Sleepwalking Into Oblivion

 

The UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow has come and gone. The presidents, prime ministers, delegates and fossil fuels lobbyists have all departed along with any real hope of actually avoiding the worst consequences of global warming. The conference’s major accomplishments seem to be the usual pledges to reduce carbon emissions by mid-century or so (with little specific commitment actually fulfill those pledges) and a final statement that explicitly mentions fossil fuels for the first time ever.

It’s hard for me to disagree with the many climate activists and developing nations when they argue that the wealthy nations remain unwilling to address what is arguably the most serious threat to the planet’s health and welfare in human history. COP26 was billed as the last chance for meaningful action to keep global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. Little in the reports I’ve read about the final agreement suggests meaningful action. Lots of promises, though but right now the world is on track to warm about 2.5 degrees C by 2100. Looks pretty clear to me that we’ve blown that last chance.

The result is not at all surprising. The world, led by wealthy nations that have growth fat and happy burning fossil fuels over the last two centuries, has been kicking this can down the road for decades. Researchers for oil giant Exxon identified the impact of releasing carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels in 1977. Exxon claims that the research was not definitive but the company spent a great deal of time and money denying that impact even after research in subsequent years further confirmed that impact. An Earth Summit held in Rio de Janerio in 1992 led to the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change calling for stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations "at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system." That framework became effective in 1994 after ratification by 197 countries. The Kyoto Protocol, asking both industrialized and developing nations to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions was signed in 1997 but due to co complex ratification process, entered into effect in 2005.  The 2016 Paris Climate Accord attempted to elicit specific reductions in carbon emissions but has largely failed to meet expectations.

So we’ve known about this problem for at least 30 years but have done little to address it. The fossil fuel interests and their allies have managed to create sufficient doubt and fear that wealthy nations have been and continue to be unwilling risk their economies by making the changes needed to mitigate the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. On the other side developing nations are reluctant to forgo the benefits cheap energy that served the industrialized nations so handsomely. These diverging interests and national myopia have brought us to the point where the world is on the brink of catastrophic climate change. We are already seeing that impact in the frequent and more massive wildfires, intensified hurricanes and extended heat waves but even in the face of that reality, the best we can do is recommend eliminating “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.”

I’d like to think the world can do better but the past 30 years offer little basis for optimism. The industrialized nations grew wealthy by exploiting energy their own energy resources and. when those proved insufficient, went abroad to exploit the resources of undeveloped nations, usually to the detriment of the local inhabitants. Those undeveloped nations are now experiencing the worst impacts of climate change caused by the industrial nations emissions and are seeking aid to deal with those impacts. The best COP26 could do was offer a “dialogue” rather than real assistance.

Future generations will not judge us kindly for wasting three decades of opportunity to find a solution to a problem of our own creation.

I Read the News Today--Oh Boy

 

 

One of my routine activities is reading the news each morning. For many years, that activity involved a newspaper. In the past few decades I’ve been reading news sites online which is not quite the same as sitting down with a paper but it is convenient and gives me access to a wide variety of news sources. The weekday ritual was often sporadic during my work years but Sunday mornings with a big Washington Post or even the Sunday local paper kept the ritual alive. Now that I am retired, I engage daily. I am finding, however, that keeping informed is a less pleasant task these days. I skim headlines to get a sense of what’s happening but often skip going to storie for details. So many of those headlines tell me of events with which I am already familiar and, while the actual article might add something to my understanding, that information is relatively marginal and not worth the time it takes to read. Rather than the typical litany of daily events I much prefer analytical articles that provide context and background for those events.

 

Part of the problem is that many of the headlines and articles tell me about things I find appalling, distressing and lead me to fear for the future. As an adult I have strongly believed in justice and equality, that all people should have the opportunity to live free and secure lives. At the same time I have always been realistic about the extent to which we flawed human beings can achieve those lofty objectives but I found hope in the progress that had been made. Yet when I read the news these days, it seems not only the progress has been anything but equal and just but also that society is retrograding. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. I want to believe that to be true but it feels more like the arc is breaking rather than bending.

As a planet, we seem entirely unable to change how we live to avert the devastating effects of climate change. The world has had plenty of warning about the consequences of burning fossil fuels but the developed nations whose prosperous economies poured carbon into the atmosphere are unwilling to rein in their emissions. The world economy depends on continued extraction and at all costs and one of the costs that we seem willing to pay is a radical change in the environment that has supported life as we know it. My country, the United States of America, has become increasingly divided—economically, racially and politically—to the point that the news routinely reports dispossession, poverty and violence. The racial divide that has always plagued American society seems as gaping as ever despite the achievements of the Civil Rights movement. The federal government is increasingly dysfunctional with Congress unable to enact meaningful legislation, a packed Supreme Court and an Executive Branch that has seemingly unlimited power to wage war but can do little to promote economic and social justice here at home.

