Reaching out to Trump supporters

     Results of a poll published last week revealed that a whopping 60% of registered voters in western Pennsylvania think that President Trump is doing a good job, which was an increase over other recent polls and highest in the state and surrounding areas.  I have seen that the trend appears to be similar in WV and a few other areas where I have lived and have many friends.  While I realize that it may not be popular, I would like to address these folks directly to offer points to at least ponder.  Up until recently, I steered clear of speaking about politics and was registered as an independent.  But, I could not sit idly by with what I saw happening, starting with the crooked politics in NC and the last election cycle.  My goal is simple, to do my part to help educate the public on important topics that pop up in an effort to reach beyond the political talk from either side.  Trust me, I realize that politics have become so polarized that those in power seem to forget that they serve us, the public, on both sides of the aisle.  I’m not asking you to say that you should have voted for Clinton or made some kind of mistake if you voted for Trump.  All I’m trying to do is ask that you listen with an open mind, educate yourself on the topics instead of listening to talking points from any one particular side, and consider the damage that this president is doing to the office and, likely, to you.  I’ll try to keep my points simple in favor of brevity, but would be happy to expand on anything you may have questions about.

     You may be asking what I can bring to this discussion and think I’m just another liberal out to say whatever is contrary to Trump and the republicans.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I’m one of you and despise the idea of always thinking solely along party lines and of politics as a team sport.  I grew up in Belle Vernon, about 20 miles outside of Pittsburgh, and have never been wealthy financially.  My grandparents were sustenance farmers and I spent a lot of my youth at their farm.  My parents were proud elementary school teachers and my mom became a substitute teacher when needed to have time to take care of her three kids.  I went to college in West Virginia, at Fairmont State, and my wife is from Beckley, WV.  I have a lot of family in both western PA and WV, some of who are directly impacted by mining.  I went for a period without insurance because I felt I couldn’t afford it (and ended up getting very lucky) and am now one of the percentage most affected by insurance spikes as a small business owner who buys my own insurance.  As for education, I was valedictorian at BVA, top of my class in chemistry and mathematics in college, then spent 2 ½ years working toward a Ph.D in physical chemistry at UNC before given the chance to start my company in 2000.  I went on to get a Master’s degree in exercise physiology and also an MBA with a specialization in entrepreneurship from UNC, and have very recently taken additional classes in the sciences, such as genetics and microbiology.   All this is just to say that, I'm not an expert, but I do know where you’re coming from and have also spent time studying economics, business, sciences, etc. that relate to current events.  I’m passionate about the topics and even more passionate about wanting to see the areas where I grew up prosper.

JOBS:  Let me start with what is by far the biggest issue in the area; jobs.  The democrats fell down on the job and ignored addressing the blue-collar worker during the campaign.  They then secured their defeat by having lavish rallies with superstar celebrities, somehow thinking that would sway voters.  Being politicians, they strategized that they didn’t need to come to most of this area to still win, and so they didn’t.  Meanwhile, Trump came around making all kinds of promises and saying whatever he knew would help get him votes.  The problem is there is no way that Trump can make good on the vast majority of his promises.

Your area is filled with folks who are very intelligent and perhaps the hardest working people you’ll find anywhere.  The current administration’s plan to ‘bring back’ jobs through deregulation is fraught with problems.  There is a chance that a few jobs will come back.  But, their method puts us behind other advanced nations in areas such as advancing technologies, are not creating quality high paying jobs, pollute and damage the environment, are unlikely to bring back enough jobs to make a big difference, and ultimately reduce job opportunities in important emerging markets. 

But, I realize that people are desperate.  What other solution is there to put people back to work at a level at which they wish to work?  Big cities and wealthier areas are very expensive for businesses.  So, local governments and other leaders can leverage cheaper real estate, taxes, plenty of potential employees, etc. to entice entrepreneurs and businesses to open shop in their areas.  There is a fellow Kenan Flagler (UNC) MBA graduate that is doing exactly this with great success in southern NC.  He turned abandoned textile mills into office space.  Unlike what people think and what politicians say, he realized that this depressed area was full of intelligent people that were underemployed.  They are educated to different levels, but ‘the talent is there’.  They just need to be given specific training and a culture that fosters learning and development needs to be cultivated.  This, then, further fuels innovation and growth.  It has been wildly successful and is becoming a model for successful sustainable business in rural America.  These kinds of ideas and models are what we need more of; not trying to ‘bring back’ jobs, but looking forward and utilizing the local talent.  Trump’s plan not only doesn’t allot for education necessary to advance, but hampers it.  I can go more into this, but will save that for a specific blog if warranted.

