Living Large in Carson City: What’s a Liberal to do?

Posted on by technoscribe50: Gary Brady-Herndon

“Better to be afraid and prepared, than happy and dead.”
― Lenore Stutznegger

Writing about politics, the economy, or the state of American democracy is becoming increasingly hard. Doom and gloom permeates just about every news cycle. In 2022 the crossover into how we live our lives on a day-to-day basis is getting just as difficult. Wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, extreme flooding, and a plethora of other climate related events are pressing topics that cannot be ignored. Americans find that their lives are increasingly susceptible to the ravages of the bugaboo de jour that Mother Nature serves up on an endless cycle year after year. People are dying, losing their homes, and generally holding their breath in hopes that the next round of cataclysmic events doesn’t fall heavily on their doorsteps.

The time worn adage that the governments of the world have everything under control is all but laughable on its face. Since December of 2015 when 200 nations across the globe met in Paris to discuss what could be done to address climate change, most of the world breathed a sigh of relief thinking that, finally, something was being done to meet this challenge head on and make a difference. Or so the world thought.

The Paris Agreement did the best and the least it could do to appease all of the participating nations to get them to sign on to the document. Think, herding angry, wild and feral cats. The scenario is akin to walking into a darkened room to find a time bomb set to explode in 3 minutes. Diplomats and politicians too often think first about their country’s needs weighed against stymieing economic growth even if the topic is saving the world. The two are often contrary to sane or prudent actions. The Agreement did acknowledge that the burning of fossil fuels by humankind “as the primary engine of economic growth” had to come to an end for both the largest and smallest of countries. An article appearing in Time Magazine just after the signing of the Agreement laid our the basic parameters of the deal which was as vague as it was insufficient. The article stated:

“The deal requires any country that ratifies it to act to stem its greenhouse gas emissions in the coming century, with the goal of peaking greenhouse gas emissions “as soon as possible” and continuing the reductions as the century progresses. Countries will aim to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100 with an ideal target of keeping temperature rise below 1.5°C (2.7°F).” Time

At the time the Agreement was touted as a significant step in the long road to stemming the devastating tide of climate change across the world. The Agreement called for a two step verification process. First the signing of the document then the individual nation’s ratification of it. Not all the nations involved stayed the course and signed then ratified the Agreement. The United Nation’s website states, “. . . of those 197 signed, only 190 have ratified the Paris Agreement. (America was onboard under Barrack Obama until 2017 when Donald Trump began the process of withdrawing America’s support and left the Agreement in 2020. Once in office, Joe Biden signed an Executive Order to rejoin the Agreement.) The Agreement can be seen as a modest success after years of climate denial by nation’s across the world.” UN Paris Agreement

As would be expected, a majority of the delegate nations were somewhat pleased by the Agreement’s modest success. It addressed everything from greenhouse gases to transparency to as “John Coequyt, the Sierra Club’s director of federal and international climate campaigns, said the agreement included “all the core elements that the environmental community wanted.” Of course, there were also many naysayers. Some people thought the Agreement didn’t go far enough and more needed to be done. Then there are those like some of America’s conservatives who do not believe in the science behind climate change. Others like Friends of the Earth U.S. President Erich Pica said the agreement is “not a fair, just or science-based deal” because it fails to adequately address losses due to climate change in the most vulnerable countries. What to know . . .

Due to the unique structure of the Agreement, each country set their own goals in limiting the effects of climate change. Not every nation has met those goals. Still, most would agree that something being done is better than no progress at all. Right? The question is: are the goals being met enough to make a difference in the world by the end of the century? Everything said before comes down to this crucial question, and the answer lies within the realm of science and climatologists as it should be. This is where things get ugly.

The goal of eliminating worldwide greenhouse gases to ensure temperatures don’t rise above the 2°C (preferably 1.5°C) by 2021 was a compromise that nations of the world could sign off on in a show of solidarity. It’s an arbitrary goal hammered out during the Agreement that allowed attendees to agree to something acceptable without doing damage to the economies of both small and large governments. It was a noble gesture, and one that on the surface appeared to be a positive step in the fight to save the planet from devastating climate change. However, as in all things as important as fighting climate change, the devil is in the details.

