The Key to the City

A NUN, A CELEBRATION, AND A KEY

     There are times that restore your faith in humanity, places where you always feel welcome and people of all persuasions manage to act as family, and there are people that manage to brighten the room and leave you feeling fuller just by being in their presence.  Sister Janice Rospert is one such person and has done an amazing job to help make Beckley, WV such a place, and the celebration of her departure for Ohio yesterday was such a time.

     Sister Janice's unique influence was brought to my attention when I was a freshman in college.  As young couples are wont to do, Monette and I had many deep discussions about our upbringing and experiences when we first started dating over 22 years ago.  A recurring theme was her respect and admiration for Sister Janice, who she knew through her church and schooling, and that she considered her one of her biggest role models.  Her impact was so great, along with Monette's Aunt Pat, who is also a nun, that Monette at one point considered that path for herself.  I apologize, Sister, but I'm selfishly glad that she didn't follow in that direction!  Even so, Sister Janice's teachings, guidance, and attitude toward life has helped guide Monette throughout her life and I will be forever appreciative of that.

     "You've GOT to meet Sister Janice!  She's one of the best people I know."  Monette would often tell me.  And, she was, as usual, right.  I remember that we met with her in her living room the first time that I had that pleasure.  The first thing that was evident was that the respect was mutual.  You can usually tell when someone is genuine, and Sister Janice was genuinely delighted to visit with Monette and respected her as much as Monette respected Sister Janice.  Secondly, I found myself perfectly comfortable to sit and chat with her about life over tea and cookies, sharing many laughs, and it felt like we had long been friends by the time we left.  I didn't grow up Catholic, so I likely had an unfair stereotype of a nun before the encounter, but she dispelled much of that within seconds.  Sister Janice even gave us the great honor of being a part of our wedding, another instance for which we will always be grateful.  As I've come to realize since, she has this genuine appreciation and way of touching everyone she encounters.

     I have had the pleasure of meeting countless people of various walks of life through the years and can truly say that Sister Janice is one of a kind.  She lives a life of selflessness and gratuity, generosity and sincerity, compassion and empathy.  People feel comfortable coming to her to grieve, to laugh, or for counsel.  All the while, she is uniquely human and a delight to just have a conversation with.  Yes, she is a nun and what she has done for the Church I can't even put into words.  But, even so, her gifts and reach go well beyond the confines of the Church.

     So, when we heard that Sister Janice was leaving Beckley to head back to Ohio with her family and the church was having a celebration for her, we cleared our schedule to make sure we could be there.  She joked that when she left to come to Beckley only 12 people showed up to say goodbye.  Well, yesterday they held a luncheon in a gymnasium and still underestimated the numbers that would come out.  The space was standing room only.  It was truly emotional to see the enormous impact that one quiet and humble nun that has never sought out adulations can make on a community.  This point became even more clear when the Mayor showed up to bestow upon her the honor of receiving the key to the city!  Mind you, this isn't a sports star; this isn't a politician often in the limelight; or is it a famous actor or comedian as you usually see given this kind of award.  But, there has never been anyone more deserving of the honor.  To our amazement, when she was asked to speak she asked for forgiveness.  Forgiveness for times when she couldn't be there for someone, spoke in anger (which no one has ever heard as far as I know), or didn't say the right thing to console the grieving.  Then, she held up a sign she had made to tell everyone that she loved them.

     Anyone who has met Sister Janice knows that, when you leave her presence, you feel better about yourself and/or your situation, and have a more positive outlook on life.  She does this effortlessly because it is from the heart and she is always 100% real.  I knew what she meant to Monette, and how much I thought of her.  But, to see the raw emotion of people young and old, of countless nationalities and persuasions, and how this one special person's genuine selfless life has impacted so many, one person at a time, was more than inspiring.  Never one to seek accolades or recognition, it was great to witness a community realizing that Sister Janice deserved just that more than anyone.  I came away, as is always the case when talking with her, with the desire to do more.  The true meaning of life is to try to leave the world a better place than when you arrived, in whatever way you can, however small that may seem.  Thank you, Sister Janice, for reminding me of that and for everything you have done for myself, Monette, and everyone else you have reached.  The community that you're moving to in Ohio doesn't know how lucky they are to have you moving in.