Frustratingly, Trump has shown that he doesn’t understand the complexity of any of the important legislations or organizations.  He fed into people’s frustrations and stoked fears by saying that EVERY SINGLE DEAL was the worst ever and he was the man to ‘fix’ them.  NATO was obsolete, NAFTA was terrible, China was a currency manipulator, the TPP, immigration policy, the Iran deal, health insurance, tax reform, job visas, trade deals, even Australia’s immigration policy, were all deemed terrible.  And, the list goes on.  The point is, he failed to see how intricate, important, and multi-faceted these all were, with countless unstated implications.  For example, you can’t just throw out there you’re going to propose a tax on China’s imports and expect that to fix everything.  Multiple relationships have to be taken into account, as well as how it would affect prices of goods, what retaliation China would likely take, etc., especially after getting out of the TPP, which was meant to balance the trade dominance of China and India and give the US the right to intervene in trade disputes.  Yes, TPP had issues, but the complexities didn’t seem apparent to the administration until afterwards.  The same goes for NATO, NAFTA, and everything else that Trump has had to realize while in office.  He failed to see past the very surface of each issue and is finding out that he was mistaken on almost all of it.

But, what I find perhaps even more disappointing is that, while Trump got elected by saying he would fight for you and I, his actions have been to benefit the very wealthy, usually to the detriment of others, at almost every turn.   Again, I can go into more detail on these, but look at how he allowed our online information to be taken without any notice.  Can you say you are happy about that?  It’s very obvious who benefits there.  His ideas on education and choice for education secretary don’t help your area in the least as it severely hampers public schools.  He has said we need a government shutdown, but doesn’t seem to realize the real effect it would have on the common citizen.  He got rid of healthier lunches for schools, which leads to many issues both short and long term but, again, you can see the only people who would benefit from this.  His actions on coal are really mostly helping the executives, as evidenced by getting rid of the requirement to state foreign investors, which was put in place to combat rampant corruption.  He wants to not allow immigration from a country he’s willing to bomb, but is all for putting visas up for sale for investors in his son-in-law family’s business.  The regulations that he wants to cut are all to benefit his wealthy business leader friends, often oil executives.  The health care plan dramatically favors the wealthy (and CAN be fixed if politicians actually cared about trying to do what’s best the US instead of fighting with each other), and the tax plan is even more of a joke.  My personal biggest peeve is what he is doing against science, the EPA, and climate change.  All of his moves along this line benefit big organizations, largely the oil industry, with potentially very grave consequences that get pushed aside for the sake of money. 

Speaking of the tax plan, let me mention a couple of facts.  First, the US is NOT the highest taxed nation in the world (see chart).  I’m not against a bit of a tax break, but that dramatic of one when we have such a huge debt is completely unrealistic.  Also, the idea of the money trickling down from the wealthy has many issues.  He’s not ‘priming the pump’ as he likes to say.  Data shows that tax cuts like this typically do not lead to economic growth.  To give you a situation you’ll likely recognize, we all know that there has been a severe problem in our recent past with business leaders taking enormous salaries and bonuses while the working class stays at the status quo, which has led to a great deepening of the divide between the upper class and the rest of society.  So, what makes you think that giving them a large tax break is going to lead to anything different, especially as Trump strives for less regulations to fight corruption? 

Further points:

·         Going beyond the essential policy issues, you also have the fact that Trump is making a mockery of the office of President of the United States by acting like an immature child.  He has his supporters using his phrase saying that bad press is ‘fake news’, when he is the one that has spread falsehoods and outright lies almost daily, even quoting actual fake news from press that he does support.  The President should be a man of strong morals and conviction, not petty, easily manipulated, and vindictive.

·         He is purposely disrespectful to just about everyone, again making a mockery of his position and appearing anything besides presidential.  He childishly will call reporters’ shows derogatory names during interviews, calls Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas knowing that it has racist undertones, mocks former American leaders, judges, the intelligence agencies, and whoever else dares to disagree with him on anything.  Remember, he even called the POPE, yes, the Pope, disgraceful and a pawn of the Mexican government, of all things.

Presidential?!  I don't think so! (https://youtu.be/EqRTbzdAFbo)

·         However, it’s important to note that there is one type of person he doesn’t mock: crooked, violent, leaders.  Somehow people find it okay that he compliments, congratulates, and verbally admires the likes of the Philippine’s Duterte (admitted murderer), Turkey’s Erdogan (cracked down on protests and free press and masterminded a major power grab, which Trump congratulated), Egypt’s el-Sisi (authoritarian leader who took power through a violent coup, gunned down protestors, and silenced the press), and of course Putin (countless known atrocities).  This all just shows his ‘weak man’s strength’ and bully attitude and mentality.

