Second Debate: Trump's advantage, trimming the field, history mangled

Three observations about Wednesday's marathon GOP debate:

Trump wins again on his ‘Home Field’

In true celebrity style Donald Trump lives by pictures. His split persona is made to order for the split screen.

Someone playing it straight, like Jeb Bush, is inevitably undercut by Trump with his simultaneously shown grimaces, flailing arms, frowns, fake sincerity and winking dismissals.

And so while we are vaguely listening to one (Bush), we are entranced by the other (Trump).

What message gets through? The indelible ones, Trump’s visual reactions. Who today can remember anything that Bush said last Wednesday? Something about Casinos in Florida….

Looks deceive, and Trump is nothing if not a deceiver. He maintains that what he says isn’t what he means. So which are we supposed to believe? He wants us to believe both although they are diametrical opposites. So we end up believing what we want to.

Trump is relying on a whole demographic steeped in media of the rapid, thoughtless, often rude, responses. They are the same group that listens to and admires the smarmy attacks of Rush Limbaugh.

Even Bernie Sanders, with his hashtag comments throughout the so-called Republican debate has bought into it, until, with a half hour of the “debate” remaining, he gave up and went to bed.  He realized that he had joined a fool’s game.

I often yearn to resurrect the late media guru Marshall McLuhan to get his take on Trump and the current level of political discourse. McLuhan pried apart the Nixon-Kennedy debates by describing Nixon as a “hot” politician trying to use a “cool” medium, television. Kennedy had mastered TV cool.

Now the terms “hot” and “cool” have taken on entirely new layers of meaning, but at the time, McLuhan hit the mark.

Trump is beyond hot and cool and has been successful because the dominant medium today is neither hot nor cool. It is fragmented, insincere, spontaneous, and unfair.

Those are characteristics that exactly define Trump.

Trump’s opponents are simply no match for him on the playing field he has mastered so well.

Time for GOP candidates to self-cull their herd

If those in the Republican presidential field are worried about the skyrocketing candidacy of Donald Trump, why don’t all but two or three of the 15 simply get out of the race and quit dicing up Republican voters into candidacies with minuscule support?

One thing about Trump, he’s a polarizing figure. You are either vehemently for him or repulsed by him. The repulsed need one or two candidates they can rally around.

This isn’t to say that the anti-Trump candidates are in complete agreement on the issues as was evident in Wednesday’s “debate.” But it does mean that they have common ground in realizing that Donald Trump would be a disaster for their party, to say nothing of the nation.

A grateful party and nation would salute those candidates with the wisdom to withdrawn in order to save Republicans and the Republic.

The problem is that the candidates are in the race to affirm their egos, rise to their level of their incompetence, and seize power for their own special interests…or all three.

If they could see beyond those motives, they would realize that any remaining, dominant candidate other than Trump would certainly share the spoils of victory, should he or she attain it.

One way or the other they will benefit.

Rest assured that Trump will not share the spoils of victory with his competition. Even if he did, who would want to work for the likes of him?

When History is the victim so are we

It is said that history is what we make it. But there is more truth in the statement that history is what we make OF it.

The Republican candidates at Wednesday’s debate mangled history. Is the Iran of today the product of the Iranian Revolution? Did that revolution emerge out of thin air, with no involvement by our own CIA with the Shah’s regime and the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government? Apparently.

Did George W. Bush protect this nation by toppling Saddam Hussein in order to retaliate for 9/11, an event in which Hussein and Iraq had no role? Could our dependence on and ownership of oil in Iraq have had something to do with our “salvation”?

Did the rise of Al Qaeda happen for no reason? Were training camps in Afghanistan there simply by chance? Or could the US support of anti-Soviet “Freedom Fighters” in Afghanistan, including the leadership of Al Qaeda, have had something to do with the history that followed?

Does anyone remember Republican President Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about this nation’s “Military-industrial Complex” as candidates on Wednesday called for more and more defense spending. Would someone please remind this nation that America spends nearly as much on defense as all other nations combined?

Oh, and while we are at it, it’s time to officially and repeatedly “out” Israel as possessing nuclear weapons. Iran’s nuclear policy might be seen differently if we added that fact to the mind-bogglingly complex situation in the Middle East.

History will show that ALL the great religions of the world have at one time or another produced brutal terrorists. If ours is a Judeo-Christian nation, as candidate Mike Huckabee maintains (pointedly excluding Islam), what are we doing torturing people? What are we doing killing defenseless citizens in drone attacks? Why are we allowing “law enforcement” in this country to terrorize citizens based on their skin color and their religious beliefs?

I recommend to Huckabee and any other self-proclaimed Christian the book “Constantine’s Sword,” written by a Catholic journalist James Carroll. War and atrocities (including those of war) seem hard-wired into all religions — the teachings of their sages not-withstanding.

Finally, we are developing a history with Global Warming (it started with the Industrial Age) and we can see where we are headed. Addressing the Climate Change issue will not be a job killer as Marco Rubio maintained. If anything, it will create entirely new industries. In fact, under the do nothing scenario, plenty of jobs will be created, but they won’t be the ones that we want. The jobs will require massive government spending as a huge work force builds the dikes needed to hold back rising waters in order to save coastal cities. Whole new communities for climate refugee will need to be built. And on and on it goes.

The old line about those ignoring history being destined to relive it needs amending. Those who distort or “cherry pick” history’s lessons are delusional and destined to fail.

Lessons from the 2014 election

Random and opposing thoughts regarding the mid-term election:

Our political system will continue to be corrupted by and in the grip of those obsessed with money and power.

We will rely on the leadings of the spirit and the spiritual.

Gross inequality will continue.

We will distill our lives, or our lives will be distilled for us.

The militarism will continue.

We will learn by the riveting experience of suffering…and forgiveness.

Secrecy in government will increase. Our privacy will continue to be invaded and diminished.