On August 1, 2022, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published the findings of eleven scientific researchers from around the globe titled “Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios“. The paper states, “They propose a research agenda into the consequences of global warming, specifically the worst-case scenarios they claim have been understudied.” Worst case scenarios? Understudied? It appears that the Paris Agreement’s stated goals were less than comprehensive when it comes to the actual reality of what climate change could entail for the future of the world. Most people who take climate change seriously understand on some level that bad things will result from not stemming the effects of climate change. The findings of the eleven researchers move the ball down the field bypassing the head in the sand approach the world used to deny or playdown the effect of the changes that could occur.

The paper is chock full of data, suggested outcomes, and extensively sourced to back up the paper’s findings. Fundamentally, the researchers say that by studying the “worst case scenarios” it will better inform the world on the steps that have to be taken to really understand what has to be done, and done quickly to save the planet and humankind. The abstract to the paper states,

“The proposed agenda covers four main questions: 1) What is the potential for climate change to drive mass extinction events? 2) What are the mechanisms that could result in human mass mortality and morbidity? 3) What are human societies’ vulnerabilities to climate-triggered risk cascades, such as from conflict, political instability, and systemic financial risk? 4) How can these multiple strands of evidence—together with other global dangers—be usefully synthesized into an “integrated catastrophe assessment”?

The authors cite the Toronto Conference declaration in 1988 the effects of climate change are ‘”potentially second only to a global nuclear war”‘. Additionally, they note, the catastrophic effects of climate change are poorly understood and need more studies by the world’s scientific community. They also give evidence attributed to the Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that “quantitative” estimates placing the warming increase at 3 °C or above.” This flies in the face of the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C to 2°C global increase by 2100. However, the Paris base is not altogether a superfluous figure. The paper notes by understanding the cascading effects that occur between now and the turn of the century at the 1.5°C to 2°C global increase in warming will better inform scientists on what measures are necessary to undertake to face the potential for worldwide catastrophe. The paper notes that the Paris Agreement settled on the figures they did because ‘”the culture of climate science (is) to ‘err on the side of least drama, to not to be alarmists”‘.

The key take away here is the “cascading effects” that will occur between now and the end of the century. While it is noble of the nations to sign on to the Agreement and work to achieve the modest goal of not going beyond the 1.5°C to 2°C global increase, it doesn’t ameliorate the damage already done, nor does it stop the damage that will continue as the years go by. This is where the cascading effect comes into play. Wildfires, famine, conflicts that will surely come as sea levels rise and people move across borders into neighboring countries are only a few of the scenarios. The fact that climate change is occurring at an unprecedented rate should be enough to alarm even the most die-hard naysayers.

Honestly, the report is so filled with data this post cannot adequately sum up the depth of information included in the paper. The upshot one might take away from the report is nations of the world cannot become complacent of the very real danger that faces the earth by 2100. When the researchers write about “global catastrophic and decimation risks” or “extinction threat”, they are not employing scare tactics. They are merely pointing out that many of the terms associated with global warming are not clearly understood and require further extensive research to help leaders and scientists to understand the dire consequences of not immediately confronting the future outcomes that the world’s societies will face down the road.

While this report is not “light reading”, the information is presented in a way that anyone can understand the findings they report in the paper. Please go to Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios and see for yourself.

Living Large in Carson City: What’s a Liberal to do?

Posted on by technoscribe50: Gary Brady-Herndon

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. Cicero

Okay, okay, okay . . . let me see if I have this straight. After six years of lies, grift, outright fraud, politically embarrassing moments at home and abroad, Donald Trump left the White House with a butt load of classified documents that have now been seized, and the man is still walking around freely? It is a telling sign that no one on either side of the political spectrum hasn’t come forth to say, “Hey, wait a minute. This guy should be in jail.” Alas, no one has the moral fortitude, it seems, to do that in today’s American clown car of a shit storm that passes for a normal day in the nation.  