Maybe what I’m seeing when I read the new is the end of my expectations. Coming of age in the 1960s I had grown up with the legacy of the New Deal which had demonstrated the positive impact of government on the lives of every day Americans (think Social Security, the GI Bill and major infrastructure). I I had seen America moving toward racial justice and broader acceptance of non-traditional ideas. I had hopes of continued progress toward economic and social justice (or at least a reasonable approximation thereof) in my lifetime. 

 

Call it youthful idealism that was bound to be tempered by experience. But I didn’t expect to be worrying about growing authoritarianism in my country and the world. I didn’t look into the future and see a world with melting polar ice caps and triple digit temperatures in Siberia and British Columbia. I didn’t think that I may be part of the last generation to experience the natural environment that gave rise to and nurtured the world that I knew.

All that comes to mind when I read the news these days. I’m too much of a news junkie to quit but it’s getting to be a difficult pastime.

Twenty Years On

 

As the nation approaches the 20^th anniversary of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon the media are running stories about that day and its aftermath. President Biden is planning to visit those two sites and Shanksville, Pennsylvania where the fourth hijacked plane crashed after passengers aborted the attack enroute to its target. It was a day of fear, tragedy and heroism. Certainly a stunning blow to post-Cold War America. Suddenly, we all felt vulnerable in a way that had never occurred during our decades-long stand-off with the Soviet Union. In the immediate aftermath, the media and politicians called it “a day that changed everything”. The nation was united in fear, patriotism and the demand for action.

As it turned out, the unity did not last and many of the changes were not for the better. Clearly some kind of response was warranted but that response turned into two decades of war that largely fulfilled Osama bin Laden’s objective of bleeding America. The Cost of War project estimates that US has spent $8 trillion on military and related expenditures since 2001 and over 929,000 people (overwhelmingly not Americans) have died as a result of our military operations since 2001 . In the process, the US abandoned core Constitutional principles such as the right to trial and prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment as we sanctioned extraordinary rendition, “enhanced interrogation and indefinite detention. At home, America turned into a militarized, surveillance state, all in the name of a “war on terror” and national security.

Attacking al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks made some sense since that organization claimed responsibility for the attacks. Its most prominent leader and training camps were sheltered there by the Taliban government. But giving the president a near blank check to conduct military operations in pursuit of terrorists was not a wise idea. George W. Bush and the war hawks in his administration were more than willing to use that authority and distortions about 9/11 to launch a whole new war in Iraq just because they could. The lone member of Congress who voted against that authority, RepresentativeBarbara Lee, noted at the time that the nation was reeling in pain an grief from the 9/11 attacks and was not in a position to make rational, considered decisions. She urged the nation to stop and think before entirely abdicating its Constitutional responsibility and simply allowing the president to launch wars on his own. She was vilified for her vote. America wanted war and we got it.

What we got was two decades of war that weakened America more than the actual 9/11. What we did not get was an end to terrorist attacks. We got a “Homeland” and some measure of safety from international terrorism. We got increasing restrictions and intrusions on daily life. We also got years of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, instability throughout the Middle East and beyond, a metastasizing terrorism threat throughout the world and ongoing “contingency operations” to stamp out those threats. In the meantime, domestic terrorism grew within our own borders and our cherished democracy fractured.

Our military response was not the only alternative available at the time. Some argued for pursuing terrorist organizations as criminal enterprises. Following the money and tracking connections were established techniques that had been successful against organized crime. It would have disrupted their activities and killed many fewer people. But that and any other alternative were shouted down in the paroxysm of patriotism and fear that followed 9/11.

So America went to war. First, it was the “Global War On Terror”. Then it was the “Long War”. And, finally, it became the “Forever War”. No one was actually certain about our actual goals but we were at war and simply would not give it up. And, as long as only a small percentage of families bore the brunt of combat and the US could put the wars on its credit card, Americans were willing to let it go on. Ultimately it became a festering wound on America.

Twenty years on, the 9/11 attacks continue to haunt America. It is right and proper to remember the day’s victims. It is also right and proper to remember how it all went wrong.  We can’t change history but we can change the future. The US may have the most powerful military in the world but we haven’t learned that not all international conflicts are amenable to military solutions.  

 

Vietnam.  Afghanistan.  Iraq.  Maybe we'll get it right next time.

Inciter-in-Chief

 

 

 

No doubt in my mind, Donald Trump is responsible for the Capitol Insurrection on January 6. He told his supporters that they had been grievously harmed by a stolen election and called for them to march on the Capitol to encourage them to prevent Congress from certifying his defeat. And they did. Now, he did not exactly tell them to occupy and ransack the Capitol. Nor did he tell them to detain and execute the vice-resident and members of Congress. He didn’t have to. The crowd had long been prepped for violence.

Trump has been feeding that monster nonstop from his earliest days as a candidate. He encouraged participants at his rallies to attack counter protesters and the press. He suggested that police rough up (“not be so nice to) criminal suspects. Neo-Nazi rioters in Charlottesville were “fine people”. Mass murderers from Pittsburgh to New Zealand have launched their massacres listening to Trump’s voice in their heads. He has broadly characterized Black Lives Matter and other police reform advocates as thugs and looters who should be shot. On January 6 he told an angry mass rally that the Deep State has robbed them of his landslide re-election victory and that they should do something about it. Trump has been piling up tinder for years now. Last week it erupted in flame.