In defense of the Paris Agreement and rebuttal to the free-market argument

In defense of the Paris Agreement and a rebuttal to the free-market argument

In the aftermath of our President’s decision to remove the US from the Paris Agreement, I continue to see many people trying to justify pulling out with poor information or understanding of the accord, jumping on a ‘free-market’ bandwagon, or plain denial of the relevance.  Let me try to break down a few points for you to ponder.

·         Let’s start by tackling the accord and the accompanying agreements surrounding it to clear up a few things.  First, don’t just listen to talking points, educate yourself.  Here is the link to the actual Paris Agreement from the United Nations website. (http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php).  As I mentioned in one of my posts, the whole stated mission is to set overtly ambitious goals.  So those that say that the terms were too strict don't understand the concept behind the agreement. Athletes and scientists alike know that to get the biggest effect you set targets, some of which should seem out of reach. If you don't reach the top target you get a great way toward it, but those that are focused with tunnel vision often can reach what was once thought impossible. Also, the data saying those targets can't be reached, by necessity, take into account current situations and can't anticipate advances in technology. We have seen countless times that humans can achieve amazing things when given the opportunity - just look at the human genome project and the advances that have come from it and various vaccines and medications developed on short order. But, we can’t achieve these goals with deregulations and decreases in funding for scientific research.  Per usual, Trump’s speech on the subject was filled with inaccuracies and purposely misleading statements.  We need to be urged to look at facts.  (https://www.apnews.com/079e907d81d14e7ca56eb5279f285f71/AP-FACT-CHECK:-Attack-draws-visceral-Trump-tweets,-not-facts?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics)

•   Here's the most prevalent statement I hear:  It wasn’t a fair deal for the Americans.  The Chinese didn’t put anything into it and neither did India or Russia.  Let’s break this down: 

I’ve even seen the attached ridiculous meme going around:

First, this shows that people don’t even bother to try to understand or find their own facts.  Please, read the actual agreement between the United States and China in regards to their efforts on climate change and in regards to the funds:  https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/us-china-joint-presidential-statement-climate-change. 

Especially, look at #15 on the list. 

The reason China doesn’t contribute to the Green Climate Fund is because they agreed to put 20 billion Yen ($3.1 billion) to set up the South-South Climate Cooperation Fund to give specific help to the region of the world that is currently the worst polluter in a bilateral deal with the US as they pledged toward the GCF.  Yes, you read that right, they actually have committed MORE money than the US toward a climate fund in cooperation with the US.  On top of this, China has invested the most money by far of any other nation in sustainable energy efforts.

So, what about India?  India has been mired in a very major financial crisis.  But, even still, they have committed to and invested in strong efforts to curb their emissions; and they released a statement last week saying they would continue to do so with or without help from other countries because they realize how important an issue it is.  (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6278)

And, Russia?  Is it really a surprise that Trump wants to join Putin as not contributing to the deal?

Also, for all of those pointing the finger at China for being the biggest polluter.  Look deeper at the numbers:  The United States has emitted the greatest amount of CO2 of anyone in history, still ahead of China and well over 20% of the total amount.  In addition, while China is the biggest polluter in absolute terms currently (but now actively making progress toward curbing it), put this in perspective: US emits 16.4 metric tons of CO₂ per person whereas China emits only 7.5 metric tons of CO₂ per person.  That should really put our excess in perspective.

Per person carbon production and consumption
[Data Source: Kuishuang Feng & Klaus Hubacek, University of Maryland.]