·         Trump’s supporters like to talk about protection of the constitution.  However, he continually attacks the press and degrades their right to free speech.  The administration has even said that they looked at possible changes to the libel laws because they didn’t like the press. 

·          All of this doesn’t even include the controversies that are ongoing with the various investigations, Comey, Flynn, leaking classified intel, etc.

Again, I’m only asking that you look at the facts and implications and don’t blindly support this president and his dangerous rhetoric.  So far, Trump and several of his staff’s actions and ideas are damaging to America’s standing in the world, set us behind several countries in advancing technology, energy, and climate science, are likely to lead to corruption and pollution if they get their way, and are very unlikely to create any significant and lasting jobs.  We need to demand more of our political leaders, starting from the top down.  Let’s get some RESPECT back and strive for REAL and SUSTAINABLE progress! 

*http://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/news/2016/08/Steven-Bean

*http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/news/economy/donald-trump-middle-class-taxes/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

EPA scientists axed by Pruitt/Trump; a brief analysis

Imagine being on a committee or board, let’s say of airplane safety engineers, composed of various scientists that are the tops in their field from a mix of backgrounds and complementary strengths that is tasked with ensuring that any new information, processes, etc. result in safe and reliable aircraft.  You are to relay all findings and suggestions to corporate executives for review so they can make well-informed decisions.  Now, imagine what your response would be if you were told that half of the engineers on your board were going to be replaced with ‘industry insiders’ whose purpose on the committee was to evaluate the impact any findings would have on the bottom line of the company.  Obviously, it makes absolutely NO SENSE AT ALL! 

1)      These insiders would be replacing an important mix of scientists that work to see all scientific angles of an issue.

2)      The committee doesn’t actually make final decisions on regulations.  They only put on record their findings based on the science and pass along their suggestions.

3)      By incorporating the insiders you’re not only diluting the important science aspect, you’re making important, potentially unsafe, decisions because of being swayed by the financial implications stated in a report that should be fully about detailing vital safety impacts only.

This is exactly what our President has started to do this week after dismissing half of the scientists on the EPA Advisory Board.  It’s as if the President and Scott Pruitt don’t know how science and scientific committees work, which wouldn’t be surprising, or they are just hoping that the general population doesn't.  What’s worse, is that President Trump’s die-hard supporters ingest and internalize his words as truth without being informed with facts based on reality.

Let’s break down the various arguments I've heard from the supporters of this move:

-          “There needs to be industry insiders/business people on the board from the industries being impacted.”

o   NO, NO, AND NO!!  A scientific review board comes up with impartial suggestions based on their findings of SCIENCE with no bias.  That is the underlying basis of sound scientific research.  The board is formed of a purposely diverse group representing academics, civil society, non-governmental organizations, municipal and state governments, and the private sector.  The academics who lead labs and perform research is a fundamental component, as is everyone else.

-          “Well, these scientists ARE biased.  They get paid to do their research by the very government funding they represent.”

o   NO, NO, AND NO!!  First, members go through strict ethics and conflict of interest compliance procedures.  They are REQUIRED to state any conflict of interests that they might have (as is the norm in proper science – shouldn’t that be the same for the President, as well?  I digress) and they must reach CONSENSUS on their SHARED agreement when putting together their reports. (Again, seems like the government and this administration could learn something from science and should be following these rules, no?  They definitely should not changing them!)

o   Secondly, they strictly CAN NOT receive funding by the EPA - specifically to avoid any conflict of interest!

o   Besides, putting industry insiders on the board WOULD be inserting obvious bias.

-          “These scientists were nearing the end of their 3-year term and it’s normal for those contracts to not be renewed.”

o   NO – what’s not normal is to not keep the scientists on for their normal two-term cycle.  In addition, these scientists were told/led to believe that their contracts would be renewed by the administration earlier this year!  That’s not the way I’d want my company to be run.

-          “This board just rubber stamps the EPA’s unreasonable regulations that hamper industry productiveness.”

o   NO – They have NO involvement in the passing of regulations, or even reviewing them.  They review science and scientific output and provide suggestions to research and development based on that.