Okay, granted, Trump’s past transgressions were over the top, but he is not being held responsible for many of his crimes, if not thrown into a deep dark hole any time soon. The renown “I grab ’em by the pussies” charmer extraordinaire has literally turned our democracy on its head, fomented an insurrection, talked crap ninety miles an hour about friend and foe, and it’s taken him absconding with boxes of classified material to be brought to heel by Merrick Garland – to achieve – what? And why now? For Christ’s sake, the man has two impeachment trials under his belt, a slew of sexual harassment suits by women he abused and has tried to grasp power from every source he encountered. Hell, he even had Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak (read: spy operatives) into the Oval Office early on in his tenure as president where he revealed top secret information about a proposed U.S. Islamic State operation while bad mouthing then director of the FBI, James Comey, who he had just fired. The man is a walking criminal enterprise even the most cruel and despotic Mafia boss would swoon over just thinking about the grift dripping off Trump’s orange bouffant.

There has been much talk about who helped him get the boxes packed, loaded, and shipped to Mar-a-Lago to simmer out of sight in some squalid little rathole. Who cares? Find out all involved and charge them with whatever broken laws will put them into jail for the longest duration of time. Let’s see Trump handcuffed and shackled then perp walked out of his golden bathroom and led to a squad car with a banner flying from the antenna “I broke the law and now I have to face the consequences”. For all of Garland’s “No man is above the law” rhetoric, I fear it will be a long time coming when something of this nature actually transpires.

While law enforcement is at it, why not crack down on Trump’s enablers in Congress. Actually, it is hard to know which Republicans are not up to their eyeballs in planning the insurrection and the ongoing coup attempt facing the nation at this moment. It would do no good at this point to engage in name calling, but I’ll do it anyway. The Jordan, Cruz, Loopy Louie, Trump Jr, Ivanka, Eric, and that little simp, Jared Kushner, are all implicated in the most egregious onslaught on the American experiment in democracy that has ever occurred. Whose great idea was it to allow people in public life to ignore subpoenas passed out by Congress, simply to circumvent legal responsibility for their actions? I don’t give a damn if they don’t agree with the subpoenas levied against them. In the real world where you and I live, ignore a lawfully handed down call to appear before a legitimate court or government committee, and BAM! our asses would be in jail. These idiots believe they are above the law and delight in making a mockery of our judicial system. To paraphrase a saying from the Orange One, “Lock ‘em up!”  

Several news pundits have come to the forgone conclusion that Trump is not a “literate” man and that (to put it kindly), not really interested in anything that doesn’t shine a golden light on him personally. Forget the kids. Forget the enablers. Forget Melania (or whatever her name is). If it doesn’t feed his huge narcissistic ego, it doesn’t matter. And all the time this wicked little scenario called Trump’s presidency is still unfolding; he is raking in millions of dollars off of a situation he created by breaking the law, and there is no end in sight. The idea he might run again for the presidency is frightening when one considers he might win. Let’s face it; Republicans and extreme conservatives have shown clearly they don’t respect the will of the people, the rule of law, but support questionable precedents set down by the Supreme Court that fly in the face of the Constitution and common sense. These people are playing hardball, and as a country, Americans need to face the harrowing truth that unless they are stood up to in a real and meaningful way, we are screwed as a nation.

There is little doubt Trump is guilty of a lot. The 500-pound gorilla in the room is whether the select committee and/or the Georgia grand jury findings in election tampering will end up in an indictment of the former president. While seeing Trump hauled into a courtroom to face his crimes and punishment, all of the hopes and dreams of justice may not matter in the end. There is a term called Public Peace that will surely be bandied about in the future when dealing with a Trump indictment. In this case the term means simply that there are issues that override commonly accepted judicial practices when it comes to preserving the peace between two rival factions on the national stage. This is especially true when one faction claims special interest in the outcome of the debate. For example, think of how the MAGA faction would react to having Trump face indictment, conviction, and possible incarceration for his crimes. Many Trump supporters are already bringing up the Civil War card if such events transpire. What would Joe Biden do to ensure the peace and stability of the union?