We will be clearly shown that we are one, that we depend on each other, not as "The other" but as "The one.” We ARE the enemy and the enemy is us. (Pogo was right, sort of....)

Purveyors of fear (still the great motivator) will continue to shape our culture and attitudes toward our neighbors, be they on our street or in the rest of the world.

The Great Unraveling will teach us compassion and humility.

Global warming will continue. “Natural disasters” (Nature shaking off our toxic species) will grow more and more severe.

The manifestations of environmental disintegration and the power of nature will force themselves upon us. They will require us to change.

Ignorance will spread…thanks to fundamentalism, corporate media, distorted values, amplified media demagoguery and impoverished schools and families.

We will discover truth through experience.

The homeless, many of them veterans, the mentally ill or both, will continue to find homes only in the streets. They will continue to be neglected, even scorned. Children will suffer in growing numbers. Homeless, hungry and abandoned.

We will learn that change begins with us acting as individuals and as communities (including ‘communities of interest’). Change begins in “small places” within the "oneness."

Technology will grow with little or no consideration given to unintended consequences. Escapist sports, games, consumerist values and other fantasies will define our culture. We live in a drop-out, fabricated, media-manipulated world of distorted and corrupted values.

We will withdraw from corporate media, consumerism and their contrived values. There will be a growing suspicion of technological change masquerading as “progress."

Crime will increase, including that committed by our “system of justice.”

We will be forced to examine and re-examine deeply, and then reshape, our values and our actions. Restorative justice, compassionate listening and non-violent communication are manifestations.

The good (love) in religions will be muted; the bad (prejudice, anti-intellectualism, self-righteousness and judging) amplified. Religions will grow as a problem, not a solution.

We will turn to spiritual “leadings” and reject religious dogma and dictates.

Government and politics will grow as a source of our fear and despair.

We will focus on and do what is possible. We will live and act more closely to our communities and homes. We can not afford to be distracted by events (news?) we can do nothing about. We will govern ourselves.

Our infrastructure will continue to crumble. Private profit will reshape and then destroy “The Commons.”

We will be called upon to act together and independently in new, sustainable, cooperative, humane and creative ways.

We may not have “fallen far enough.”

We will evolve to new awareness and, then, a new consciousness.

A Parable from the Duck Pond

My friend and fellow Quaker Josh von Kuster has written a parable directed toward Quakers, but it speaks to us all.

Once, ducks migrated all over, flying south every year in the winter, and north again in the summer. Their squawking as they flew  brought cool weather with them South and warm weather with them North. They went all over, looking for a peaceful pond where they could be free to stay year-round and the weather would be just right.  Finally, they found such a place., and settled. The migration stopped.

As the generations went by, the ducks taught each other of their forebearers’ travels. How they brought the weather with them when they squawked and flew.

One day, a little duckling didn't want just to learn about traveling and squawking. This curious duckling decided to live out its curiosity.

It wanted to actually travel and squawk.

The flock encouraged the duckling, such behavior being unfamiliar but exciting to them. So off it flew.

As the years went by, the flock kept teaching each other about the migrators. They found new and exciting ways to teach each other about their elders. They didn't notice the weather changing on their pond, they grew comfortable with the heat in the summer and the cold in the winter.

One day, the duckling was invited to come home. The duckling was missed by its friends so they asked the curious duckling to come and talk about migrating. Setting travels and squawking aside for a while, the curious duckling, now full-grown, came back to the pond. The curious duck told them of all it had seen, and how great the weather can be and how nasty. The duckling was brimming with knowledge and experience and wisdom and spoke of the wider world.

But the flock was not gathered only to hear the curious duck. It was so much fun talking about their elders and how things used to be far away in the past. It was even more fun coming up with new and exciting ways to teach each other about their proud traditions in the future. They were so busy talking about techniques and pedagogy they never took the time to ask the duckling what could be done to migrate again.

Our globally warmed (and wet) vacation

Prague's Kafka Museum as river gauge.

We’re back from a 20-day vacation, of sorts, in Europe.

Our expectations were largely the vision presented on Viking Excursions’ “Downton Abbey” promos. You may know the scene. It’s a birds-eye view of a long, elegant riverboat churning down the Danube through verdant valleys past ancient castles under clear skies.


Inspired by that vision and the reams of brochures we’ve received from Viking over the years, we signed on, at considerable expense. We bracketed the cruise with visits to Lucerne, Switzerland; Salzburg, Austria, and Prague, capital of the Czech Republic. The seven-day cruise, which began in Passau (of which more later) would also take us to Linz, Melk, Vienna, Bratislava and finally Budapest.

A cafe's riverside umbrellas underwater.

The reality trip that unfolded was good, bad and generally wet.

The rains defined the majority of our time. If there is a single symbol for our journey, it is the umbrella. With the rain came the flooding. Mercifully, we avoided the worst of it. The highest water seemed to trail us by three days to a week. The floods are still in the news as I write this, four days after returning to Portland.

When we visited a high-and-dry Passau, for instance, the guide of our walking tour pointed out marks on the side of City Hall showing water levels of past floods. How could the river rise to such levels, we wondered. The dates went back to the 16th Century. Within a week waters of  the Danube and the two other rivers that converge at Passau, would be above the highest mark. This month, Passau suffered a 500-year flood. The astonishing 16th Century mark was well under water.

Only twice did high water alter our plans. We took the train from Budapest (which was still unflooded at the time) to Prague. About 50 miles from the Czech capital we were stopped in our tracks (literally) by high water at a station. After a three-hour delay, the train backed up 20 or so miles and was rerouted. What was to be a seven-hour trip turned into a 13-hour detoured journey. We arrived weary and worn at our Prague hotel at 2 a.m.

The other change was relatively minor. Because of high water, Prague’s famed Charles Bridge was closed to all traffic. (In 1890, floods had swept away part of the 14th Century bridge) Each of the three days we were in Prague, we would walk to the Vltava River to see how high it had risen. The authorities had put up metal, interlocking dikes and positioned pumps. The best mark of the water level was the Kafka Museum (see photo), which sits along the river bank. The words “Kafka Museum” are written in large letters on the river wall next to the museum. When we arrived, the water underlined the words. On day two, only the very tops of the letters were visible. On our final day, the river had receded enough so that the the upper two-thirds could be seen.