-          “The President cares about science.  All of the criticism is overblown and dramatic nonsense from the liberals.  He just wants more variety represented.”

o   NO – that holds no muster when he is proposing an 84% budget cut to scientific review boards, which is most often used to bring in outside scientific experts to help with important decisions, has marginalized and ignored their suggestions, and can’t realize that the board is already set up to have the necessary variety.  And, the criticism is coming from much, much more than just the liberals.

Some people want to pull climate change into the talking points, but in reality it shouldn't matter if you believe in it or not.  Either way, it doesn't affect the board's work.  They give feedback on the facts that they find.  Period.  Remember, it was Exxon (yes, Trump administration Rex Tillerson's very own company) that knew about climate impacts and yet ignored warnings as well as their very own climate models.  Yet, these are the types of business insiders that this administration wants on the board.  (Side note - Tillerson is actually on recent record as now acknowledging that climate change is a problem).

One more time:  the VERY POINT of these committees is to hit an issue from all different scientific angles to make recommendations based on these facts.  Biasing these suggestions with industry insiders only compromises the purity, soundness, and reliability of the board’s findings.  Once you understand how these boards function, it's not hard to read through the political b.s. that is being propagated to the public.

Pruitt has been forthright about the fact that the EPA’s primary constituents, under the Trump administration, are going to be industry, not the public, Rosenberg said. “If they are proposing that the decisions not be based on science, what is it they are proposing they be based on? The alternative is pure politics. Who has the most influence? That’s the wrong way to go. You don’t want to set a precedent that we make decisions based solely on influence in politics,” he argued. *

The EPA’s stated task is to protect the health of the human population and the environment.  But, if there is one thing this administration is showing over and over, it is that for them it’s about one thing plain and simple; GREED.  GREED at the expense of ANYTHING else.  Forget morals.  Forget safety.  Forget health.  The rich and powerful need to be able to make their money.

*https://knpr.org/npr/2017-05/scientist-reacts-his-dismissal-epa-scientific-board
*http://www.businessinsider.com/rex-tillerson-exxon-knew-2017-1
*https://thinkprogress.org/epa-makes-room-for-industry-scientists-237f4038f1ab

Of Concussions and the Planned Parenthood Bill

What would you say to someone who suggested that your favorite football team should be banned from the league because they don’t believe in the seriousness of concussions and don’t agree that your team should have a protocol for dealing with it or taking the doctor’s time in treating it?  That hopefully sounds absurd to you, even if you are foolish enough to agree with the person’s stance on concussion science.  Well, the president’s recent bill that took aim at defunding Planned Parenthood is tantamount to agreeing with your friend, except with much more serious, real-life, consequences.  Not only that, but the people it hurts the most are the working class and lower income Americans that he claims to be trying to help.

You’re not buying it?  Even the president himself complimented Planned Parenthood and recognized the immense amount of important work that they do just months ago.  Yet now, because of a personal belief about a portion of their practice that is ONLY 3% of the services they provide, which NONE OF THE FUNDING is used for anyway, and is LEGAL, he is potentially drastically damaging the welfare of millions of Americans.  Of course, this president is the same person who called the NFL ‘soft’ because of their concussion protocol while calling concussions a ‘little ding to the head’.  So, what should we expect? 

It’s important to know what Planned Parenthood does and who they help.  Roughly 5 MILLION people annually use Planned Parenthood for their sexual and reproductive health care, education, and outreach.  To my point about the bill hurting certain supporters of the president the most, 83% were 20 years old or older and 80% had incomes at or below 150% of the federal poverty level according to the most recent data from the Government Accountability Office report released in 2015.  No one would argue the essential need for sex education for both adolescents and those in impoverished areas, which is a large component of Planned Parenthood as they provide sex education to 1.5 million people each year.  42% of their services, the largest aspect of the business, go toward sexually transmitted disease screening, resulting in 4.2 million tests and treatments in 2014.  They also perform 270,000 pap smears, 360,000 breast exams, and participated in more than 70 research projects according to the 2014 annual report.  

Perhaps more importantly, 26% of Planned Parenthood patients said that it was the only place they could go for the services they needed according to a 2016 survey.  This is a large number considering that in 2014, 20.2 million women needed publicly funded family planning services.