While Trump sparked last week’s conflagration he’s had plenty of help from Republican elected officials and right-wing media that largely ignored his fascination his influence on the violence that seems to always follow in his wake. “It’s just Trump being Trump” has been the typical excuse when Trump’s words result in mayhem, injury and death. Somehow that is OK. Even now his apologists try to separate Trump’s exhortations to the crowd--”be wild”, “march to the Capitol”, Giuliani's call for “trial by combat”—as not really calls for violence. Bullshit! Trump yelled “Fire! In a crowded theater and is responsible for the chaos and death that ensued. His orcs, minions and catchfarts who’ve acquiesced and remained silent in response to his calls for violence and refusal to accept the results of an election that was by all accounts one of the best administered in recent history (despite the springtime problems caused by the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic) share a large portion of blame as well.

That said, Trump and his enablers are not solely to blame for the disaster at the Capitol. Congressional authorities responsible for Capitol security also failed miserably. Twenty years after the 911 attacks that supposedly “changed everything” an inchoate mob can storm, occupy and vandalize the Capitol of the United States. Like 911, intelligence an information indicating the possibility of and attack was available and either ignored or dismissed. Last week’s failure may exceed 911 in that the evidence was more specific as to time, place and the intent of the more violent factions within Trump World. Reading the accounts of the online chatter leading up to January 6, it seems pretty clear that violence at the Capitol was a very real possibility and yet Capitol security was wholly unprepared for what happened. I can’t pinpoint who did or did not do what—responsibility for and coordination of security around the Capitol is shared among Congress, DC government and the federal executive branch (mainly the Department of Defense, I think)—but the bottom line is eminently clear: the citadel of American democracy was successfully attacked and disabled. The success was only temporary but the damage to America will be permanent.

Trump’s refusal to accept the election results and commit of a peaceful transfer of power clearly violates his oath of office. So, too, does his incitement to violence. I don’t know if this is a cynical Trumpian ploy to avoid accepting defeat or if he truly believes that he won by a landslide. Either way, he is clearly unfit for office (disclosure: I’ve never considered him fit for office) and should be removed from office immediately. I realize his term ends in a few days but I sure as hell do not want him to continue to have sole authority to launch nuclear weapons one minute more. But the VP and cabinet are unwilling to act and Congress has impeached the president for a second time. Inciting a deadly riot more than meets the requirement of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

At best, impeachment will be a permanent record of Trump’s cancerous presence in office. Whether Congress can proceed with impeachment against an ex-president is an open legal question and also raises complications for the incoming Biden Administration which would prefer to have Congress focusing on confirming appointments and addressing Biden’s initiatives on the pandemic, economy and the other fires set by the Trump Administration as they exit.

Impeachment is a very blunt instrument. Apparently that is the only thing likely to make a dent in Trump’s oversized ego.

More Adventures in Shutdown Shopping

This past week I made my first foray to Costco since the earliest days of the pandemic shutdown here in Washington.  Even in normal times I try to minimize my trips to Costco since I do not like crowds.  But these days I am pretty much resigned to waiting in line to get into food stores so I figured I'd just bite the bullet and hope for the best.  I passed on the early open hours for seniors and showed up maybe a half hour after the regular all-comers opening at 10.

The line stretched about halfway down the side of the building.  It definitely looked shorter than the line I encountered on my last visit.   About two-thirds of the people in line, myself included, wore masks.  We were all naturally spaced out (social distance-wise, that is) by our shopping carts as we steadily made our way to the entrance.  At that point I discovered that the line followed a snaking path around barriers created with empty pallets where we proceeded in a stop and go manner as employees allowed customers to enter in small groups.  In all it probably too 15 to 20 minutes to gain entrance.

Inside the store, the experience was quite different from the usual.  Instead of  crowded aisles, the store felt relatively empty with plenty of space to keep my distance from others.  I did not have to weave my way around gaggles of shoppers.  I wasn't looking for any high-demand items and found the few things I wanted quickly.  Checkout was fast.  My total time in-store was probably about the same or less than my time in line.  Not as simple as shopping at Costco used to be but in the scheme of things, reasonably tolerable.

Two days later I went to Trader Joe's during the 8-9 am senior hour.  The line was shorter than earlier visits but it still took about 5 minutes to get into the store.  Like Costco, TJ limits the number of people allowed in at one time so the aisles were not crowded.  TJ is a much smaller store so space was a bit tighter than at Costco so I was closer to fellow shoppers there.  But I was in and out fairly fast and wore a mask so my exposure was relatively limited.

Watching the evolution of retail social distancing and infection control strategies has been interesting.  All of the places I regularly shop for groceries initiated control procedures immediately following the governor's order in early March and have fine-tuned them in the weeks since.  Yeah, it's inconvenient but infectious disease experts advise that we really do need to keep away from each other.  I don't think they are making that recommendation as a joke or part of some obscure conspiracy (although watching protesters gathering at state capitols to protest shutdown requirements suggests that plenty of conspiracy theories are out there) so I appreciate that the grocery stores I frequent are doing a good job of keeping food available and us apart while we procure those needed supplies. 