Pedestrians were undeterred by mini-dikes at the ready.

Using the museum as a flood gauge was in its own way Kafka-esque.

To our joy, the sun came out for those final two days in Prague and revealed the city in its full and ornate glory.

Meanwhile, as I write, Budapest is experiencing floods. Just how badly is hard to determine. You have to walk to the river to find out.

Travelers beware: In this Global Warming era of “extreme weather events” journeys take on special unpredictable challenges. Consider them partial retribution for the carbon footprint we leave in getting to these far-away places.

There’s something to be said for staying put. Leaving well enough alone...leaving the PLANET well enough alone....

Next: Visions of the Titanic or things that go CRUNCH in the night....

The future begins today

 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Ecclesiastes 9:1

I thought of this passage from the Old Testament while reading about and pondering simplicity and our growing need to simplify and change in these times of self-created global peril.

“Time and chance” is indeed happening to us all. But the Old Testament was wrong in one important respect:  Our future is unfolding not despite “the race,” “the battle,” the so-called “wise” and “riches to men of understanding” and our “skill,” but because of them.

Halt the race and end the battles. Recognize that our "wisdom" has in fact been folly. Our “riches” and the resulting inequity kill millions in number and the rich in spirit. Our "skill" is destroying the planet and all life on it.

The race, battle, bread and riches will mean nothing in a generation. In a mere 30 years or less, we will have doomed our children and grandchildren to irreversible despair.

To avoid such a future, today — now — we must change, radically — by quickly slowing down.

Simplify, live close to and in harmony with the planet and nature.

Start with yourself.

Live for the world you want for posterity. The future begins with today.

PS The book I've been reading about simplicity, bears that word as its title and is written by fellow Quaker Jennifer Kavanagh. You can learn more about it HERE.

Reversing our Spiral of Fear and Destruction

This country is caught up in a downward spiral of fear. Fear of itself, fear of other nations, fear of the unknown, fear of "the other," and increasingly, fear of humanity itself.

The more consumed we are with fear, the more we do to “protect” ourselves. And the more we do to protect ourselves, the more we have to fear.

The most recent, and by no means the only, examples are the NRA and the gun lobby (manufacturers and, curiously, the video game industry). They are feeding fear by causing it. The result is that we are in arms race amongst ourselves. Citizens are buying automatic weapons so that they have fire power equal to that of our own government.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The fearful are afraid they will lose their freedom (their “free state”). Among those threatened freedoms is the right to arm themselves like a Militia. The government, sensing the danger, might rightly better arm itself against insurrection. And so we spiral downward.

Some have even suggested that an armed militia might acquire tactical nuclear weapons. That obviously raises the ante of fear.

Whole swaths of the media feed on fear. Everything from the “if it bleeds it leads” prominence given to crime news to  blood-drenched films and video games.

We live in a culture of fear that is spiraling to its own destruction as more and more frightened citizens, inured to violence, arm themselves, mistakenly assuming that their arms will protect them from real or fabricated dangers.

And the more arms there are, the greater the likelihood they will be used.

America is also feared by others. We spend nearly as much on “defense” as all the other nations of the world. Those truly concerned about balancing our budget need to look no farther than our “defense” spending.

Ironically, many of those arming themselves consider themselves Christians.

It seems obvious to ask whether a belief in the teachings of Jesus might pull us out of our spiral. What if we nurtured the very heart of Jesus’ message? Ask the question “What weapon would Jesus choose?”

The answer is clear: Love.

The problem for the media and much of our economy is that it’s hard to make money from the kind of love Jesus taught. Jesus clearly wasn’t in it for the money. He dwelt among, comforted and preached among the poor. He chastised the rich.
 
But Love of your neighbor (to say nothing of your enemy) is tough to market and, as they say, "monetize."

Nor are we able to “sell” love of our planet and the environment because manifesting that love would mean radically changing our own lives and values during our own lifetimes. The devastated communities along the New Jersey shore are too busy cleaning up and struggling to “return to normal” to consider addressing global warming, the cause of their demise.

But at some point we will all be affected by the destruction that our way of life (way of death?) is causing.

The spiral upward may only begin once we have hit absolute bottom. And by then, it may be too late.

William Penn said it well to his fellow Quakers 320 years ago. “Let us then try what love will do.”

Today, we have nothing to lose but everything.

How God decided the 2012 election

You can find all kinds of explanations for the outcome of the 2012 presidential election, but here’s one you probably haven't considered...

God.

Or to be more exact, some self-proclaimed Christians’ vision of God and God’s “creation” and “creations.”

And so we ask, is the child of a rapist “God’s gift”? Ask a rape victim. Or just ask a woman.

The second part has to do with God’s somehow endowing women with the miraculous, innate ability to end a pregnancy if they don’t want to bear a child that results from “legitimate” rape (whatever that is).

This sounds vaguely like a reverse variation of the virgin birth.

Here we have a bit of pseudoscience created by blind religious belief. But the fantasy doesn’t stop there.

Let’s move on to origin and nature of the planet (think creationism), science and global warming. The Fundamentalist’s pseudo-science argues that global warming is nothing more than a hoax ginned up by greedy scientists to attract grant money.
 
Hurricane Sandy (and other climate changes) put the lie to that notion. The massive storm couldn’t be explained away as the product of scientific greed (although it might be  related to the greed of millionaire oil industry executives).

But wait. You could argue that none of the above made a whit of political difference. Romney went on to win Missouri and Indiana, where Senate candidates self-destructed over the rape/abortion issue. No loss to Romney. The damage was limited to a couple of Senate seats that didn’t go the GOP’s way.