So, let’s get to the crux of the issue, then.  Many seem fine with sacrificing all of this because of their beliefs about a portion of what the group does legally.  It shouldn’t be a surprise that it’s not as cut and dry as those that only look at the surface think.  First, let’s tackle contraception.  For most, this isn’t that controversial with the argument against contraception usually coming from a religious angle.  Our forefathers were amazingly astute when they put out the idea of separation of church and state.  The concept is applicable here, as they saw the negative effects that can happen when certain beliefs are used to rule a diverse population.  So, what happens when the community loses this access?  You can take a look at Texas:  between 2014 and 2015 they saw around 24,000 unplanned births after funding cuts.  The reasons were obvious, about half of those interviewed said they were unable to access birth control they wanted to use because of cost, lack of insurance, inability to find a clinic, and inability to get a prescription.  What’s frustrating is that those fighting for these cuts don’t look to see the consequences.  Just from this one example, the state and federal taxpayers’ Medicaid costs rise up to $273 million!  I also hate it when I hear that these people should just keep their legs shut if they can’t afford to get pregnant.  Yeah, that is easy to say, but everyone knows that’s not going to happen and undermines attempts to manage the issue to help our society and economy.  I’ve also heard someone say recently that underprivileged women should have to pay for all of their birth control and birth care themselves since they just ‘want to waste taxpayers money’.  As I just stated, this is backwards as in reality it SAVES taxpayer money.  But, also, you can’t say that anyone has less of a right to have children.  I have close relatives who had kids while on food stamps.  Those kids are now some of the most intelligent and talented people you’ll find and the family now makes more money than I do.  But, according to these people, it wasn’t right for them to have their kids!

But, of course, the biggest issue is that of abortion.  I’m not going to delve deeply into it here as this blog would get way too long to give it the detail it deserves.  But, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, I find it disappointing that people are willing to risk all of the positive work that Planned Parenthood does due to a personal belief on a legal aspect of their business of which the funding isn’t even used for.  Again, when you look at it from all angles, it’s just not as cut and dry as some want to believe.  Do you really think the doctors enjoy performing this surgery?  I recently spoke with an OB-GYN who detailed some of the horrors they see with patients who have had illegal abortions.  The reasons vary, but often the life of the woman is at risk.  Without going into the pro-life/pro-choice argument, I’ll just say that these women are usually going to get them done one way or another by the time they’ve made that decision.  At least Planned Parenthood educates them, describes in detail their various options, and performs the surgeries in a safe manner when that is what is decided upon.  You don’t have to approve of the option to realize that having it offered in this scenario saves lives and large amounts of taxpayer money.  Again, looking at the reality of the situation: defunding Planned Parenthood would likely lead to MORE abortions due to the higher number of unintended pregnancies (real-world studies show a 40% reduction in unintended pregnancies with access to birth control.  Two studies showed a 42% and 75% reduction in abortion rate with access to long-acting birth control), an increase in STDs (i.e. 150 new cases of HIV reported in the small town of Austin, IN in 2011 after PP was defunded), an increase in maternal deaths (pregnancy related deaths doubled in 2010-2012 in TX after regulations were enforced), an increase in taxpayer cost (in 2015 the nonpartisan congressional budget office calculated a $130 million increase if PP were defunded), and the list goes on and on.

Unbelievably, I still hear people citing falsehoods from the video that was popularized during the election.  It’s amazing that people will hear what they want to hear, but not acknowledge when their position was proven false such as when during the investigation against planned parenthood the organization was cleared but the people who made the videos were the ones who ended up ultimately charged with crimes!

Yes, I realize it’s a controversial topic that many are passionate to the point of stubbornness about.  And, yes, there are many angles in which you can look at this issue.  In my personal opinion, if you sincerely look at the full picture and scope of the situation and beyond the aspect that makes you uncomfortable you will find that the consequences of the president’s bill allowing the defunding of Planned Parenthood can be damaging to the majority and devastating to many.  We need ‘pragmatic realists’ who see the world as it is and implement solutions and methods to make it a better place; not leaders willing to hurt those that need medical help the most to make a point.  The president who has passed bill after bill to erase regulations meant to combat corruption to help his wealthy friends has once again passed one that very negatively impacts those with lower incomes the most.  There’s a reason why he signed this one quietly and without fanfare.  He probably listened to powerful and/or wealthy supporters and even HE likely knew it was not for the greater good.  What a guy.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/health/planned-parenthood-by-the-numbers/

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2017/4/14/disastrous-consequences-defunding-planned-parenthood

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/what-happens-when-you-defund-planned-parenthood

Syria Response - Appropriate and Deliberate?

The atrocities that occurred in the Syrian chemical weapon attack were horrific and cannot be allowed to go unpunished.  Were the military strikes the right response?  I’m not a military man and don’t pretend to know all of the details of the situation, but it does look like the site targeted was likely the best possible option for such an operation and it did deliver a message.  However, if your opinion of the president has somehow become more positive after this predictable response, then that is the real surprise.  Even if this was the best response, when you scrutinize the questions why, when, how, and what next you should be a little skeptical.  Take a step back from the sensational coverage and take a critical look at the facts.

