A Little TV or a Misapplication of the Principle of Charity

As I finished dinner and sipped my coffee, I flipped the dial of the TV. Actually, I played with my TV remote, and found myself watching as I often do, Rachel Maddow. Just another night of TV, yet tonight, I found it somehow revealing. (I actually began writing this Thursday, August 29th)

Again, Rachel Maddow, as do all TV commentators, was attempting to make sense of what is happening in the world today, specifically, what the Trump Administration is attempting to do and why. All very fascinating, and yes a very much in-vogue hobby for many. Tonight, however, was more than that. Tonight, I had a glimpse of what drives the various stories reported on.

When I say I glimpsed something, what I am suggesting is that  I grasped briefly a thought process that could allow one to act in the ways the Trump Administration does. Now much of what the Trump Administration does is driven by business interests. They acknowledged that from the start. From their first days in office they held that business interests have been ignored and treated unfairly, and that their administration is changing this.

Protecting business interest is one of their primary concerns. That concern is not what I glimpsed tonight. That concern is not what I want to point to here. What I saw is a complementary belief. Perhaps it facilitates, and allows for that interest in business. In short, what I saw was a view of the world and of ourselves that basically condones or even promotes the pursuit of business. Perhaps, it was almost an an epistemic offering, but now I am stretching. I would argue though that a philosophical point can be inferred from what was glimpsed, entailing moral, ethical and epistemic positions. That is what I want to explore here or at least hint at.

Going back for a moment to what was on the TV, to what Maddow was reporting; it was basically was three stories. The first being the Administration's announced plan to rollback regulations relating to methane released in fracking. Number two was the opening of Alaska's Tongass National Forest to mining, logging and oil drilling, And the third is Maria Isabel Bueso.

The first is simply the elimination of regulations regarding the release of Methane. Methane must be dealt with in fracking and the drilling for natural gas. Today, the methane release, like much of the fracking process is regulated. Today, you cannot just release it into the atmosphere. It contributes to global warming. It is a pollutant. The release of methane into the atmosphere is not a good thing. Regardless, with the elimination of regulations regarding its release, natural gas producers will not have to ponder such.

The second involves the Tongass National Forest. The President has requested his Agriculture Secretary open large parts of the 16.7-million acre forest up to logging, oil drilling, and mining. For those who believe in global warming that is controversial and dangerous. Logging and drilling for oil in such a place is simply upsetting. It is simply a pristine wilderness whose beauty demands that we leave it untouched.

Lastly, there is Maria Isabel Bueso, a young woman who since birth has suffered from a disfiguring genetic disease. At the age of seven she was invited by medical researchers to join a clinical trial in the US. She is originally from Guatemala. Today, Maria is in her twenties and considers going to grad school. The trials she participated in were a success. She continues to live, but needs routine treatment for the disease. Treatment is still only available in the US. Guatemala does have such medical offerings today.

Despite this fact, the Trump Administration informed her recently that she must leave the country or be deported. And apparently she is not the only one with such a life threatening illness, who has been asked to leave the US and return to their country of origin. Regardless of their health conditions and the lack of treatment available to them in their countries. Basically people with life threatening illnesses who have only found treatments in the US are now being asked to leave the US. Basically, being asked to die?

So, we are left with this unsettling question of how the Trump Administration can act in such ways. How can they disregard the cost and damage caused by methane? How can they suggest the destruction of a National forest? How can they send a young woman to her death?

And that is my intent here - to better understand how one can arrive at such actions. The profit motive and the protection of American lives and American interests can only go so far. And I want to believe it is really not stupidity, greed or racial animus that drives any of these. There is I believe something more.

As I said, I saw or heard a glimpse of something that I believe could hold the key to my question, and to the answer I search for.  Maddow's show started with a reference to when Dick Cheney shot a man, accidentally, while quail hunting. That happened back in 2006. It happened on the Armstrong Ranch in TX. It is a ranch owned by the Armstrong family, which is integral to Republican politics in TX.

That influence can be seen today in the fact that Anne Idsal, who hails from the Armstrong family, will possibly become responsible for Clean Air policy enforcement at the EPA. This is despite the fact that she has little knowledge of environmental issues much less any scientific background relating to such. She is a political appointee. I am not wanting to challenge such things. Granted her family's history it is to be expected.

What I am intrigued with is a quote from her during the course of an interview, which Maddow proceeded to play and repeat at least once. It is this quote that drives this essay, and offers a view of something more.

“I think it’s possible that humans have some type of impact on climate change,” she said. “I just don’t know the extent of that.” (I found the quote in Grist.org. I believe it is the same one as Rachel offered up. And I must confess I never heard of grist.org before)

We hear such claims routinely from conservative pundits, politicians, and so forth. It is this quote, however, that I want to look at. It is this quote that allows us see what justifies the destruction of massive forests, the release of toxins into our environment, and even the death of a young women. Perhaps it does not justify such actions, but it can reveal a thought process that brings you to such actions. I want to forget the various political intrigues and focus on that one quote and where it leads.