 Or, how about we break the Green Climate Fund down into dollars per person as people seem to think it unfair what the US had pledged to put into the fund.

Source: http://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/contributors/resources-mobilized (By the way, you can track the progress of the fund here as well)

So, why is it unfair that the US should do its part to clean things up and make the world habitable for our grandchildren?

•   Next, let's continue on this tack and talk about the idea that the Paris Agreement was all about economics and that we can do more good without being in the accord:

The obvious issue with this, to begin with, is the selfish and centrist attitude it takes to even make this argument.  But, I’ll break down some of the facts in addition to what I’ve stated above already.  The goal is to try to reduce CO2 emissions and clean up the atmosphere for our ultimate healthy survival.  Yes, the data is clear and you have to try hard to believe the arguments against climate change over the overwhelming majority of evidence for it.  I will put something together to break down all of the arguments for climate change in time, but that is a long task and I need to find more hours in the day to finish that soon.  For now, just know that the temperatures are easily measured, are rising quickly, and for the first time in history doing so in a manner not able to be predicted by nature alone.  The difference does, however, correlate with CO₂ emissions.  I know some want to dispute this, but I will address that in a different blog.  For now, just look at this for one easy to follow, graphical reference:  https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/.  This agreement was a tremendous accomplishment to build cooperation to combat this pressing issue.  But, even if you don't believe in climate change, the result would be a healthier and safer environment in any case.

I know some people have this ‘America-First’ mentality right now, but this is much more than an America-only problem.  This is a world-wide issue and to curb the problem to the extent that is needed we need a world-wide effort.  Having American support and involvement helped bring many countries on board to the Paris Agreement because of the leadership and validity it brought to the solution.  Most have heard about the 2 degree limit that we’re trying to avoid, but most don’t understand what that means.  First, we are already over halfway to that target!  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2-degrees-celsius-un-report_us_58296d8be4b060adb56f0ca9)  That should put it into a little bit more of a perspective.  Secondly, people continue to cite, as the president did, that the Paris Agreement would only make about a 0.17 degree difference insinuating that it’s not worth the trouble.  That is actually substantial, however, and he also didn’t understand how that number was derived.  He cited an MIT study, but the study actually said that the difference is what would be expected from going from the original Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement in an effort to make a bigger impact with more of the world involved.  The author of the study actually released a statement saying that he completely disagreed with Trump’s analysis that that rise wasn’t a big deal and went on to say that without an agreement in place the rise would be on the order of 1 degree Celcius by 2100 - that’s not that far away.  (http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-issues-statement-research-paris-agreement-0602).  In other words, it was essential to get buy-in from nations across the world; the all-inclusive climate agreements are essential!  

People also argue that the agreement was useless because it didn’t hold countries accountable.  Will some countries fail to uphold their end of the bargain?  Yeah, probably.  However, the overall effect with all but two small countries in the pact is much better than not having the agreement, but it also goes well beyond that.  This deal is akin to going to a fruit stand where you pay on the honor system - except with other people looking over you and checking your wallet every few visits (the Paris agreement included five year checks) and publicly releasing what you took and what you've paid.  Some will try to cheat the system, but most will abide by the code, achieving an overall net positive.  And, there is absolutely no harm to the environment from the Paris agreement, contrary to the ludicrous statement to that effect that some try to claim.

•   But, you say, having a better free market will solve problems faster than with governmental regulations, and without having to kill jobs.  Many people have jumped on this after reading this article: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/trump-paris-accord-exit-is-good-for-the-environment-commentary.html.