And Hurricane Sandy pummeled states that were going for Obama anyway. Again, nothing changed except perhaps Chris Christie.

Don’t believe it. The rest of us were paying attention. The glaring ignorance of the Religious Right rubbed off on Romney and the Republican Party. Both continued to happily embrace the support of God-fearing and deluded right-wing Christians.

They still do.

And so folks around the country, significantly in states like Colorado, Ohio and Florida, asked: Are these really the kinds of folks we want calling the shots in Washington?

No way.

The Republicans' problem now is that the electorate's judgement will be the same four years hence.

Mother Nature casts her vote

It’s easy to find the cause of Hurricane Sandy.

It’s two fold.

The first is global warming. This massive storm is yet one more unprecedented catastrophic climate “event” linked to global warming.

And the cause of global warming is no secret. It’s us and our complicity in a political/financial system corrupted by greed.

So much for causes.

Under the present alignment of events, a motive for this hurricane suggests itself. Yes, against all reason, I’m asking you to find a sentient motive in nature. Bear with me....

Here we are entering the last week of a presidential election campaign in which both candidates have shamelessly and blatantly ignored the issue of global warming.

The reason is clear: Both have been bought off by fear-mongering, carbon-emitting, corporate polluters.

Now, from the hyper-warm waters of the South Atlantic arises a monster hurricane that could just wreak havoc on the campaigns, the Nov. 6 election, and, one can hope, our entire corrupt political system.

Power outages, blocked roads, huge evacuations, massive flooding. Try campaigning and voting under those circumstances.

The so-called “battleground” states of New Hampshire, Virginia and Ohio could look exactly like battlegrounds in the aftermath of this mega-storm.

Moreover, like the meltdown of the financial markets four years ago, this storm could dictate end-game political events.

The president will have to go back to being presidential — whatever that means. (Who knows, he might even utter the words “global” and “warming.”)

Mitt Romney may have to cede in response to the devastation that government has a role beyond building battleships, axing taxes, cutting regulations and subsidizing the rich.
 
Okay, so Mother Nature may not have a motive for sending this storm, but we might consider that we are being punished (or are unwittingly punishing ourselves) for our collective dirty deeds.

I suggest that another vote is trumping all others in this election — the ballot  of grievances Mother Nature is now casting along the Atlantic Coast.

Calling for help

Of all the trans-Gulf of Mexico ironies that link the Republican convention in Tampa and Isaac’s destruction in New Orleans, one stands out and illuminates conservative myth and the plight of this nation.

After the hurricane finally passes through leaving wrecked homes and devastated businesses, flooded neighborhoods and ruined roads, vulnerable communities and a and destroyed schools and hospitals, who will be called upon to provide assistance?

The government, that’s who.

The very government that the resurgent Republican right wing wants to “drown in the bathtub.”

Meanwhile there’s all this water in New Orleans to clean up.

You’ve perhaps seen the photo of Mitt Romney backed by business owners wearing t-shirts emblazoned with “Government didn’t build my business. I did.”

Oh really?

Ever hire someone who learned to read in school? Perhaps you yourselves attended a few classes? Ever have goods arrive by a truck that has used the public roads? Ever rely on an interstate highway? Ever depend on a cop to patrol the commercial area?

When you turn on the tap and water flows out or when you flush the toilet and ... well never mind ... you get the picture.

And what about the protections provided by the military, bloated as it is?

And what have unregulated businesses brought you? If Isaac is yet another “extreme weather event” in the Global Warming destruction of the planet, where will the blame lie as the Earth becomes less and less habitable and your business tanks?

You could start with the oil lobbyists and Wall Street financiers picking up the tab in Tampa.

If the government is at fault, it’s because it hasn’t done enough. And it hasn’t done enough — and will do even less under the Republicans — because it has been taken over by British Petroleum, Exxon/Mobil, Chase Bank and countless global financial and commercial interests.

I suggest that when the Republican convention adjourns Thursday, the delegates cruise across the Gulf to witness what their handiwork has wrought. And when they call for help, let them note whom they are calling.

Clara's world

The birth of our first grandchild, Clara, early Sunday morning here in Portland has left me elated and somber.

The joy is pictured in the photo, taken when she was a mere 10 hours old.

Clara arrives as I am well into the first year of my eighth decade.  I've done a lot of soul-searching about aging, death and their mysterious meaning of late, but little Clara's arrival snapped me out of it.

Now I'm riveted on the equally mysterious beginning of life. Clara, like infants everywhere, inspires wonder. My wonder is two-fold: deeply spiritual and, alas, political and environmental.

These tender beings, clearly vessels of the Spirit, speak to the urgent need to heal the planet and drastically, radically, reform our political and economic systems. Innocent new life poses the question of the very meaning of life. It comes down to a question of values.

Some might even ask whether the planet can absorb yet another life like Clara's. It's a fair question, but I find it impossible even to consider as Clara and I stare into each others eyes — in wonder.

Here is the hope and challenge posed by small ones everywhere: Can we old — but not-so-wise — souls still make Earth habitable and hospitable, peaceful and spirit-nurturing for new lives like Clara's?

Four more years....

I’m looking into the future, to August 2016 to be exact.

It is not a pretty picture.

Sure the unexpected can happen (and likely will) but assuming the “normal” course of events given what we know, the government will either be hamstrung or following ruinous right-wing policies.

The hamstrung scenario has Barack Obama as president and the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. Yes, governing will be even more difficult than it has been for the last four years. At best, the nation and the government will be on hold. The question in August 2016 is, who will the Democrats choose to run for the presidency and will they be able to take back Congress? The answer to the first part is most likely Hillary Clinton. And, no, the Democrats will not be able to take back Congress, whose major function will have become to blame everyone, including fellow members of Congress.

The economy will be even worst than it is today and the Republicans will still be in their Grover Norquist, drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub mode. The Republicans will no doubt choose, yes, Paul Ryan to head their ticket. He’s such a nice, “refreshingly thoughtful” man. At some point the GOP might change its name to the “Tea Party.” Perhaps a real Republican “party of Lincoln (and, Oregonians please note, Hatfield and McCall)” might re-emerge.