In short, what I try to do here is embrace what I call the "principle of charity". Whether you read Augustine, Alfred Tarski, Donald Davidson, or even Richard Rorty, you encounter it. I find hints of in Aristotle. In a nut shell, the principle of charity asserts that to interpret another's sentence or belief which we do not understand requires us to consider their other utterances and beliefs, many of which they share with us. Through such an exercise we often can make sense of something we at first did not grasp.

Now the ideal is to converse with the individual. This is perhaps the method of an anthropologist. This method is, however, time consuming and requires the other person be willing to engage. If that person is missing or you simply have no time, then you infer. You assume they share a great deal of your beliefs and infer their motives from what you believe.

This is a much more tenuous game. We do it all the time, and in some cases it works, others not. The phrase, "They all but said it." entails such a process. In a court of law, such a suggestion would be seen as circumstantial. Are there things that only the murderer can know? Such things make for a good crime drama. When trying to make sense of others and what they believe and what they actually mean when they speak or act, inference from our own beliefs is often all we got. Yet, it is still tenuous.

When we consider the above, regarding the sentence "“I think it’s possible that humans have some type of impact on climate change,” she said. “I just don’t know the extent of that.” offered up by a person who just became responsible for the administration of a key EPA office, you start with just understanding the role and function of the EPA. The EPA is the nexus of science, regulation, business, industry, and local communities. All of these converge at the EPA.

The EPA is basically responsible for the enforcement of  environmental law in the US. Further, the Supreme Court over ten years ago asserted that the Clean Air Act was broad enough to entail global warming and that emissions of green house gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are pollutants that should be properly regulated by the EPA, That decision has survived several challenges. It seems from those court decisions that global warming, regardless of the actual scientific case for global warming, has been largely settled in the US.

We go from that legal position offered up by the US Supreme Court, to the scientific data, which has been coming in for the last fifty years. It continues to come in, and from a range of scientific sources and domains. All of it basically reinforcing and confirming the theory that the planet is warming and that this is a man-made phenomena. The theory of global warming appears to be true.

From these two considerations, you wonder how it is that a person that is uncertain about the role of human activity in global warming came to be responsible for EPA enforcement efforts. The tension here is obvious. To make such an assertion required that she ignore decisions by the US Supreme Court and 50 years of science. She is still uncertain regarding whether human activity plays a role in such.

My question again is how does one not only ignore such but get such a job despite such beliefs? The expectation is that a person employed by the EPA would acknowledge decisions of the US Supreme Court. Likewise, considering the technical and scientific nature of the EPA, they would respect the scientific data indicating that global warming is a man-made phenomena.

Today, however, Anne Idsal is a Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator of the EPA. So if we want to make sense of this we need to review our assumptions. Typically, most stop here. We just encounter such instances and we stop and we shake our heads and do not know how to proceed. How do we deal with the nonsensical?

Pat Travers of guitar playing fame, however, encourages us to go on. He offers up in his song that we stop, and we smile, and we try it again.

So again, we look at the assertion. We again consider that despite ignoring precedents established by the US Supreme Court and likewise what the scientific data embraced by the court and the EPA, she has a key position in the organization. How? Again, it is not due to stupidity, It is not from a pure obsession for profit. It is something more. If not these, then what?

Now I had introduced the "principle of charity" earlier. It was in part through an application of it that I raised the issue of US law and scientific research. These are just two basic elements commonly associated with the EPA, Yes, it is typically accepted as fact that the EPA is derived from US law and science. What I want to stress here is not that this is fact, however, but rather that these are commonly held beliefs that are held to be fact. They are facts that most believe. The goal here is to not understand facts, but rather to understand the belief system of one who does not subscribe to such beliefs and who does not see them as facts.

And that is the next piece of this puzzle. A person who makes such a claim who is in such a position at the EPA  probably does not hold the above assertions to be true. They probably do not hold to be true that the EPA enforces the law of the land regarding environmental issues. Further, they do not hold as true that the Supreme Court has ruled that global warming falls under the Clean Air Act. Likewise, a person in such a role at the EPA who makes such claims probably does not hold science to be true. At the very least they have doubts about all of the  above.

This is a common theme in the principle of charity literature, certainly that is the case for Donald Davidson. To determine what another believes is to determine what they hold to be true. To believe something is to hold it as true. Further, the large set of truths that we can agree upon culminates in a shared language. All those little phrases that we use to navigate everyday life are held to be true, and they are for the most part shared. Truths such as fire is hot and ice is cold, or that the night is dark and the day is light. It is from such basics that we start. We proceed from what is seen as the common or the obvious to those sentences that do challenge, where there is disagreement. That is the thought.

