computer to be on the internet. 

If you have any interest in discussing this topic of internet privacy, let me know; if we live in the same area we can get a cuppa and talk. Or we can use the telephone (what a novel idea!). 

I do hope to stay in touch with all of you. 

---

HOW THE GOP IS SCREWING THE HOMELESS

If you are a regular reader, you know how much I like numbers (facts, not fake news). So I'll start this post with a list of the 15 cities in the world (a) that have the largest populations of homeless persons (in decreasing order):

1. Manila, Philippines
2. New York, USA
3. Los Angeles, USA
4. Moscow, Russia
5. Mexico City, Mexico
6. Jakarta, Indonesia
7. Mumbai, India
8. Buenos Aires, Argentina
9.  Budapest, Hungary
10. Sao Paulo, Brazil
11. Boston, USA
12. Washington D. C., USA
13. San Francisco, USA
14. Phoenix, USA
15. Athens, Greece

Surprised? Of the top 15 homeless city populations in the world, 6 are in the United States of America, and 2 of these are ranked 2nd and 3rd. The U.S. economy remains the largest in the world in terms of nominal GDP. The $19.42 trillion U. S. economy is 25% of the gross world product. (b)

Homelessness in the U.S.A. increased during 2017 for the first time since 2010. It is estimated that there are 554,000 homeless people in our country; that's about 0.2% of our population of 327 million.

More than 42 million people in the U.S.A., including 1 in 6 children, struggle to put food on the table (2015 data). That is 13% of our population.

More than 43 million people in the U.S.A. live below the poverty line. The poverty line is an annual income less that $24,250 for a family of 4. (Think about that number for a moment!) 

The latest count in Multnomah County, Oregon, that includes the City of Portland, found 4,177 people experiencing homelessness (or houselessness) out of a population of 735,344. This number was a 10% increase over the 2015 count. Of the homeless persons, 76% were white, and 10% Hispanic/Latino.

American cities are struggling to address the crisis of homelessness, trying desperately to find solutions to house people and provide the services they need, including employment for those who can work. 

The response to the homeless crisis by the Trump Administration has been mixed, based on somewhat cursory research I have done. They recently announced a $2 billion grant program to help cities build affordable housing; on the other hand, they have made drastic cuts to the HUD and other budgets, and have tried to end some important federal programs designed to work towards an end to homelessness. 

But just looking at budget numbers for homelessness programs ignores the bigger picture. If we look at what the Congressional Republicans are doing, we see that the crisis might get worse. 

The GOP and the Trumpsters have been whittling away at the Affordable Care Act (or ACA, what they gleefully call "Obamacare."). Making health insurance less available and more expensive will harm many Americans, especially the poor. The result will be an increase in the number of people using hospital emergency rooms for their health issues, and also the number of people who simply don't get health care.

The major "victory" claimed by the GOP for 2017 was passage of a tax reduction bill that will put huge amounts of money in the pockets and coffers of wealthy Americans and corporations, have modest reductions in taxes for middle class working Americans, and have no benefit for the unemployed, the poor and the homeless. 

Notice that the tax reduction bill did nothing to increase the minimum wage in this country, leaving a huge number of Americans struggling to make a living wage (remember the $24,500 poverty line?). Sure, some corporations might bump wages up a bit as their profits increase because of lower taxes, but I predict this will be for workers already making larger salaries, not the minimum wage earners. 

And the tax reduction bill also ended the ACA mandate that people need to have health insurance, which will result in higher insurance premiums for the people who buy it. How much of the corporate tax savings will be plowed into health care for workers? I remain cynical. 

Major stated goals of the Trumpsters and the Congressional Republicans are to reduce the size of government, eliminate regulations, and make major cuts to "entitlement" programs - you know, the programs that help people. Budgets are being slashed across the board in the federal government, with the exception of the military. So what will that all look like for people experiencing homelessness? That's right - they get screwed. 

Talk about a "shithole country!" 

--- 

Sources:
a. https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/poorest-list/the-15-most-homeless-cities-in-the-world/
b. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022415/worlds-top-10-economies.asp

MAYBE KIDS WOULD BE BETTER AT GOVERNING

Let's face it, listening to members of the US Congress and spokespersons for the President - and the President himself - leading up to and after the government shutdown, is like listening to kids in a school yard. There is a lot of name calling, and a lot of blaming, and a lot of blustering, and a lot of not backing down.

The difference between Congress and a school yard full of kids is that the kids will argue and fight for awhile, and then they will get back to the business of playing, which is usually characterized by cooperation, inclusiveness, and friendship. (Yes, there are bullies, and this is where Congress, the present Whitehouse and school yards are most similar.)

So maybe we should fire the members of Congress and replace them with kids. Then the remaining problem we will have is what to do with the 6-year old in the Whitehouse!

—-