Profile in Leadership

 
So Donald Trump finally recognized that he does not, in fact, have "absolute" authority (or anything like it) to reopen the American economy and is leaving that decision up to the governors of the various states.  Good on him for letting that reality seep into his brain.  The governors--Democrats and Republicans--have performed reasonably well in managing the Covid-19 crisis in their states iin the absence of consistent, fact-based guidance from the federal government. The emergence of regional efforts to figure out when will be the appropriate time to ease up on on the restrictions needed to control the virus offers some hope that the states will be able to figure out how best to balance public health with economic health.  The Trump administration even established guidelines for determining how to measure that balance.

All well and good but a couple key items are missing.  One is leadership.  If Donald Trump is telling governors that the decision is up to them, it would be very helpful if he would support them in their decision-making.  But he is not providing that support.  In fact, he is encouraging his base in resisting the governors' decisions.  So on the one hand Trump is recognizing the key role the states play in dealing with this crisis while on the other hand he is making it increasingly difficult for governors to implement policies regarded as essential for controlling the virus.  Two-faced "leadership".  Very similar to his "fine people on both sides" characterization of the Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017.

The second missing item is testing to determine identify and isolate individuals who are positive for Covid-19.  Federal officials are still getting requests from private laboratories for help obtaining the necessary reagents to conduct tests and the American Hospital Association has raised concerns with the administration about a lack of testing supplies. There also is no single administration official working on testing.  Without a strong testing protocol states are flying blind in making  crucial decisions.  If Covid 19 was a shooting war of comparable magniture, the federal government would damn well make sure American industry churned out the bullets, guns and other needed materials.  But in this "war" with no visible enemy, the Trump administration won't exercise the authority it does have to compel production of the tests at a scale needed to inform effective decision-making.

Continuing with the war analogy, its as if each major division operates on its own without any coordinated leadership, with no supreme commander to oversee all theaters of operation.  Generals don't actually engage in combat but good ones make it possible for the grunts who do fight to do so effectively and with the weapons they need.

Leadership does make a difference.  America could use a leader right now.  Instead we have Donald Trump.

Studies in Public Administration, Covid-19 Edition

Sunday's Washington Post had a couple of articles about the governmental response to the coronavirus pandemic that illustrate strengths and weaknesses of American government.  As a government major in college and public administration in graduate school, I was exposed to the basic canon of separate but interrelated roles of the various levels of government in the US.  At least one of my texts discussed "layer cake" and "marble cake" models of federalism with the latter offered as the more realistic model in the America of the late 60s and early 70s.  My four decades working in the public sector pretty much confirmed that interrelationship; many programs typically involved some mixture of federal and state law and/or policy.

Despite the interrelationships some distinct activities define federal and state roles.  Maybe the most distinct is the scope of activity.  The feds operate on a national and international level.  That's why the story of the Trump administration bungling the coronavirus crisis is a classic case of bureaucratic failure.  Not only is the pandemic a crisis of national proportions but it also requires a level of expertise that can only be effectively marshalled in a national effort.  No state government or private organization can match the federal government in meeting the demand for accurate information, research and equipment needed to effectively manage such a major threat.  Read the story and it quickly becomes evident that after three months and over 20,000 deaths the Trump administration has no clear plan for ending the caronavirus crisis.  

On the other hand, states are rising to the occasion to the extent they can given their limited geographic scope.  Here in Washington Governor Inslee has been very aggressive in ordering shutdowns and self-isolation.  Ohio Governor Mike Dewine is another chief executive who acted quickly.  Neither state can claim victory but the trends in both states are beginning to offer some hope.  Back in school we heard that states were  "laboratories of democracy" (the texts did not mention it but many states have  been and still are "laboratories of anti-democracy) where ideas can be developed, tested and possibly serve as models for other states and even the federal government.  Although the fierce competition among the states for equipment, protective gear and other needed resources is not quite what the theory had in mind, it does demonstrate the deep reserve of competence and initiative within state governments that can provide a backstop to a feckless federal government in a time of national emergency.

Coronavirus Shopping News

The COVID19 pandemic has definitely altered my weekend grocery shopping routine.  I tend to shop early in the day since I  I don't like crowds.  Friday mornings I head to Trader Joe's and Grocery Outlet on the west side around 8:30 or 9:00 so that if I want to go to Costco I can get into the store when it opens at 10.  This past Friday was different. Trader Joe's did not open until 10. Rather than hang around for an hour, I headed to the Tumwater Costco which I figured would be a zoo.

The gas lines were typical for that time of day (drive right up to an open pump) but the store was very different.  A half-hour before opening the line stretched across the front of the store, wound around the side and was beginning to stretch around the back toward the loading dock.  People weren't practising social distancing but I managed to keep my distance and place in line by standing off to one side.  My trip to Costco was somewhat discretionary and I debated bagging the whole thing but the line began to move, slowly at first but then pretty briskly, so I went with the flow to see what would happen.