So from a comment regarding uncertainty regarding human involvement in global warming coming from a senior official at the EPA, I arrive at the following: That such a comment from such a person probably entails skepticism regarding the science of global warming. Further, that person is probably likewise skeptical regarding the role of the EPA in the enforcement of environmental law. Lastly, they are skeptical of the EPA being responsible for the Clean Air Act, relating to domains relevant to global warming. They do not affirm such things as true.

Now let us be fair here. We know much of these talking points already. If she were pushed she probably would concede that the EPA is responsible for environmental law including the Clean Air Act. She may even concede that the Clean Air Act today is seen as legally relevant to responding to global warming, just that the science is not completely in on that. She would concede that the Supreme Court has ruled on this but perhaps prematurely. She again can stress here that we really do not know. Skepticism provides some space for such. Despite fifty years of research.

We are with our skepticism introducing a range, or a continuum of options. Despite her inability to say such things are true, she is likewise unable to say they are false. So I would like to go a step further. Imagine replacing truth and falsity with a numeric scale. 0 being false and 1 being true. We now have a range of decimal values as opposed to either a 0 or 1, including .25 or .5 or even .8.  The closer to 1 we get, the more certain we are that it is true. Those that we are more skeptical of are closer to 0.

I offer the above scheme only to illustrate that we value some sentences more than we do others, and perhaps likewise are more certain about them. We are more committed to those we value and believe to be true. Likewise if we are skeptical we are less committed. No doubt truth is probably not the only way to value a sentence but the point perhaps is that certain sentences and beliefs are more highly valued than others. Further, the tension or conflict comes not from the belief or sentence, but the value placed in the belief or sentence.

We have already surmised that she is skeptical of the Supreme Court and scientific research in relation to global warming. With a set of values it is now feasible that though she does not grant truth she is not ruling them false. Rather she just lowers their value in relation to other beliefs that she values more. She holds them as closer to truth than the others. The things we say and believe betray our values.

The game now truly becomes one of speculation. Again, we are trying to understand what allows for people to eliminate methane regulations, destroy pristine forests, and force people out of the country who due to that order, will most likely die. Why engage in such actions? What values drives such actions?

Up to this point we have been exploring the language and perhaps the beliefs of Anne Idsal, one EPA Administrator. Let us agree this is not about Ms Idsal. Not at all about her really. I used her one comment and her position at the EPA to arrive at the point that someone like her who has such a position who makes such comments probably does not value certain findings in science, nor certain Supreme Court rulings. Nor, ultimately certain policies at the EPA.

We now must broaden our scope. If not Ms Idsal, then who? Now it does not have to be someone from the EPA. Yes the EPA is responsible for the regulations regarding methane releases in fracking, but they are not responsible for Alaska's Tongass National Forest. The agency responsible for the Tongass is the USDA. and likewise, neither the EPA nor the USDA are responsible for the removal of Maria Isabel Bueso. That is the domain of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. So this is not a particular policy unique to a particular agency or group.

Rather, we are looking for something that cuts across these domains. A set of beliefs that informs decisions in each of these agencies and domains. We assume a certain coherence or continuity among the various agencies making up the administration. They are all part of one government. They are all actions of one administration.

Ultimately, these become not issues of a particular agency, but political positions of a particular administration and President. The earlier numeric value relating to each sentences's truth now becomes a set of values, largely but not exclusively political values. And they are not only the values of a particular President and his administration. They are the values and beliefs of the people who voted for him. The question now becomes: How do we determine these values from one statement regarding the role of science and the Supreme Court in relation to global warming along with the above actions that we have listed multiple times now?

The proper way is to dialogue. Engage. That is the ideal. As this is a hypothetical, a fiction, we will simply infer from my own beliefs assuming that many of these are shared.

What I arrive at is a dismissal of science regarding global warming. A dismissal of scientists and researchers as they too have an agenda. Their research is not to discover truth, but to maintain a career, a livelihood. Such beliefs regarding the work of scientists and researchers certainly can lead to skepticism regarding their work. It seems sufficient to not grant truth. Such skepticism allows us to ignore their concerns regarding methane. It allows us to not be concerned with the lose of such a forest. The destruction of such a forest becomes only an unfortunate aesthetic issue.

Further there is the issue of profit, of capitalism. . . greed, what we pointed to at the beginning. To discount such science does allow us as a nation to thrive. To not have to be concerned with such research and scientific concerns allows us to focus on those things that simply bring a better return. To frack for natural gas and log trees just has much more concrete visible returns versus the returns of limiting methane or protecting distant forests.

Further, our businesses, our nation, our communities thrive in the harvesting of natural gas and the mining of minerals. Such allows for out nation, our communities, our families to continue. Likewise, science and research offer no alternative. They only warn us of long-term consequences. They provide us with no alternative method of survival much less growth.