Harlan Ullman is senior adviser at Washington’s Atlantic Council. He addressed this possibility in an column recently titled “If Donald Trump were convicted, Joe Biden would have to consider a pardon”. It should be noted this is not the first time a president pardoned someone to preserve the Public Peace. The first time came at the end of the Whiskey Rebellion when two farmers were convicted and sentenced to hang for their their rebellious acts. Washington justified his decision to pardon the men citing the public peace demanded that tempers be cooled, and peace allowed to return. Ford pardoned Nixon to ensure public peace reigned. Bill Clinton got a slap on the wrist for his sexual escapades and was allowed to complete his term in office. Both Nixon and Clinton presumably where to withdraw from politics and keep a low profile. Of course, their actions over the years proved differently, but the Public Peace was secured at the flash point created by both men’s actions.

In his column Ulman suggests that most Americans do not realize just how incendiary the findings of the January 6 committee might be, and the impact that it will have on both sides of the political spectrum. The Democrats will want blood while the conservative supporters of the president (MAGA and others) will topple off of the already precarious ledge where they reside built on lies, white nationalism, whataboutism, and white privilege. The result will be a country in tinderbox mode waiting for the first errant spark to explode into chaos.

Obviously, the Public Peace will take a direct hit in the shorts and lay whimpering in the gutter where many on the right want it to be already. The old adage “Might makes Right” lies at the kernel of their thinking. It isn’t clear that the firebrands leading this movement have the ability to instill the same fervor into their followers, especially when bullets start flying and casualties start adding up. Make no mistake, there will be casualties should the Department of Justice and state courts indict and convict Trump and his minions. Of course, our democracy will not be able to withstand the proven lawlessness of Donald Trump if it goes unpunished. The question is will Biden decide in the name of Public Peace that a pardon is in order and allow Trump to go free to continue his crazy antics at the expense of democracy. Or will we have the inevitable reckoning that is required to sustain and protect the Republic against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

Living Large in Carson City: What’s a Liberal to do?

Posted on by technoscribe50: Gary Brady-Herndon

The mind of America is seized by a fatal dry rot – and it’s only a question of time before all that the mind controls will run amuck in a frenzy of stupid, impotent fear. Hunter S. Thompson

Is there anyone in the United States who can say with a straight face that the old adage, “. . . going to hell in a handbasket” doesn’t apply to the nation’s current zeitgeist? In today’s climate of snark, vitriol, and pandering to the extreme segments of society, it would be well to remember where the term supposedly originated. “The origin of the phrase ‘hell in a handbasket’ can be found in the practice of capturing the heads of guillotine victims in a basket, with the presumption being that these criminals would be going straight to hell for their crimes.” Harsh words, but realistically in light of the state of American democracy, who can deny it?

In the last decade, along with the respect for fellow citizens, the reins of government slipped from the hands of legislators, judges, and the president into the hands of those who would steer the country to achieve their own personal agendas. In a recent commentary posted on the political blog Rawstory.com, noted political pundit, Thom Hartmann, opens his article stating, “Now it’s official. Twenty-seven men run this country.” Hartmann rightfully points the finger at the boneheaded move by the Supreme Court a decade ago that gave legal status to Citizen’s United. The decision literally allowed unrestricted dark money from corporations and individuals to funnel cash into the political arena.

The result is seen in the partisanship that grips the three bodies of government. Where there once was a chance of bipartisan cooperation across the aisles of Congress, those days are long gone. Rabid partisanship is the rule not the exception. Extreme conservatism and unbridled liberalism butt heads on a daily basis. Those caught in the middle, vote not their conscious, but line up like sheep to support the political party who put them in a position of power. Courts are packed with judges who feel legislating from the bench is their right, regardless of what the Constitution says or intended by the Founding Fathers. The presidency is little more than a glorified empty seat of power. Presidents are no longer respected, but ridiculed, reviled, and hated by the opposition party both at home and abroad.