What happened was that the store was well-prepared.  They had carts lined up facing the entrance with employees disinfecting the handles as they rolled a cart out to each customer.  Once inside it was more crowded than normal at opening time on a Friday but not much worse than a normal day at a peak time (except for the clusterfuck around the toilet paper pallets).  I managed to find what I wanted and, best of all, rolled right up to a checkout lane with only one person in line.  That's when I noticed that all lanes were open which I guess was Costco's attempt to avoid long checkout lines were people are bunched together.  Except for the wait to get in, it wasn't worse than any normal Friday morning.

Back at Trader Joe's I found a short line at the entrance but it moved pretty quickly.  They had an employee disinfecting carts at the door but once inside the store was very crowded.  Navigating the aisles was tricky at times.  Some items weren't available although I did manage to nab one of the last three chocolate slabs from an otherwise empty shelf.  I was tempted to grab a second one but my conscience slapped down that notion pretty quickly.  Despite the packed aisles and unavailable items people were courteous.  We all navigated as best we could, although each close encounter felt like stepping on a booby trap whose impact would not be readily apparent.

This morning's trip to the Eastside Co-op and Fred Meyer brought more of the same.  A typical Sunday morning at the Co-op is maybe 10 shoppers and one checkout with a short or no line.  Occasionally, a second checkout might open if a line begins.  Today, I was met at the entrance by a staff member who told me that only 20 people are allowed in the store at a time (I was number 15) and recommended that I use a disinfectant wipe and food handler gloves that were available at the door.  He also suggested that if I didn't absolutely need some items, please pass on them so that others might have access.  I found everything I was looking but the paper product shelves were completely empty and canned goods were in very short supply.  Three of the four checkout lanes were open, each with up to three people behind the person checking out.  Keeping our distance pushed the lines back into the grocery aisles.

Fred Meyer wasn't too much different than a normal Sunday morning except for the near-empty shelves in some aisles and notices of limits on certain products.  Th bakery section no longer sold individual donuts and pastries--only in packages now.  Some of the self-checkout kiosks were closed to allow shoppers to maintain distance from others.  

No doubt, this experience is nothing extraordinary, just mine. It does give me a real appreciation for the employees who not only come to work in a crowded environment but have also altered  their operations to accommodate the challenges of accelerated demand and anxious customers.  It's not exactly wartime combat but the work comes with some serious risk.  If I am uneasy during my rather limited forays into crowds, I can only imagine how it might feel to an employee whose exposure is far greater than mine.  

I made a point of thanking them all for their efforts. 

Out of the Haze. For Now.

Olympia had a slight trace of rain last night. Not much by Pacific Northwest standards but most welcome. In late August Washington is pretty dry; the last rain I can recall was the brief shower that hit the Subdued Stringband Jamboree two weeks ago. Along with the dryness, which is normal, Olympia has experienced days of unhealthy air due to smoke from western wildfires. Last week was especially bad with air quality reaching very unhealthy levels.

Yesterday was an antidote to all of that. Brisk winds blew throughout the day, clearing the away the last remnants of smoky haze. By evening a very gentle mist was in the air under, just enough to barely feel but enough to release that sweet feel of newly-dampened earth. Just days before walking and breathing felt unpleasant. The trace of rain that fell during the night heightened the effect. For the moment at least breathing deeply feels like inhaling life itself.

The Art of War

This week has witnessed the escalation of Donald Trump's trade war against the world and the selection of John Bolton, a man who is comfortable with idea of actual shooting wars against Any US adversary, as National Security Advisor.  Neither action bodes well for Amreican economic security or influence in the world.  The trade war minimizes one of the most effective tools for avoiding actual shooting wars.  Trading with other nations establishes relationships that typically preclude military conflict.  Trading partners are more likely to seek to resolve disputes with diplomacy than attacking each other.  Trump's trade war turns that relationshp on its head by asserting that US interests are superior to all others.

Same-same with soon-to-be National Security Advisor John Bolton who takes the America First concept all the way to military action against any nation that does not accept American hegemony.  Fifteen years after cheerleading the disastrous US invasion and occupation of Irag, Bolton insists that the US military action n was correct and beneficial.  He will most likely encourage Trump's innate militarism.  In comparison a trade war seems like nothing of consequence.

In fact, a trade war is war.  Armies are not shooting at each other but the logic is the same.  In either case one nation believes that its interests are so threatened by one or more other nations, that it must agressively assert its interests to the detriment of those others.  The means differ--tarrifs versus armed force--but make no mistake, the point is to take something from another unilaterally without mutual consent.  War also means the other may retaliate and begin an escalating cycle of hostility and resentment.  Throw in ill-informed, nationalist politicians pandering to their base and it's easy to see how trade wars can morph into actual shooting war.

Donald Trump thinks trade war is "easy to win?"  John Bolton thinks war is always the answer. 

I do not see this ending well.

Donald Trump Is Right About North Korea

Caught your attention, didn't I?