There is something to the idea of nation, community, and family working towards common goals here. Coworkers, business partners, vendors, family are all tied together in these ventures. And science does challenge or even threatens all of that. It challenges that whole web of belief. In the regulation of methane and its protection of forests, science limits and does harm to our economic system. It does harm to our communities.

Again, science offers nothing of value. It simply limits and curtails our actions, and we are uncertain as to why. It says nothing regarding actual long-term goals such as the raising and providing for children. On such topics, science and researchers are mute. It regulates methane and denies us access to a forest. Nothing more. It does not calculate the actual cost of such.

So yes these actions, at least the elimination of methane regulation and the embrace of logging and mining in a large pristine forest is driven by the profit motive but let us be clear, this also entails thriving communities, personal achievement, and simply accomplishing life's dreams. To simply say profit driven is to abstract away from the benefits of and reason for profit. And such activities, as logging, mining, oil drilling have been engaged in for a long time. All have histories and all have thrived in the US. They are largely what put us on the map.

So, some sense can be made of such beliefs, yes?

Which leaves us with the deportation of a very sick young woman who can only get treatment in the US. Her removal does not build community, nor provide us with personal achievement. There is no profit to be lost. So what value is there in such an action? She could be a cost. She could be taking a bed from an American child. She in fact is not as she is participating in clinical trials involving an extremely rare disease. The researchers have covered all of her cost so as to have her available for the research. Without her, this research could not be done. All is paid for.

Regardless, the perception is there. A deathly ill child from from Guatemala, brought to America to save her. Why do we have to rescue deathly ill children from elsewhere? There are deathly ill children right here in the US. True.

Regardless, are we really ready to deport her to her likely death? Is this who we have become? So we have some glimpse of this, but not the depth of it. Are we ready to kill for this? Or did we just not realize the consequent of removal? Maybe we just did not think this through?

Is it possible that this is in fact a message to the scientists and researchers, and those who support such,"Screw your research. We do not need to go out and cure each and every rare illness out there. We can't and we won't." Is that what is being said here?

In short, the removal and possible death is not only another removal of an immigrant, but it is also a repudiation of science. It is basically saying,"We do not care. We do not really need this."

Science, reason, the deep state. . . big government. All are not needed. With their fear and worries regarding methane and their desire to preserve every forests and rescue every sick child, they destroy our communities, our way of life, who we are and what we do. And all of it is at the cost of the American people. In the process of regulating methane, and preserving trees, we lose our jobs, our livelihoods, and squander our fortune, our wealth. Perhaps it is from sentiments such as these that we arrive at a willingness to allow a young woman to die? That is where I arrive.

Anyway, all of this from a few words, a sentence, perhaps two, and an application of the principle of charity. Perhaps more an abuse of that principle, but with it, we still arrive here. We arrive at the conclusion that the actions we are trying to understand originate from a sense of community, a feeling of betrayal by government, and science. There is a frustration regarding what is regulated, what is put off limits, and what we are attempting to achieve. All of which comes at a cost to us. And that costs until now has been ignored. And for what? What is the goal? In short, why do we need regulation, the preservation of forests, and cure all diseases, if the last can even be done? It all defies common sense.

One Take on the President's July 8th Speech on the Environment. . .

The Yonkers Power Plant, a work in progress again. 

Earlier this month, on Monday, July 8^th, the President offered up a speech highlighting his administration's environmental policy. What follows is a look at some of the key themes and the policies highlighted in that speech.

The President started with two basic points, two basic goals of his administration:

The first is to ensure that America has the cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet. And number two - that you can achieve these while growing the economy. He stressed that the two are not mutually exclusive as previous administrations have suggested.

What followed in the speech was a detailing of policies his administration has embraced to achieve and maintain clean air and clean water. Likewise he touched upon his administration's management of public lands, the cleanup of super-fund sites, forestry, and the embrace of innovation and new technologies.

So let's run through some of this list, some of the policies he has embraced. We will start with the clean air and the water he emphasized and then following the speech also comment on the clean up of Superfund and brownfield sites, and the management of public lands. I will then explore some areas that were not touched upon in the speech, but that do demand some attention.

He begins with water, asserting that “today, the United States is ranked — listen to this — number one in the world for access to clean drinking water — ranked number one in the world.” That is obviously not quite true. If you go to The Global Open Data Index, they have collected the data from governments across the globe and they arrive at the conclusion that we get an 85% and are tied for second place along with seven other countries. Exaggeration is a common theme in this speech, which really should not be a surprise. And regardless, 85% and being tied for second is pretty good for a country that entails the better part of a continent and 330+ million people. I guess the point is that at 85% there is room for improvement.

Another statistic that he discusses early on is the cost of electricity. This highlights his concern for both a good economy and environment, and his assertion that they are not mutually exclusive. He points out that the price of electricity is far lower today in the US both historically and in comparison to other countries.