On to scenario #2. The country is run by the Romney/Ryan administration with the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress (Okay, they might lose one or both in the 2014 mid-term elections, but you get the idea.) The rich get even richer (anyone want a sixth Caddy and a seventh home?) and everybody else tanks. Under this scenario, Bernie Sanders decides to run for president (as a Republican Socialist?) and the Democratic nominee is...hmmmm. Your choice. Could it be that no one wants the job?

Pulling the levers on all the above will be the very, very rich and the very, very secretive. Casino owners, TV wrestling magnates, defense contractors and corporate carbon-belching global warmers. (Did I mention that the drought and weather extremes will worsen over the next four years?)

Meanwhile, in the streets, expect food riots, Romney-ville or Obama-ville homeless camps. The Occupy movement of 2011 will look like a picnic in the park compared to what’s coming.

If reviving the economy means declaring yet another war, we may finally see veterans take to the street to demand an end to the madness. It is a madness that is literally leading them to take their lives in appalling numbers. This too will not abate.

Back in the world of electoral politics (if it can be called that), the options are grave. Of course someone will chime in to say that at least scenario #1 is likely to produce a more moderate Supreme Court. When the choice boils down to the future of the Supreme Court, you know we are in trouble.

The best way to spend the next four years is to do some serious blank-slate rethinking about the state of the nation, its constitution, its values and its role in the world. What say devolve into very small, autonomous manageable states? Switzerlands come to mind. Split Oregon down the middle, East and West.

Ecotopia anyone?

At the very least, the thinking might provide political talking points as the election campaign gets serious in late summer of 2016.

The New Law of Nature

The truth is palpable, overwhelming, scorching, toxic and virulent.

In the 2006 documentary, Al Gore, in a calculated understatement, called it “inconvenient.”

Today is it undeniable to the vast majority. Tomorrow it will be undeniable even to today’s deniers.

Chief among the deniers are our two major presidential candidates, both of whom depend on contributors addicted to carbon-fuel-derived profit and greed. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, coupled with Congress and the majority of congressional candidates, lack any political incentive to act. They are focused on November and money.

They need to be focused on NOW and muster the will to speak and act now. Imagine them standing together on the same podium, united in word and action.

It would take courage; it won’t happen.

The political problem goes beyond money and greed. To bring about needed change, the political establishments (here AND abroad) must demand that each of us change radically. The laws required would be draconian. Forget “personal freedom,” at least as we know it.

Here in America, we don’t do draconian, at least not on ourselves. We do draconian in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Africa — any place the oil or coal or uranium is. Sometimes— because the resources are hidden away — our draconian measures are done here at home, in the aquifers of the Great Plains or the watersheds of Appalachia or the Gulf Coast or the Alaska wilderness.

The victims are the poor and nature.

The Climate Change we are coming to know results from another, countervailing draconian law — a New Law of Nature. It can’t be ruled unconstitutional. It can't be amended. There will be no filibusters or cloture.

It will force change on us whether we or our leaders like it or not.

Many are already thirsty and starving. Soon the effects will hit and further shrink the middle class. Eventually it will strike even the plutocrats and oligarchs. It will burst their bubbles of isolation and privilege.  It will breach their security gates and go undetected by their surveillance cameras. There will be no new mansions to flee to. The greedy will be stranded on a dying planet of dust, drought and desolation.

Is there nothing we can do? Elections won’t help (see above.) There are changes that each of us can make as individuals, and many are. Most of us aren’t doing enough, not nearly enough. And the hour is late.

We have in our Quaker congregation a group that calls itself “The Global Coolers.” Others rightly can call themselves by that name, but the large majority of us are “Global Warmers,” or, worse, “Global Kool-Aiders.”

The Coolers, and others, try to raise our awareness. Some ride bikes. Some eat less. Their food  comes from nearby. They switch off lights and appliances. They install solar panels.

They are too few in number. But they may be the saved among the human species, for the survivors will be those willing and able to live with the least.

It all sounds vaguely, and profoundly, biblical.

NEXT: Cracking the political nut....

Would you volunteer to pay more — much more — for gas?

It’s pretty clear that our next president, whoever he might be, isn’t going to do squat about global warming. The oil pipers in Washington DC are going to continue to call their profit-driven, business-as-usual tune of climate change denial.

Hey, so we have a few more forest fires, higher acid levels in our rising oceans and record-breaking heat waves. Mere anomalies, friends. Keep on truckin’!

So here’s an idea for 2012 and beyond to make sure there are more beyonds...beyond beyond....

I just checked on-line and the pump price of a gallon of gas in Europe is now roughly $10. Yes, a fill-up of 12 gallons costs the Sweds, the French, the Italians and other continentals a cool $120.

The European overage is about $6.50/gallon from what we pay. In other words, they pay $78 more each time they fill up.

For a long time New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and others have advocated a tax that would force us to pay closer to what our European friends pay.

Good luck with that (see above).

But what if those of us not in media-inspired disconnect about global warming and unprecedented “natural disasters” VOLUNTARILY paid the difference between Europe’s price and ours every time we gassed up?

We’d do it on a special “Green” credit card that would do the computation and redirect the difference to....

To whom? The government? I don’t think so. Somehow the money would simply finance more tax subsidies for Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and agribusiness, more money for drone attacks and more bail-outs for banks “too big to fail” etc.

No, because the Green Credit Card is a voluntary program, we donors get to decide who gets the money. One idea is a blue-ribbon consortium of organizations working on “The Great Planetary Turning” that will save this blue-green pebble in space from being turned into a black cinder.

For now, be patient. We can get to the details of who gets the money later. Your homework is to think about how the consortium should be governed and whether it should be (could be) a tax-exempt non-profit. (Maybe government could help by making the tax exemptions especially attractive, just as long as Washington keeps its mitts — and Mitt — off deciding how our donations are spent.)