Hard to believe but Trump is correct when he says he unherited the North Korea problem.  Obama did not end the state of war between the US and North Korea.  Neither did George Bush 2.  Or Bill Clinton.  Or Bush 1.  Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, or John Kennedy did not end the war either.  Dwight Eisenhower managed to negotiate an armistice to end the shooting but could not pull off an actual treaty to end the hostilities between the US and North Korea.  So now it's Donald Trump's turn.

Being correct about his predecessors' failure to end the Korean War does not imply that Donald Trump is at all suited to deal with the war's 65-year legacy of mistrust and hatred.  Our narcissist-in-chief is wholly unable to look at the war and the cold truce that has existed ever since see the war from the North Korean perspective.  Without that perspective, the US lacks any basis for even beginning to seek the common ground needed to negotiate an end to a war that most Americans thought ended decades ago but now raises the spector of nuclear war.

If Americans have forgotten the the Korean War and its uneasy armistice, the North Koreans have not.  They remember the mass killings and indiscriminate bombing unleashed by US forces between 1950 and 1953.  They watched the US station 35,000 troops in South Korea with another 40,000 in Japan and a long-range bombers in Guam, all aimed at North Korea.  An attack has been expected for decades and  Trump's blustering about "fire and fury" only reinforces that view.

So, yes, Donald Trump is right to say that he inherited the North Korea problem. Since he is a man prone to blame others, that comes naturally.  What doesn't come naturally to Donald trump is the ability to understand his adversary or pursue the difficult task of resolving differences.

Now would be a very good time to contact your Senators and Representatives to ask that they support the Markey-Lieu Bill (S. 220 and H.R. 669) to restrict the President from launching a nuclear first strike without a declaration of war by Congress.
 

Tax Cut Clusterfuck

Goddamnit, Senate Republicans. What are you thinking? Your tax plan flies in the face of your most treasured goal—reducing the national debt. It stimulates the economy when it is already nearing full productive capacity which is likely to cause inflation and recession. Token, ephemeral tax cuts in the near

And why is all this happening? You are afraid of losing your donor base! Oh, dear. That would be terrible, wouldn't it? No doubt, it would be maybe the worst thing ever that could happen. So that justifies bypassing Regular Order and thorough vetting of the bill's provisions to enact a jury-rigged bill developed in secret whose provisions are unknown to many senators even as they are called to vote on it. Sure it does. You already have your own set of “facts” and ignore the non-partisan and professional analyses that strongly suggest that your tax plan is a bad idea.

As of this morning, it looks like you may get your wish. I can only hope that I am wrong. Regardless of the bill's fate, I know one thing: Senate Republicans (along with House Republicans and our alleged president) only care about passing something, anything to “prove” that Republicans can govern. Americans' economic security and future opportunity? You talk a good game but it's mostly hyperbole and re-cycled voodoo economics. Real economics suggests that you are doing the wrong thing at the wrong time just to keep your party alive.

Party first! Damn the consequences. 

The Republican Party in 2017.

Flashback

Reading this story about the Republican tax bill today I flashed back to my year in Vietnam.  The article describes a bill whose likely effect may well harm the nation's economy according to many economists.  The bill is also highly unpopular among the public.  And still the Republicans continue to push this bill through Congress to show that they can actually accomplish SOMETHING after a year of factional disarray and legislative impotence.  The tax bill may not be good for the nation but it keeps the Republican donor base happy.

The tax bill's displaced objectives remind me very much of my year in Vietnam.  Rather than risking our lives for some great national purpose, we were there in 1971 mainly to keep Richard Nixon from becoming "the first President to lose a war."  We were fighting and dying to provide political cover for a politician.  I've never forgotten the the hopelessness and anger I felt in those days.

More important than my feelings then was that along with the death and destruction we inflicted on Vietnam, the war damaged the United States, morally and economically. Nixon's "Vietnamization" policy simply prolonged and increased that damage.  The tax cut may not pose the same level of personal risk that my military service did but I sure have the sense that public power and policy are being used for narrow purposes to the detriment of the larger public.

All because the politicians are afraid.

Missing the Bigger Picture

Saw some interesting observations about health insurance reform in the news this past weekend.  First off is James Davis:

James Davis, who runs communications for the Koch network, lamented that the conversation on health-care reform has focused too much on the number of people who have insurance — regardless of premiums or what kind of care those who have it will receive — and not enough on outcomes.

Hard to argue with looking at outcomes.  I spent my entire professional career evaluating the results of public programs and know that, in the end, public programs should produce the desired results.  I also know that identifying and measuring those results can be difficult, but health care has some definite outcomes for for society as a whole.  Mr. Davis is right to ask about results.  It would not take long for him to find that:

 The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world...[and]...underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance.

Mr. Davis did not say how he would define health outcomes but his statement suggests that he would encourage the Koch brothers to look for ways to promote improved performance at lower costs.  He may not need to do a great deal of research.