·         First, in his typical childish fashion, one of the president’s first statements after the attack was to blame President Obama and past administrations for what happened.  Really?  If you want to make America great again, start by recognizing the efforts of those leaders that came before you, even if you disagree, and know your history.

o   Speaking of President Obama, remember that he wanted to strike against Syria and Trump was one of the most vocal against him doing so, especially without congressional approval.  So, you can’t now fault the guy for listening to you, trying to get said approval, and then trying for a more diplomatic solution when he wasn’t going to get that approval.

o   Secondly on this point, whereas the president blamed Obama, the rest of the leaders involved are now placing the blame on Russia and Assad, where it should be, with their failure to uphold their end of the bargain.

THE WHY and WHEN

·         Are you really gullible enough to believe that the pictures from this attack changed the president’s view?

o   In 2013 he HAD to have witnessed similar, and possibly worse, horrific scenes when he very publicly and vociferously told Obama that it would be a mistake to strike Syria

§  "What I am saying is stay out of Syria," he tweeted Sept. 3, 2013.

§  And, then on Sept. 5, 2013, he wrote, "AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!"

o   So, if that’s the case, then why would his response now be a 180 degree shift?  He spoke the words people wanted to hear, saying that he was moved by the pictures now and it’s changed his attitude.  But, that drastic a shift just doesn’t make sense to me when you look at the whole picture.  He knew it would play well with the majority and he gets to play tough guy.

·         There are multiple factors that made this response predictable:

o   First, knowing his temperament and psychology, as soon as the first reporter asked the question, “What are you going to do about it?” I immediately said that there were going to be bombs dropped.  Many, many people said that he would use his bombs at the first chance he got and he proved them correct.

o    Then, there’s this beauty that demonstrates clearly how he thinks,  “Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran.  He is desperate.” 10/09/12

o   In addition, he has to find a way to justify the large increase in defense spending that he has been proposing and these conflicts just so happen to give him leverage for justification.

o   With the talk about Russia being complicit in the chemical attack and their denouncement of the US's strike, the coverage of Russian interference in the election suddenly has taken a back seat.  A smart man once told me that there’s no such thing as coincidences.  I don’t believe that, but this is a pretty big one.

The HOW

·         No man is an island Entire of itself

o   “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.” Aug 29, 2013

o   Good idea, right?  The idea is that a single person should not be allowed to drag the country into conflict.  Then, why does this president think he gets a pass for doing that exact thing?

·         The best laid plans

o   As I said, I’m not a military man, but it seems to me that the president should be sure to have a solid follow-up plan, both short and long-term, for something this serious that his administration can clearly communicate.  Instead, it has been confusing and unconvincing leading many to wonder what the plan is.

WHAT NEXT

·         At first it looked like the president didn’t think things through in regards to Russia’s response, how the rebel groups would be affected, Assad’s likely response, what would come next, etc.  But, then you again look at his tweets in 2013 and you realize that he absolutely knows the potential consequences.

o   “We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO” June 13, 2013

·         Sure, people are claiming victory saying that the strike sent a strong message.  Maybe it did.  If it stops the use of chemical weapons, that’s great.  On the other hand, that airfield was back in use less than 48 hours later and bombs were dropped on the same area that the chemical weapons were used on days later.  So, now Assad and the Russians know that they can kill people as long as they don’t use chemical weapons.  Wow.

·         The question that has been asked about Syrian refugees is a legitimate one.  How can you be so moved as to make such a strong statement for the Syrian people as to drop bombs within their borders, but not be willing to take in those trying to flee from those same atrocities?

·         Now there’s talk that Assad must go.  Yes, maybe he does.  But, the shift in how it is being talked about the last couple of days is scary and familiar.  We’ve learned that lesson in a very difficult way, let’s not repeat it.  Most familiar with the situation say that there would be a bloodbath if he were to be forced from power right now with worse parties likely to take over.  It's a very delicate and precarious situation that needs more than just guns and bombs.

·         The president has now made a public move to place ships off the coast of Korea and says he’s ready to act alone.  Once again, he’s trying to show his might with a lot of risk of provoking their unstable leader and putting many lives on the line.