Sitting on the back porch with my wife this evening, I dragged out my little calculator and we ran our own numbers. We aren’t particularly big drivers and one of us (me) drives a hybrid. We estimated that together we manage to burn through about 500 gallons of gas a year. That’s probably a conservative estimate, but let’s work with it.

If we use the European benchmark of $10 a gallon (if they can do it so can we), the two of us would voluntarily contribute roughly $3250 a year (500 gallons X $10 = $5000 minus $1750  for the gas itself). That’s $3250 from two Americans contributing to the cause of saving the planet for us and future generations. (Did I mention that we’re slated to be grandparents for the first time next month? A sobering reality...a grandchild entering a world of record heat waves and melting ice caps.)

So is the contribution worth it?

Is it worth it if it’s a tax deduction? Is it worth it if it encourages us to buy more fuel efficient vehicles or use mass transit? Is it worth it if the money helps build high-speed rail, more electric buses and trolleys, more solar generators?

Is it worth it if it catches on and contributes mightily to saving the planet for our grandchild and millions of other grandchildren?

I think so.

What do you think? Would you volunteer?

Addendum: A variation might be to offer cards in different "editions." One might phase in increases in your donation. You pay $5 a total of gallon this year (that might be an "orange" credit card), $6 next (pale orange...on the way to a "cooler" color) etc. Another version starts you at the $10 a gallon maximum but then "rewards" you as you meet goals in lowering your gas consumption. Of course if you go 100 percent electric, you pay nothing to anyone. At which point we might consider the source of your electricity. But that's another story...

HERE's a link to an even more modest approach by fellow Quakers in Berkeley. Every dime helps.

To comment click on the “comments” link at the bottom of this post. Type your comment in the box and choose one of the options for “comment as” (type your name — leave URL blank unless you have a website). Click “publish” or, if you like “preview” first.

On Winter's edge

I write on Sunday, October 9, Fairbanks, Alaska. It is 2:30 p.m.

The gilded, slanting sunlight angles through trees casting long shadows. The sun's rays fall on dark umber, shriveled leaves that have already begun to decay. The height of fall color came a month ago, around Labor Day. The trees have been bare for two weeks.

The first snow was in the forecast for this weekend, but it never came. It’s a good thing because no one seems quite ready for the onset of winter.

“The hammer is about to drop,” said one acquaintance.

After a while one doesn’t ask what folks are doing this weekend or next. Everyone is “getting ready for winter.”

And winter in Fairbanks is something one had better prepare for.

Laying up wood, bringing out skis, hanging up bikes, hauling out heavy-duty, warm boots and parkas, putting on snow tires, making sure the car is equipped with blankets — just in case.

Cleaning out the garage to make room for the intrepid cars and trucks. The yard gets raked and mowed one last time. Mulch and compost is spread to cloak garden and lawn.

One acquaintance was replacing his headlights with higher-beamed ones that can pick out a moose farther down the road. Braking distance, like shadows, lengthen in winter. A moose can do major damage. Early detection can save fenders, windshields and, yes, lives.

Rob hopes the moose he hit last year survived its encounter with his car. “I think the damage was kept to his knee,” he says with a shrug of uncertainty.

Flashlights need checking. New batteries are in order. Cross-country skiers will strap miner’s headlights around their balaclavas.

For all the concern about lack of light on dark days, one friend told me that the darkest time is now, in October, before the luminating snows fall. Snow and its crystals catch and scatter light on short days blessed by long, lingering dawns and dusks.

“It’s a kind of gloaming,” she says in awe of both the horizon's light and the ancient word for it. “The blues are almost greens in the distance to the north.”

And she is not referring to the crazed dancing of the blue-green Northern Lights, though she might have been.

On this day during our walk on the frozen mud of soon-to-be ski trails, the light reflects from the bone whiteness of the birch forest that surrounds us.

In another month, the temperatures, now in the low 50s during the day and mid-twenties at night, can drop to 30 below. January averages 10 below zero.

Before Fairbanks began to feel the effects of global warming, minus 50 was possible. Today the permafrost thaws in summer. Some houses built on the once solidly frozen saturated soil are sinking. The growing season now starts in May and lasts to early October. It has folks worried.

Beyond the physical preparations for winter are mental adjustments.

Fourteen-year-old Sarah Walling-Ball, already practicing soccer indoors in a school gym on a crisp, cold Fairbanks afternoon, puts it bluntly. “Good-bye to happiness. Hello to eight months of toughing it out.”

These early October days are “borrowed time” that will end with a sudden snap — and certainly the inevitable shortened days. On this very day, Fairbanks loses seven minutes of sun exposure.

Each year, Sarah's’ mom, Cathy Walling, plans a winter retreat to the south to hearten her. Hawaii and even Australia call. “It’s not a luxury; it’s a necessity,” she says of trips to southern summer sunshine.

Before and after these far-away trips, she takes vitamin D and puts herself under a special light box to ward off Seasonal Affective Disorder.

She especially feels the loss of energy on these shortening October days. Once, she used to fight the fatigue by staying busy. Now, she says, she honors and surrenders to Earth’s call to hibernation.

She knows she is not alone. Winter bonds the people of Fairbanks, otherwise known for their political differences. It’s a communal “hunkering down” in which each person is ready to protect anyone endangered by the cold.

“We really need each other. If the car breaks down at 40 below, it’s a matter of life and death. Strangers stop and help.”

It’s a time for creativity too — drawing, writing, painting, spinning wool. Much of the art is communal — knitting, quilting, reading in book groups, singing. A group of play readers perform five times each year. Three of those five presentations are in winter.

A theater troupe is rehearsing “MacBeth,” a chilling tale that warms with truth for a cold clime.

Come what come may, Time and the hour runs through the roughest day.