It is little wonder that the mood of the country reflects this contentious climate in towns and cities across the nation. America is more polarized now than at any time since the Civil War. Local city council and school board meetings are ground zero battlegrounds pitting citizens against one another on topics ranging from religion, gender issues, civil rights, and how and what students read or are taught in the classroom. Issues that once lounged in the shadow of the Constitution’s protection are now flashpoints that pit neighbors, friends, and families against one another with victory at any cost the only acceptable outcome.

Both on the national and local levels, vitriol that takes the form of personal attacks is all too common. Shaming one’s opponents is the tool often used in today’s climate of discord. No one should be surprised by this turn of events. Shaming has a long and unhealthy place in America’s history books. Like many forms of control, shaming others is often the bailiwick of those in power whether it be politically, economically, or socially. From debtor’s prisons to the stocks on public squares to dunce caps in schools, America used shame as a corrective tool against those opposed to the goals of the powerful. Today is no different. While a crude and unflattering example of humankind’s insensitivity, shaming is an effective and efficient manner of alienating blocks of people who do not fit into the expectations of what the powerful want curtailed or controlled.

Shaming is tied to fear and guilt. White Nationalists fear losing their place in America’s rapidly changing demographics which places their position of authority in numbers at risk. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood this when he stated, “The soft-minded man always fears change. He feels security in the status quo, and he has an almost morbid fear of the new. For him, the greatest pain is the pain of a new idea.” King’s words play out time after time when Donald Trump holds a rally. His Make America Great Again (MAGA) campaign is at its roots nothing less than a call to arms of those who identify with his belief that those who oppose him are worthy of nothing less than shame and condemnation. The MAGA phenomenon as crude and unseemly as it is, at its core, is understandable on some levels. These are frightened people unsure of their place in an ever-evolving society. They point fingers and condemn those who would work for change and social justice.

While they could be seen as pitiable on some level, in Trump, they found a sounding board that plays into their false beliefs and supports the fear of victimhood that permeates the movement. They are literally held up as the true America by Trump’s rhetoric and feed on a steady diet of claims like the Democrats are a combination of socialist, Antifa radicals, pedophile devils, and malcontents who are attacking the very foundation the America they believe they are protecting. The sheer hyperbole of these beliefs is reason enough to question the motives and connection to realty that the MAGA supporters harbor. Regardless, they feel justified in finger pointing to assuage their sense of persecution and estrangement from an increasingly fragmented American society. They think they are being shut out of the national dialogue conveniently overlooking their pro-violence, white supremist, and fascist/authoritarian mindsets which goes contrary to the Constitution and American civility.

When trying to understand the roots of the current climate of shame afoot in American society, MAGA supporters are the go-to low hanging fruit of those who would use shame as a tool to ridicule opponents. Their acts to preserve their place in American society are often deadly comical and certainly contrary to democratic thinking. Yet, they are widely seen as the torch bearers from everything from Stop the Steal to the January 6 insurrection played out on the grounds of the national capital. In a opinion piece published by Salon, Michael Gueldry writes of the roots of the MAGA movement stating:

“What we might call the Great Demolition plot includes establishing a corporate oligarchy, a neo-feudalist regime based on long-term minoritarian rule and a malevolent pseudo-Christian theocracy undergirded by state thuggery and social authoritarianism, all of it infused with an incoherent ideological blend of anarchic libertarianism (on guns and most forms of regulation) and fascistic nightmare (white supremacy, antisemitism and numerous grades of conspiracy theory). Salon

As stated above, MAGA followers are the low hanging fruit, simply because the amount of press they receive from conservative media outlets and from politicians trying to appease the former guy in hope of winning his backing. The truth is there is more than enough to blame in the dumbing down and caustic atmosphere that grips the nation. Liberal and conservative Democrats deserve just as much blame in fanning the fires of dissension as their conservative and radical Republican counterparts. To heal this rift in American politics and society, the tenor of our national debates must evolve to a more civil and constructive discourse in which Americans discuss the big issues that affect daily life. In today’s contentious climate of accusations and counter accusations from all sides, the outlook can only be seen as bleak and depressing at best.

, , , , ,