Some are praising the moves.  Some are asking why he has taken a sudden turn from his America First policy that he touted.  But, those that look with unbiased eyes saw this coming.  This is a man who doesn’t believe in (or understand) science or regulations against corruption, but in the all mighty dollar and power by show of force.  Remember, he wanted a military parade at his inauguration!  It really isn’t an about face, but one that is in tune with his personality and feeding his power-hungry ego.  Let’s hope there are enough checks and balances to send successful messages without starting another war.

And, don't forget, this is the same president who stood up for a man accused of sexual harassment the week after declaring April sexual harassment awareness month.  Character and integrity mean a lot to me, as I hope it does for you.  What I ask is that if you agree with the response to Syria, don't be fooled about the reasons or let this one instance make you forget about everything else that has happened.

Inspiration and Admiration: Pauli Murray Home - National Historic Landmark Ceremony

 

For the second weekend in a row, I was unexpectedly inspired and amazed.  I’m embarrassed to admit that one of the most influential, intelligent, righteous, and multi-faceted people in recent history grew up just miles from our home in Durham and I didn’t even know the name.  I would wager that 95% of you reading this haven’t either.  I encourage you to read to the end of this blog to get the full feel for this amazing person.

Being another beautiful day with a cloudless Carolina blue sky, Monette had the great idea to go to a ceremony by the National Park Service and the Pauli Murray Center for History and Social Justice as they named the Pauli Murray home a National Historic Landmark.  It was a wonderfully moving and motivational ceremony that left me filled with many emotions.  So, who exactly was Pauli Murray?  That is a much more complex question than you can possibly imagine.  I’m not going to be able to do her justice in a short blog, but I’d like to share with you some of what I learned today because I think her mission is still a vitally important one.  I’m not going to list her accomplishments in chronological order in an effort to show why she deserved to be honored simply for her work alone, but then I’ll follow that up by also showing what she had to overcome just to get there.  Much of the following and more can be found at http://paulimurrayproject.org/.

 Even ignoring the background story for now, Pauli attained levels in every aspect of her life that most people can’t even dream about.  She earned her law degree as top in her class.  Her masters thesis, titled The Right to Equal Opportunity in Employment, was instrumental in the civil rights movement.  How many people can claim that?  She also was a renowned author, including the books Proud Shoes and States’ Laws on Race and Color, the latter of which was described as the Bible for civil rights lawyers by none other than Thurgood Marshall for such cases as Brown vs. the Board of Education among others.  She gained the attention of influential leaders and became an advisor to Roosevelt as well as John F. Kennedy, who appointed her to his Committee on Civil and Political Rights.  In addition, she took up poetry.  Not surprisingly, she was highly successful here, as well, including the influential poem Dark Testament.  Let’s continue; she was one of the founding members of the National Organization of Women (NOW).  She Co-authored the groundbreaking US Civil Rights Act “Jane Crow and the Law: Sex Discrimination and Title VII”.  And, the list goes on, but I’ll mention just one more.  As if all of this wasn’t enough already, she became a priest in the Episcopal Church … and ended up being named to Episcopal Sainthood in 2012!

Pretty incredible, right?  She obviously deserves recognition and honors for all of that alone.  But, I’ve purposely left out a major part of the story.  You’ve probably already caught onto the fact that she was a woman excelling in an era when they were routinely discriminated against and thought of as inferior.  On top of that, though, I haven’t yet mentioned the fact that she was black.  And, oh yeah, she was also a lesbian.  Now, imagine someone having to overcome that immense amount of stigma to reach the levels that she did – and yet we don’t even recognize her name.  So, now, let me offer a little more detail about how she kept pursuing her goals and striving for equality for all.

I’ll keep it brief and just hit the highlights.  After graduating from high school in Durham, she tried to pay her way through Hunter College in NY, but the stock market crash caused her to lose employment and, thus, leave her studies for the time being.  During this time frame she published several poems and articles as well as her first novel, Angel of the Desert.  She applied to attend school at the University of North Carolina, but was denied because of her ethnicity.  It was during this time that she started a campaign of equality around this denial, including a written letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt that caught the attention of the first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, which led to a life-long friendship.  Like Rosa Parks, she was directly involved in ending segregation on public transport having been arrested on a segregated bus in Virginia.  Then, she went to Howard University and helped form the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), for pacifist protests.  She was the only female in her class, and graduated top in said class as previously mentioned.  This typically came with a chance to attend Harvard Law School, which she wanted to do, but was again denied – this time because of her gender.  So, she went west to the University of California, Berkeley.  It was here where she published her famous thesis.