That sounds good and all, but this falls in line with the previous argument and doesn’t hold up to the facts.  As mentioned above, for one, we need a world-wide effort, not just US-based.  Interestingly, in an effort to correlate why the deal wouldn't work, this article compares the Paris deal to OPEC saying that it wouldn’t work if not enforceable.  There are problems with this argument.  I’m actually not a big fan of OPEC, but it worked as intended for a long time.  What has led to issues, though, is that increased oil prices led to innovation that dropped the cost of extraction and led to an oversupply.  If that were the case for Climate Change, this innovation would be a GOOD thing and is one of the major goals of the agreement.  In addition, guess who is the one causing the most problems for OPEC?  The US, of course, as they refuse to follow OPEC’s recommendation to reduce their production (http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/11/investing/opec-oil-u-s-supply/index.html).  But, as I said, greater innovation would be a good thing in regards to the Paris agreement and, as the MIT research, in addition to others, showed, we would get much closer to the goal even if some of the countries did not pull their weight.

•   Another major argument from this article is that the US would make a bigger effect by fixing up it’s own mess in house. 

While that would be nice, and we certainly have areas that we can address, sadly this wouldn’t do nearly enough.  And, while I’m a fan of free-market enterprise and drivers, that argument doesn’t cut it here.  Yes, market drivers have helped lead to advances in more fuel efficient cars and is partially why solar panels have come down in price.  But, the big assumption here is that there would be a market driver to continue to reduce CO₂ emissions and the efforts we make in the US will make a difference world-wide.  What is that free-market driver?  Oil prices are now low.  And, while the article states that innovation led to advances in solar panels, it was largely due to a push for clean energy and government funded research and innovation.  (https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/04/24/innovation-government-was-crucial-after-all/) and (http://innovationreform.org/issues/indispensable-r-d/)  Trump has made it known that he wants to increase coal mining and is cutting regulations for the coal industry while proposing major reductions in funding for energy innovation programs.  Hence, he’s pushing the market driver in the OPPOSITE direction!  The only way the market-driver theory works is if there is an actual driver.  Trump is killing those drivers with his moves.

In addition, this idea is directly opposed by those actually in the business such as Elon Musk, Exxon, and Conoco Phillips, and as ‘25 major U.S. companies — including Apple, Facebook, Mars Incorporated and Morgan Stanley stated when they published a full-page letter in several newspapers that read: “By expanding markets for innovative clean technologies, the agreement generates jobs and economic growth. U.S. companies are well positioned to lead in these markets. Withdrawing from the agreement will limit our access to them and could expose us to retaliatory measures.” (https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/02/why-pulling-out-of-paris-accords-damages-americas-economic-future/).’  I’ve actually heard people say that people like Musk are whining b/c they have gotten so much in subsidies.  But, that would then mean that the government funding was working.

•   These regulations only kill jobs?

This is what some want you to believe, but the evidence doesn’t back that up.  Coglianese and Carrigan show evidence that regulation plays little role in the number of jobs in the US in their book, “Does Regulation Kill Jobs”, and a major study by famed economist Richard Morgenstern showed that, on average, $1 million in regulation induced spending led to a net total of 1.5 jobs lost.  Some like to cite another MIT study that showed that the Clean Air Act resulted in a loss of 590,000 jobs.  But, the author, Michael Greenstone, said himself that the law didn’t have much of an impact on total employment in the industry as he didn’t explore if the act actually created jobs or if those that lost jobs found new positions in this cited work.  The best option, in my opinion, is to invest in ways to educate miners, coal workers, and others that are out of jobs to work in advancing industries.

But, let me finish with a bit of optimism.  I agree that it looks like the damage may be mitigated, but this is in SPITE of Trump, not because of him.  Other countries have agreed to continue, if not accelerate, their focus on meeting their climate goals.  In addition, many city leaders and innovators in the United States have agreed to bunk Trump’s agenda and continue to strive toward the Paris agreement’s goals even if we're out as a country.  So, in that respect, we are selfishly saving money and may be okay, but it wouldn’t have happened without the climate agreements and the US’s help in bringing the world together toward that effort in the first place.  We will eventually be back as a world leader.  In the meantime, let’s hope other countries don’t follow Trump’s lead and, as individuals, let's be diligent to know the facts and do our part, however small that may seem.

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