“Other countries -- their pricing on electricity is so high, not even to be affordable. At our level, we are doing numbers that nobody has seen before. Nobody believes what we're doing and what we're producing electricity and other things for. Punishing Americans is never the right way to produce a better environment or a better economy.”

Again, if you do a quick search on the web you realize we are not the cheapest. China and India are both at 8 cents per kilowatt hour, Canada and Mexico are both at 10 cents. The US is at 12 cents. Still relatively cheap as compared to Denmark, Germany and Spain which are somewhere between 30 and 40 cents per kilowatt hour. These number were courtesy of OVO Energy and there are other sources. The point is that we are being provided with information regarding clean water and electricity that is less than true. If you truly value clean air, clean water and the cost of electricity, I would have to believe we would want an accurate view of where we stand regarding them. It simply goes to credibility.

The same situation regarding air pollution. The President asserted at one point that “air pollution -- particulate matter -- is six times lower here than the global average.” I searched various databases and we like most industrial nations have improved the situation since 1970. Things have improved. We are again not the best. We are pulling B's, maybe even B+'s.

The concerning thing regarding these instances is that this is the President of the United States making these claims at the beginning of a speech detailing his administration's accomplishments regarding the environment. They basically introduce and frame the topics covered in the speech, and they are simply not true. Yet, many people will simply take them as true, as fact, because the President made the claims. One could innocently believe that the President would not lie or make up things in a major speech.

Regardless, we do know just from their introduction, true or false, that the President believes that the two most important pieces of our environmental policy involve the quality of our air and our water. Further, he believes that these two must not be achieved at the cost of the economy. Not only that but he believes that good environmental policy and good economic policy are not antithetical, that they are not mutually exclusive. Of course the flaws of what he initially presented haunt us here. Upon what are we to judge his claims regarding the relationship of the economy and the environment?

Let us stop beating a dead horse and grant that he has simply exaggerated the claims. If we do not grant this, then we might as well stop here and call it a day – why consider a speech that is based upon false premises, aside from it being offered by the President of the US. Let us grant that though we are not the best in any of these categories, the numbers regarding the environment of the US and likewise the pricing of our electricity are satisfactory. All indicate that we are more than in the game and that improvements have been made, and that there is more work to be done.

Now before going into the area and policies he wants to highlight, let me point to another area of interest – Global Warming. I bring it up because he does. He does not name it but he does allude to it. The term is not referenced anywhere in the speech. Yet in his introductory comments regarding air pollution he points out that “ Since 2000, our nation's energy-related carbon emissions have declined more than any other country on Earth. Think of that. Emissions are projected to drop in 2019 and 2020. “

He continues “Every single one of the signatories to the Paris Climate Accord lags behind America in overall emissions reductions. Who would think that is possible? For this reason, in my first year in office, I withdrew the United States from the unfair, ineffective, and very, very expensive Paris Climate Accord. Thank you.”

The President told us above that the core of his environmental policy was clean air and water. That and making sure that policies regarding these do not harm the economy. There was no reference to global warming yet it is largely in the debate and science of global warming that carbon emissions are relevant. I am not sure why he introduced this data point. His speech ignores global warming. Why bring up a data point regarding that which you do not believe exists and that you are not talking about?

Perhaps he was saying in short that we have done enough? Even without trying, we have exceeded all others, so we left the Paris Climate Accord, Perhaps that was his point? Onto the next subject.

He returns to his theme of the balance or the dance of the environment and the economy. He talks of his new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, (the USMCA). He highlights that there is a provision in that agreement regarding clean up of plastic waste in the oceans. He talks of having “refocused the EPA back on its core mission, and, last year, the agency completed more Superfund hazardous waste clean-ups than any year of the previous administrations and set records in almost every year.” He references Super-fund clean ups in Michigan and Missouri.

He continues on this theme mentioning that “we've also directed $65 million in brownfield grants to clean up even more contaminated sites in 149 American communities. Think of that -- the vast majority home to lower-income citizens.” What is that actually saying though when you consider that the agency currently has 13,758 employees, versus the 17,359 employees it had during the first term of President Obama. The agency is now at, according to The Washington Post, the lowest number of employees since 1987. 

In short, it seems that the EPA is doing more with less people? That is a good thing, right? Perhaps. The question becomes, are the standards, which historically slowed the clean-up process down at the EPA, now being embraced at all? Can the EPA actually navigate the challenges of such cleanups done properly with the staff cuts they have embraced? Can we do what is required to insure that these lands and waterways are now clean or are we simply writing checks to now facilitate us building on, living in, and working on contaminated sites? Sites that continue to pollute our water? Meanwhile, in the speech he boasts that the vast majority of the sites they are cleaning up are in proximity to lower-income citizens. It is no doubt a good thing that these sites are being addressed, but it is an open question whether the methodology and the solution applied are sufficient. Only time will tell.