Her road would still be filled with roadblocks and a series of ‘firsts’.  She lost a post at Cornell University due to McCarthyism amazingly because her references, Eleanor Roosevelt, Thurgood Marshall, and Philip Randolph were thought to be too radical!  Her gender identity and sexual orientation also played a role in her life with the lack of understanding and stigmatization of the times, even going so far as Pauli undergoing psychological help and hormone therapy.  Due to this, she would change her name from Pauline to the more gender neutral Pauli.  However, she continued with her amazing accomplishments and fighting for equality for all, saying that it bothered her that a lot of people said they were fighting for ‘equality’ while still discriminating against certain groups.  She was still not done as she went on to be the first African-American to earn a J.S.D. from Yale in the same year that she served on council that successfully challenged the use of sex and race discrimination in jury selection.  Finally, she even made history when she went into the priesthood as she was another 'first', this time the first African American woman to become a priest, after entering the seminary before the Episcopal church even approved women as candidates for ordination!  And we all now know how that turned out.

At every turn, Pauli Murray had to fight for her right to pursue her dreams.  And, at every turn, she not only succeeded, but fought for others to be able to follow in her footsteps without having to go through the anguish that she did. 

The obvious was brought up in that, after making such great gains in this area over the years we have taken a bit of a step back of late.  However, with recognitions like the Pauli Murray home, which also happens to be the first landmark focused on women’s and LGBTQ history, hopefully we’ll get back on the right track.  And, hopefully, if you’ve continued to read, you’ve gained an appreciation for someone whose name should be remembered and admired.  I know I have.

“True community is based upon equality, mutuality, and reciprocity.  It affirms the richness of individual diversity as well as the common human ties that bind us together.”
– Pauli Murray

New attacks on climate change - Stephen Hawking appears to be correct again!

Part III

Who would you choose to base your decisions on; the experts in whatever field you are studying or the people who are the money behind it?  Both are important, of course, but the experts know a lot more about what is going on.  Sadly, money over intelligence seems to be the theme of late.  This is what is happening with climate change regulations and the coal industry.  So, now let's get to this week’s danger from this administration; their helping of the wealthiest while barely masking it as trying to help create jobs and help the economy.  There are, again, so many examples that it’s impossible to go through them all.  One smaller example to start with along these lines that would annoy almost every American: A bill that was just passed by the senate without garnering any attention lets internet service providers sell your info without asking your permission first.  I’m sure that would have gone over well if we were given the choice.  Who does this bill benefit?

But with the president specifically, it’s obvious that he puts the priorities of the CEOs of big business ahead of anything else.  The president wants to get rid of the fiduciary rule, which requires that financial advisors act in the client’s best interest.  Yes, I’m aware that there are some issues there, but the premise is an important one and smart businessmen can make it work.  He repealed the transparency rule for oil companies requiring that they divulge their payments to foreign governments.  This was put in place to stem corruption, and yet the president listened to these CEOs say that it wasn’t fair to them and didn’t let them compete at the same level, so he repealed it.  That’s like saying that Olympians should be allowed to dope because other countries weren’t as strict with their testing.  Another example of this type of thinking: republican politicians have also been pushing a bill to significantly reduce mining safety regulations – in WV, which had more coal mining deaths anywhere in the US.  It’s pretty obvious who this helps.

Today, though, sets another low as the president rolls back environmental regulations by executive order.  Sure, there may be some overregulation in areas, but there must be a systematic approach and solid scientific reasons for deregulation.  Yet, somehow, this president thinks that he knows better than the smartest people in the world when it comes to climate change.  He’d, again, rather listen to oil execs who have been shown to mislead the public and research on climate change data (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rex-tillerson-may-be-in-hot-water-over-exxonmobil-emails/ar-BByU741?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp) than the top scientists, organizations, and even other governments, world leaders, and his own secretary of defense.  Seriously, Stephen Hawking seems to have been amazingly prophetic when, in June of last year, he said that the biggest problem facing the world is climate change and that pollution coupled with human greed and stupidity are the biggest threats to humankind. 

Jobs are important, and I sincerely feel for the workers in the coal industry.  But, this isn’t the way to solve that problem.  While a few jobs may come back temporarily, our long-term health and survival is essential, and this is not likely to make changes on a large scale in respect to jobs.  In fact, some argue, that it won’t make much difference at all (http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/news/economy/trump-power-plants/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom).  Even Mitch McConnell admitted that it wouldn’t bring the coal industry back to the way it was.  

I’m extremely saddened by the focus solely on business and money first with a lack of interest in health, environment, safety, and anything else that truly matters.  The negative consequences of haphazardly reducing climate change regulations are extremely significant and can not, I repeat, can not be ignored!