Perhaps a magic free market Koch brothers-approved system will change the trajectory of American heath outcomes but I doubt it.  So far, the most successful system the US has come with was the Republican-inspired Affordable Care Act and the Republicans HATED that.  It did reduce the number of uninsured but insurance does not guarantee actual health care.  On the other hand, the ACA did little to reduce costs.  It definitely needs work but I don't have much faith in the Koch's free market libertarian solutions. 

Also in the news is Pennsylvania Senator Patrick Toomey defending a change in the funding formula that will index Medicaid payments to the states to changes in the overall consumer price index rather the typically higher medical price index:

"The idea that there’s a sector of our economy that has to permanently have a higher inflation rate than the rest of our economy is ridiculous,” Toomey said Thursday. “I think that it’s absolutely essential to putting [Medicaid] on a sustainable path so that it will be there for future generations.”

Senator Toomey said the change was needed to “transition to a normal inflation rate” for a program in which he said costs were spiraling out of control.  Here, too, I can't argue with his underlying premise.  Program costs should not spiral out of control.  But he would simply refuse to address the causes of those spiraling costs.  Instead, he would fund Medicaid only to certain point regardless on the impact it will have on access to medical insurance (which may not guarantee health care but is a sine qua non for any hope of obtaining medical treatment).  When the funding runs out so will insurance coverage for many.

What neither of these men seem to wonder is why American health care costs are spiraling out of control even as the country spends far more per capita than any other nation.  This is a complex question that deserves considerable debate and discussion.  It is not a question that can be crammed into partisan legislation and voted on the quick-time.  Of course, in today's Congress, partisan legislation enacted in haste is exactly what we will get.

WASF.

Deja Vu All Over Again

These days I can't help feeling like I am living in a 21st century re-enactment of the 20th.  The post-WW2 security structure that gave peace to a bloody continent during the Cold War is fracturing.  Nation states are erecting border walls and checkpoints to keep out "the Other" and asserting their uniquness and superiority over "lesser" beings from other countries.  Nations with large, well-armed militaries are growling and threatening each other.  It's kind of like Groundhog Day but the replay is August 1914.

But the situation is not simply a rerun of an earlier war.  This is the 21st century and, true to form, events are running toward the apocalyptic.  Nuclear weapopns aren't new but in Donald Trump's hands they haven't seemed so threatening since Ronald Reagan.  On the off chance that we don't obliterate ourselves in a nuclear holocaust, simply living on this planet will become a far more challenging proposition because of climate change.  Millions will become environmental refugees in a world that is already hostile to refugees.  Competition for critical resources will create more war and conflict.

And in the middle of all of this is the United States of America.  Hero-nation of the mid-20th century.  My home.  My country.  But looking objectively at the US in the current century, I don't see anything heroic.  The US has been at war or intervening in other nations throughout my seven decades on this planet, continuing a history that dates to the nation's founding.  We are the leading, arms merchant to the world.  Now we have Donald Trump brandishing America's massive nuclear arsenal to demonstrate his manhood.

Not content to just continue America's history of militarism, Trump and his minions are actively monkeywrenching the world's efforts to understand and deal with climate change.  Denying the science, withdrawing America from active participation international agreements and eliminating  climate change research and mitigation programs while simultaneously promoting fossil fuels looks isn't outright aggression but coming from a major player, it can reasonably be seen as a threat.

Seen from that perspective, the United States looks uncomfortably like a danger to other nations, either from our militarism or climate change denial.  August 1914 set off a chain of events that lasted thirty years and brought incredible violence to the world.  If this is a replay, I don't feel especially confident about my country's role in the drama.

Donald the Diversion

For his first major television interview after taking office, Donald Trump spends his entire time asserting his greatness, questioning the electoral system that brought him to office and repeating claims that have been repeatedly demonstrated to be false.  I didn't think that my opinion of Donald Trump could fall any lower but this interview does that.

Thoughout the campaign Trump described America in apocalyptic terms both domestically and internationally. Now that he is installed as President of the United States (vomit a little) I expect him to  speak as a leader about how he will address those problems.  Some of those problems are actually real and have grave consequences for the nation and the world.  Instead, he wastes our time with his grousing about the vote, crowd size and the media.

But Donald Trump is useful for the Republican ideologues.  While Donald rants and raves, his mostly white male cabinet of billionaire businessmen, Wall Street insiders, and public officials who are fundamentally opposed to the missions of the agencies they will head can go about killing off what remains of the New Deal.

The Wizard of Ooze will give cover to the Republican wrecking crew if we are not vigilant. 

You Call That A Mandate?

The sacking of the New Deal begins tomorrow. I can't change that fact that Republicans now control the federal government but I will dispute their claims to a mandate.  Donald Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by 2.8 million votes while winning  the Electoral College.  Repbulicans won the House of Representatives with a total margin of 3 million votes--51 percent.  but ended up with 57 percent of the seats through creative gerrymandering in Republican- controlled states.

These results do not consitute a Republican mandate but rather a deeply divided nation.  Nevertheless, Republicans will not be shy about claiming their complete control of Congress and the presidency as justification for enacting all of their libertarian free-market wet dreams.    

Republicans may have the institutional power but they have nothing that resembles a legitimate mandate.  All the more reason to resist at every turn.