From Superfund and brownfield cleanups, which hopefully will improve the quality of our water the President goes to his signing America's Water Infrastructure Act. A law he describes as supporting American drinking water infrastructure and other critical projects. It is an infrastructure bill focusing on dams, levees, reservoirs, pretty much anything involving water. So this is a good thing. Supporting our infrastructure and our various water systems. The only thing to note is that this legislation is not his. This is not innovation. It is simply continuing the work of the US government. These bills have been passed routinely. He is continuing a tradition. Regardless, it is now signed law and it is a good thing.

He also points to a $100 Million piece of legislation that will protect the ecosystems of the Everglades. This legislation is vital to the inhabitants of southern Florida. It basically protects their source of drinking water. Further, it is a response to the red tide that is challenging much of Florida. Again these issues have challenged Florida for the past twenty years and this is a continuation of an ongoing project. He is again continuing the work initiated by earlier administrations, Republicans and Democrats. Again, in the end he has signed legislation giving sizable sums to Florida to deal with this issue and that is a good thing.

Another area that the President referenced in his speech several times is the clean up of the oceans. The removal of the thousands of tons of plastic bottles, containers, and the like that have found their way into the oceans, creating that island of plastic off the coast of Mexico and California. He passed a bill to specifically deal with this, plus also language can be found elsewhere, such as the new NAFTA agreement. His main contribution here, however, is that he is now requesting that his State Department bring this issue to the attention of countries that are engaged in these practices-dumping plastic into the oceans. (And it must be said that such behavior, the dumping of plastic into the ocean, seems like the final piece of an old George Carlin bit regarding the earth desiring plastic, sadly.) Regarding this administration, we finally find a use for diplomacy. Regarding the monies appropriated for the matter, however, it is again a renewal of existing funding.

Lastly there are the public lands. He did sign what he claims to be the largest public lands packages in a decade, designating 1.3 million acres as public lands. That is bigger than the state of Rhode Island. Which is pretty amazing! Of course then you have the executive orders that preceded this legislation. There is the the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, where the former was trimmed or reduced by roughly 1.1 million acres, roughly 85%. And the later, the Grand Staircase, lost 800,000 acres.

Add to this the 10 million acres being reallocated for mining in the Sagebrush focal areas. These 10 million acres of Federal and adjacent lands found in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming are famous for their Sagebrush Grouse, a bird. These areas distributed across these six states were deemed significant in protecting the Grouse and the sagebrush, basically the arid lands, the near deserts, founds in the American west. In some ways they represent the American west.

The Sagebrush focal areas were not touched upon in the President's speech. They do, however, challenge one of the central themes of his speech – that we can do both good business and protect the environment simultaneously. Remember that in the speech he asserts that the two, the economy or business, and environment are not mutually exclusive. It does not have to be an either or. Yet it seems here that his administration has chosen the economy over the environment, mining over the grouse.

And that is the classic conflict between the economy, doing business, and the environment. It seems to stare us in the face here. Now this President not surprisingly chose to go with business and ignore the environment. It would seem that this decision to open the lands to mining simply challenges his claim that no decision is required regarding business and the environment, that the two can be balanced.

Yet, if you go back to the original decision, when they reverse the Obama policy, which had protected the grouse, the claim was exactly that – no such protections were not needed. The claim, when they reversed the Obama policy, was that the Obama administration had over-reacted. The Trump administration, it was claimed, was protecting the grouse, the sagebrush and would also do the mining. In short, they had claimed they could do both, just as the President was asserting in this speech.

So we now have 10 million acres of arid lands available to be mined, the millions in profits that will result from this, plus the preservation of a species, and the preservation of a vast chunk of what is simply the American west. All of this was somehow supposedly balanced, allowing for all to survive and thrive. This seems like a major success for this President, and yet he chose not to introduce this victory into a speech focusing on exactly this point? This appears to be the case.

So where do we stand? In the end, this President is kind of maintaining the status quo? Maybe? He is claiming to be protecting America's air and water quality. He did in fact signed several pieces of legislation into law that do support, maintain and even improve parts of our infrastructure relating to water. So something is being done there.

Regarding air, however, aside from the claim that we have clean air, he did not really speak to it. He did not touch upon air quality. At best, perhaps, he pointed to an achievement that was achieved by those prior to him, involving carbon, which really is not relevant here.

Which leads me to point to things that were not in the speech. Things such as the Sagebrush focal areas. The massive wildfire that was burning in Alaska as he gave the speech was likewise not mentioned. The relationship of science and research to the stewardship of the environment was not introduced. This as he relocates several hundred USDA scientists from Washington to St Louis, which may cost the organization half its research staff.