Postscript: I am back in Portland now. I left Fairbanks early yesterday morning. On our way to the airport, the forests and roads were lightly frosted in the brittle morning. As I looked out the car window at the gray landscape, I sensed a land and people at one in the seasons and seasonings of time.

Jumping before it's too late

We’ve seen riots and demonstrations by students in Britain and in France but why not here?

Could we have an example of an American frog being slowly cooked in a pot whose water is gradually getting hotter?

You know the story. If the frog is thrown into boiling water, it jumps out. That’s what’s happening in Europe where there’s been a sudden shock of severe government austerity measures.

But in this country, the socio-economic water temperature has been rising ever so slowly for years. The increases in tuition have risen steadily for 25 years but have relentlessly far outpaced inflation. Likewise health care costs.

Likewise the slow but steady growth in the gap between rich and poor. Likewise consumer debt. Likewise the stagnation in the middle class. Likewise the decline in our schools. Our federal deficit as been building and growing for more than a decade.

The other reason young American frogs aren’t jumping around in anger is that they enthusiastically elected a president perceived to be a cool, rational progressive. The Obama presidency is not seen as “hot” waters, unlike the two terms of Bush/Cheney.

If there was an American jolt, it happened nine years ago on 9/11. After that, everything else was part of a national, irrational response. Talk about jumping around!

Because America has no draft, young Americans, particularly college students, took little or no action. Sure there were marches and demonstrations but with time that energy was defused and re-directed into politics (“The Politics of Hope” "Change We can Believe in!") and away from the streets.

As unemployment grows, the jobless have reason to be grateful for war. The military is this nation’s employer of last resort. Seen in this way, war is a our “healthiest” economic sector. And the military-industrial-financial-media ruling class is thriving while young, formerly unemployed Americans are “working” — and dying — far, far away.

The Obama administration simply transferred war from one dysfunctional nation to another. Opposition to the war in Afghanistan has been softened by the president’s very public hand wringing and media-staged, patriotic speeches to the hapless troops.

If there’s been a visible, angry reaction in this country, it has been that of the Tea Party. Tea Party activists have been suffering from sudden stove-top heat (unemployment, foreclosures, mounting debt) of the last three years, but they jumped into the hands of a pseudo-movement cynically financed by the very forces causing the anguish.

In short, the Tea Party-goers were duped, as they are now finding out. Did the Tea Party faithful really want to extend the tax cuts for the rich? Did they really want to help out the Wall Street flimflam artists who made this mess, reaped billions from it and then plowed a share of their winnings into the Fall’s Congressional campaigns — and the Tea Party?

Did the Tea Party followers really want to end unemployment benefits? Did they really want to drive up federal deficits?

With less than two years to the presidential election, my guess is that the energy that might otherwise show up in the streets will be siphoned into various political campaigns. The corporate media are already shaping the “horse race.” The political windbags and pundits are already grooming candidates. Soon they will be slowly paraded from the paddocks to the starting gates.

You can be sure bets are being placed.

Expect left and right wing “extremist” candidates to tap into rising, but well-contained political energy. Also expect the primaries to result in “extremist” presidential candidates’ losing to “stay the course” middle-of-the-roaders, presented as cool, rational, “trust us” leaders.

Read: Obama, Bloomberg and Romney.

Congress, on the other hand, will continue to be a countervailing, unmanageable zoo of conflicting, implacable, hard-line interests. But that’s another story.

As for the frogs in the pot, us, the heat — literal heat, if you consider global warming — will slowly, ever so slowly, continue to rise. Will we jump before it's too late? And where, exactly, where we land?

Bring back $4-per-gallon gas!

Back in May, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote about and endorsed a plan for placing a mandated floor under gasoline prices.

At the time, the price of gasoline was approaching $4 a gallon.

Despite the drain on our wallets, much of the news was actually good. Demand for small fuel-efficient cars was rising, gas guzzlers weren’t selling, people were driving and polluting less, and many were finally taking mass transit. We were adopting some good habits. Moreover, the demand for imported oil dropped, making us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil fiefdoms.

And our carbon footprint got smaller.

Under the plan floated by Friedman and proposed by energy economist Philip Verleger Jr., the government would never allow the pump price of gas to fall below $4 a gallon. If the market price did fall below that level, Washington “would increase the federal gasoline tax on a monthly basis to make up the difference between the pump price and the market price.”

Verleger’s proposal would use the extra money to help the less well-off by reducing their payroll taxes. It sounds overly generous to me, but anyone earning under $80,000 year would get the tax cut.

The economist proposed another option: use the money to buy back gas guzzlers and send them to the crushers.

That was then and this is now. The price of gas is now less than $2.50 a gallon. I paid $2.29 a gallon at the local Chevron on Saturday.

If the Verleger plan were in place, the tax revenues would be rolling in and we would be making the much needed changes in habits we were making in the spring.

The other change since the spring is that the economy is tanking, and the automobile industry is on the ropes. The Big Three, too long wedded to a gas-guzzler strategy, are about to go down for the count, taking thousands of jobs with them.

It’s pretty clear that Verleger had the right idea, but the new tax revenues need to be retargeted in these dire economic times.

The new Obama administration should use the money to subsidize 50 percent of the purchase price of all-electric cars. The provision would kick in in the fall of 2009, giving the auto industry time to retool.

Before the electric car subsidies kick in, the money should be used to modernize alternative forms of transportation, including metropolitan commuter rail and high-speed intercity Amtrak trains. Build sidewalks and bike lanes. Provide more incentives for transit-oriented commercial and housing development.

The resulting work would provide much needed jobs in the flagging economy. The promise of subsidized electric car purchases would force the American automobile industry to change and end its own axis of evil with the profiteering oil industry and the petro-fiefdoms in the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela.

There’d be an added benefit. The policy would indirectly cut into the flow of funds to radical Islamic terrorists who are sustained by Middle Eastern, oil-rich interests. Paying $4 a gallon at the pump, might even be seen as an act of patriotic sacrifice in a time of war.