Missing The Forest

Hilary Clinton blames her loss to Donald Trump on FBI Director James Comey's bombshell letter about new emails and Russian interference in Trump's favor.  She makes a valid point, along with other Democrats.  In a close election, which this one was in several key states, just about any unfavorable intervention is likely to affect the final result.  So Clinton's conclusion is not incorrect.

It is, however, beside the point.  With Donald Trump as a candidate, the election should have never been close.  That is where Democrats and all of the other "if only..." counterfactualists err in blaming Clinton's loss on outside interventions.  Those interventions may have made a difference at the margin but their impact was only possible due to Clinton's flaws as a candidate and a poorly run campaign.  Democrats chose to run an establishment candidate with a serious deficit of trustworthiness in a year where the electorate was clamoring for change.  Even so, Clinton won the popular vote but failed to win the vote according to America's baroque eletoral college system.

The point of all this is that blaming external factors for Clinton's loss is a sure path to continued irrelevance for the Democratic Party.  It will continue to be the only likely avenue for progressive social, economic and foreign policy to be presented to the American electorate.

One opportunity to steer the Democratic Party in a more effective direction is to encourage Democratic National Committee members to select a new Chair who will support organizing in all 50 states rather than relying on its "Blue Wall" and a few swing states for winning national elections.  Aside from abandoning no part of America to the Republicans, the 50 state strategy will ensure that Democrats reach out to the dispossed American workers who made Donald Trump president.  The band of incorrigible spitballers at Mock Paper Scissors have provided a set of resources for making your voice heard at this critical time.

Make your voice heard.  Our backs are against the wall.

Going Rogue

Donald Trump called climate change a "Chinese hoax" and vowed to undue Obama Administration's efforts to rein in US greenhouse gas emissions.  He might have had an "interesting" meeting with Al Gore but Trump's choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency is clear indication that he will keep his promise.  Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a long-time foe of the EPA and a strong supporter of the fossil fuels industry who has challenged EPA regulations intended to promote US compliance with the Paris climate change agreement.  Pruit is by no means alone; Trump's short list for environmental and energy positions tilts heavily toward industry and climate change deniers.

So when Trump says that climate change is a Chinese hoax, I will take him at his word (Rule No. 1 for survival in an autocracy) and expect him to turn the US into a festival of fossil fuel folly.  I do not expect the US government to make any appreciable effort to contain US greenhouse gas emissions during a Trump Administration.  I think it likely that we will backslide.

Since the US is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter after China, our lack of progress in the next four or eight years will be a serious barrier to the world's efforts to halt climate change.  Given the threat climate change poses to the the world, I would not think it unreasonable for future generations to view the United States as a rogue nation whose policies threaten other nations.  Would they be able to invoke the right of self-defense against the US?

Beacon on the hill?  A model for other nations?  No so much anymore, I'm afraid.

Elections Have Consequences

Like much of the world I was caught flat-footed by Donald Trump's victory.  I followed the polls which were pretty much in lockstep agreement that Clinton would win.  The actual results varied quite a bit, to say the least.  Reading the summary of the Washington Post's electoral post-mortem, it is clear the the Clinton campaign made some strategic errors.  Combine that with the depressive effect of a negative campaign and deliberate voter surpression in Florida, North Carolina and Wisconsin and Clinton was completely ambushed.  What bothers me most is that the Democrats did not get out their vote.  All throughout the campaign I kept hearing about the impressive GOTV effort that the Democrats had ready to go.  In the end, not so much.

The day after Election Day was a rough one as the reality of President Trump forced itself into my head constantly.  I was smart enough to go for a walk in the forest and watch the sunlight filter through the trees after a morning shower on what turned out to be a pretty fall day, even if Donald Trump was going to become the 45th President of the United States and much of what I have worked for during much of my life is at risk of dissolution under a Republican-dominated federal government.

On Satuday I attended the Western Washington Fellowship of Reconciliation fall workshop on movement building.  The day was a good antidote to my post-election fear and depression.  Sixty to 75 people attended and we spent the day figuring out how to network on issues that are important to us.  FOR has been around for 100 years and has a long history of organizing in support of peace and social justice.  We will certainly need a LOT of that in the next four years.  I am pleased to live in an area that has such a strong commitment to those issues.

Probably my biggest disappointment about Trump's election is that the United States will become even more of a rogue nation regarding climate change.  Unlike most of the world, the US will become even more steadfast in its commitment to fossil fuels and will blithely continue to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere even as the rest of the world looks for alternatives.  We lost eight years under George W. Bush, made some tenuous and limited progress under Obama and can expect those hoped-for (because they are far from certain) gains to disappear.  In the meantime, a threat that even the Pentagon recognizes as an "immediate risk" to the nation will continue to grow.  America's legacy in the 21st century may well be the loss of the world as we have always known it.

In the 1930's the rogue nation was Germany which threatened its neighbors with its expansionist ideology.  It took World War II to end that threat.  I wonder if a world threatened with rising sea levels and  consequent massive population will find that it needs to act against this century's rogue nation.