Nor was there any discussion of the "Joshua Principle", which had been embraced by Scott Pruitt at the EPA regarding scientists being given a seat at the table regarding policy. Basically allowing local community members and businesses to have a say in regulatory decisions, but not scientists and researchers. Likewise, there is the elimination of “secret science” at the EPA. Basically, this is the process arrived at by the EPA to do peer reviewed science and research required for new chemical compounds, but also respect the patent holder. The results are not publicly available - secret science. The administration is not happy with this process in light of transparency. An alternative, however, has not been found but I do hope that we are not going to simply take the word of the manufacturer going forward.

In short, regulation was not touched upon in the speech. Nor did the President reference any of his executive orders, which there have been several. He did not reference his executive order instructing the EPA, and the NHTSA to review the emission standards put in place by the Obama Administration. Obama had put in place standards that would further reduce carbon emissions and improve gas mileage going forward, but they have now been basically eliminated.

Nor did the President reference his executive order allowing coal burning power plants to continue to carry on without investment in scrubbing technologies. These technologies would make them far cleaner, removing not only carbon but also sulfur from our air. Carbon is the leading cause of global warming, and sulfur dioxide is the responsible for both acid rain and various respiratory ailments. Both of these executive orders will, if implemented, have an impact on air quality. Nothing was said regarding either. 

Add to these the initiative to eliminate EPA regulations regarding mercury emissions at coal plants. Likewise the modification of the Affordable Clean Energy rules, again at the EPA, and this time involving fine particulate matter. Again mostly resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, and associated with respiratory ailments, heart attacks and strokes. Regarding this last one, they question the mathematical models used by the Obama administration that arrive at roughly 1400 lives cost by such pollution. This is another illustration of the administration disputing the role of science and in this instance the mathematical  models used to arrive at those numbers, and ultimately the regulatory regime implemented. 

So the speech was highly selective on what was introduced. Global warming was not discussed. The achievements, the successes, were basically involving infrastructure funding bills that involved ongoing projects and initiatives initiated by prior administrations. Basically we celebrated the writing of checks to states, and local governments for infrastructure improvements.

The speech ignored the fact that though this administration has opened up massive tracts of public lands it likewise closed and eliminated far more. In light of such emissions, the speech's goal of illustrating how this administration has found a way to have both a good economy and environment was not lived up to.  Rather, the President chose to simply ignore such topics.

This choice to ignore certain topics is seen even more so as the speech did not touch at all on the regulatory aspects of the environment. Considering the record of this administration regarding environmental regulation, it simply would have been difficult if not impossible to assert that the President is balancing the economy and environment. His administration regarding environmental regulation simply favors business over the environment. There has been no balance regarding the two in regard to regulation. It is in fact an either or and in fact he has chosen the economy. He has chosen business.

Lastly, the President did not touch at all on his attitude and beliefs regarding science and environmental policy. And he does have some interesting views regarding science and its relation to policy. His administration's views regarding scientific research and those who do it are different from their predecessors. They seem not to trust science. They seem to not want to consider it in relation to policy. We see this in relation to global warming, and we see it in numerous instances above. If anything, the speech was further evidence of this attitude or position.

It has taken me two weeks to wrap my head around the various aspects of the speech and these policies. I was actually encouraged by somethings. In general, however, the speech fails to accurately represent this administration's environmental policy. Further, the speech does not accurately represent the intent or the ability of this administration to balance the economic and the environmental spheres. I doubt this administration has any such intention.

Barr's Box. . .

I have on various occasions defended Rachel Maddow on Facebook and in conversation. For me she just stands above most who are on TV and engaged in such punditry. Tonight her skills were apparent.

She started with a piece detailing a letter Amy Klobuchar sent to Special Prosecutor Mueller following her question and answer time with Attorney General Barr yesterday. Interesting but that was not what grabbed my attention. No it was the next item that she introduced that did it.

The next item was a "box" that the Attorney General might have placed himself in yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. No, he was not climbing into a refrigerator box as he testified. He did, however, explain why it was that he cleared the President of obstruction in his four page summary that he issued back on March 24th. In short, as per Maddow, we have in Barr and Mueller two views of the role of the Special Counsel.

Barr believes that the role of any prosecutor in a grand jury investigation is to determine whether he or she indicts, or he or she does not. Regardless of what crimes are being investigated, and who is being investigated, the decision is do we indict or do we not. All investigations arrive at one of these two determinations for Barr. Do we indict or do we not?

Mueller seems to disagree. I am sure that he would agree with Barr that most grand jury investigations do lead to one of those two determinations. Again, to indict, or to not indict. He would however, argue that not all arrive there, or at the very least that not all should arrive at such a determination. The exception is a grand jury investigation involving the President.

Mueller's reasoning for this is two fold or at least I would suggest it is.  The first premise is that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted. that is not his policy or position, that is Department of Justice policy, which he accepts. So even if we follow Barr, and demand from the investigation that a decision be made, and they conclude that the person under investigation should be prosecuted, the process would stop there. It would stop as the person being charged in this case is a sitting President. The Department of Justice simply will not proceed as such a prosecution would harm and damage the Presidency and the country.