We may be getting ahead of ourselves, but in the long term the policy might even allow us to trim defense spending and produce a peace dividend.

It all seems worth paying an extra $1.50 per gallon at the pump, at least until the emission-free cars powered by solar, tidal and wind generated electricity start rolling off the American production lines.

Then driving our new electric trucks and cars, we'd end our dependence on foreign oil, to cut off funds to terrorists, to turn back global warming and to rebuild our economy.

Sounds like a change we can believe in. What to you say, President Obama?

A "tetchy" letter from England

Richard Wood is an old friend of 40 years. He's also a Yorkshireman, which means he speaks his mind.

So it was that I opened my e-mail this morning to find this letter (below), which he himself describes as "tetchy."

You can sense his impatience (even anger) not only with America generally but with me in particular for my choice of subjects these past few days. He is accusing us of ignorant trivializing of this election's significance to the planet.

The rest of the world has about had it with the American electorate and this campaign. Richard doesn't even cite the worst of it. The attack ads, the voting machines that change your vote (go here), the voter suppression, the robo-calls, the transformation of politics into entertainment (Read "Amusing Ourselves to Death"), the racism, the hateful claques at the rallies.

There's a lot to get tetchy about.

Here is Richard's letter.

Are climate change, ecology, the environment, the immediate future of the physical planet itself issues at all with the American public?

In your three current posted stories - the disastrous local landslide, Cindy's dollars, and the debate by the would-be presidents, there is no hint of awareness that there are huge policy questions waiting to be answered.

The whole world is watching.

We don't care what the next president looks like, his sex appeal, whether he makes eye contact, how many zillion dollars his wife earns, how heroic or cowardly he was in Vietnam. We want to know if he is going to kick-start America's involvement in saving the planet. Does he (do you) make the link between natural disaster and climate change? Did a natural fault line create the landslide or was it the result of more than usually violent weather patterns? If the latter, are they related to what used to be called global warming?

Here in North Yorkshire we have had three successive relentlessly wet summers, as predicted by the climate change theorists. We have had massive flooding, with water pouring through the homes of thousands of people more than once each summer. Snow is a thing of the past. A whole generation of under-20s has grown up without ever seeing snow, in a county whose winters were once dominated by snow and ice.

There are climate change skeptics, but not many. Most people are now making uncomfortable shifts in the way they live, think and behave.

There are many, many great American scientists standing by for signals from the new American political leadership that the dark days of Bush ignorance are over, that your country is ready to play its part in combating man-induced climate change. You are the greatest users of non-renewable energy in the world. How willing is the new leadership going to be to wake the people up, get them started on massive changes in personal habits?

Does Obama mean what he says when he promises America will have cut off its dependence on Middle East oil within 10 years? Dare he and does he know how to go about this? What are his links with Al Gore; how prepared is he to listen to and learn from him?

Let's hear these questions asked loudly so that we know what these guys are truly made of.
Maybe the mesmerising line running across the TV screen during the next debate could reflect the responses of the political blog writers!

Speaking of Change

Change, a vital concept, is in danger of becoming a hollow gong in the 2008 political campaign.

Before the meaning is hammered out of it, it’s worth looking at what kind of changes we are talking about — and not talking about in 2008.

I’m thinking of three.

One is so obvious that no one states it outright.

After eight miserable years, at long last, we will be changing the government of this country. It can only be for the better. George W. Bush, certainly the worst president within living memory, can take his bubble world back to the Crawford ranch and practice pronouncing “nuclear.” Cheney can go quail hunting with sacrificial friends. The only change that won’t happen, and isn’t happening, is among the self-righteous, power-mad conservative elite who put these two in power. They are without shame.

That John McCain would stoop so low as to seek their support ought to be reason enough to ensure his defeat.

The second change is the one heralded by the Obama campaign slogan. If Obama makes it to the White House, which seems likely, we will have a president bred and imbued with an international world view. Other nations and peoples will no longer be seen as objects of exploitation. This nation's leadership and people will no longer see themselves as entitled and superior. Because of that change, we at last may shift our resources from bullying to building, both at home and abroad.

From such humility may emerge a new confidence in American ideals that are lived rather than ritually celebrated. No longer will our leaders trample on our rights while they mouth praise in pledges of allegiance from flag-draped podiums.

We may no longer merely hold these American truths to be self-evident; we may actually infuse our lives with them.

Imagine.

This election will go a long way to revealing to Americans what they are and have been from before the nation's founding — a multi-racial society. We may be able to free ourselves of the grip of what George Orwell called the “smelly little orthodoxies” and the hateful dogmas of zealots, sexists and bigots.

The change that is happening as I write this — as the votes in the “Potomac primaries” are counted — is the re-engagement of youth in politics. My great fear for several years has been that we have been losing an entire generation to a media fantasy world. Males in particular seemed at risk, and they may still be, as college admissions suggest. I’d like to know the demographics of the youth who are suddenly so engaged in this year’s campaign. Hillary Clinton may lose her race, but my guess is that this election is producing thousands of young Hillarys, who just so happen to be working for Barack Obama.

Those are the major changes that Obama ’s campaign signals.

Finally, there’s the change that no candidate seems willing to talk about in this election year. Al Gore might call it “inconvenient.” It is certainly inevitable. It is a change dictated by a planet in rapid flux. Humans call it “global warming,” but if the eons-old planet could speak, it would call it simply more “global changing.”

If we humans are to survive, we must change how we live. For Americans, it means rethinking our values, particularly our materialistic, consumptive values. Oil is not the only addiction we must beat. We are addicted to nationalism in an age of global communication and interdependency. We are addicted to individualism to the detriment of community and others in need. We are addicted to our own false sense of superiority both as human beings and as Americans.

If we and our fellow humans are to survive, we must change both radically and fast.

The times require a leader both willing and capable to inspire us to make these “inconvenient” changes.

A growing number of Americans are coming to believe that Barack Obama may be, just may be, that leader.