Mueller, however, goes a step further, it seems in that he not only does not want to prosecute a sitting President, he does not want to accuse a sitting President. The argument here is that to accuse the President and not allow him to have a trial in some respects is worse. In such a case the President would now have a criminal accusation against him, but he has no venue, no way in which to prove himself innocent, to clear his or her name. The criminal charge would just linger, weakening the person accused, the office and the country.

It might be the case that both Mueller and Barr believe that a President can neither be accused nor prosecuted. It is just that they have two very different remedies for these matters. Barr might believe it is not possible to even initiate an investigation against a sitting President and Mueller might believe that one can investigate and collect the facts for a proper institution to make a decision, whether that be Congress, or a court of law after the President leaves office. These are all speculations which Maddow did not really flesh out tonight.

Let us return to Barr's box dilemma. In short, Barr has basically said that as Mueller did not make a determination on the issue of obstruction, there is no obstruction. For there to be obstruction, Mueller would have had to made that claim in his report. As Mueller did not offer such in his report. . .  there is no obstruction.

However, as Maddow points out, though the report does not make such an assertion that does not preclude Mueller from making such. As we have in Barr a new sheriff in town, who demands all prosecutors specify at the end of their grand jury investigations  whether person(s) investigated be indicted or not, Mueller could be compelled to testify before Congress on that matter.

As the Special Prosecutor, and with Barr's edict regarding grand jury investigations, he could and most likely will be asked by the Congress, "Based on your your investigation, should the President of the United States be charged with Obstruction of Justice?" And considering the task he has just completed, two years in the making, and the title he holds, within the Department of Justice, which Attorney General Barr is now in charge of, he would be compelled to answer. He would be compelled to answer in one of two ways: Yes the President should be charged with obstruction of justice, or no he should not.

That is the Box that Attorney General Barr placed himself in yesterday during his testimony.

No doubt, I am not an attorney. Nor is Rachel Maddow, but there is a certain logic here.

Along the way, Maddow also pointed out that Mueller in the second part of his report, which deals with the charges of obstruction, twice defends his decision not to arrive at a charge. He twice defends his position that it is not right to charge a man and then not allow him his day in court. Better to just collect the evidence and make it available for those who can proceed. He makes a case for this at the beginning and at the end of the second section, focused on the obstruction charges. She asks why he would have done that? Why state that position at the beginning and end of the section?

One reason you might do such is that you have an ongoing dispute with someone regarding the matter. And we also know that Mueller met with Barr on March 5th, as per the letter Mueller had written to Barr that was recently released. In short, if you know you are going into a storm, you are going to prepare best you can, and maybe state your claims twice, once at the beginning and once at the end of the section in dispute.

Again the logic is there. Neither Maddow nor myself know, but damn.

And just to qualify, I have looked at the report but I have not read it. I might have to yet. . .

Hot Chocolate

This winter season I have had a fascination for hot chocolate. I know most folks if they have a craving for such will just reach for the "Swiss Miss". If they have the patience, they will reach for the  Hershey's, taking the time to properly heat the milk and mix the cocoa, sugar and vanilla. Complicated. Or perhaps if out on the street, you might grab one at a Dunkin' Donuts or coffee shop. The later options could perhaps kill one's appetite for such.

Primarily a treat for kids, right? Who drinks hot chocolate?

Typically I do not. That changed this year. What happen? A simple sign I walked past a hundred times on 6th Avenue finally got me.  A simple sentence: The Best Hot Chocolate in NY. It is a small independent coffee shop called Cafe Bari found at 1033 6th Avenue. Actually it seems to be a chain of two. So I went in, I had passed through before and their coffee is fine, but this time I tried their hot chocolate.

Cafe Bari on 6th Avenue - where this post began!

It was good. Better than most. Many places seem to just use water or 1% milk. Seems that way. Cafe Bari's was thicker. I suspect a dash of cream was added. Maybe a little sweeter. So a thicker, sweeter cocoa. It was good. Was it the best? I don't know. For the rest of the season I had a new hobby. I started to compare various hot chocolates or cocoas. I use the terms interchangeably. Some richer, some darker with more cocoa. Some just lousy. I did not go the next step of exploring the various mocha mixes out there - just hot chocolate.

So that gave me a project for the season as I wandered Manhattan. In my travels if I saw a shop that looked interesting and they had a hot chocolate, I tried it. Probably, in hind sight, I would say Jacques Torres Chocolate in Grand Central would be my favorite. Simply, the richest and thickest, and the most convenient for myself. But then I started to experiment. I started thinking this probably can be improved upon. So went home to my kitchen and over the last month or so have in the evening gotten the cocoa and milk out and a few additional items. That is where things got interesting.

Hot Chocolate with Irish Whiskey

I looked at one recipe, which I got out of a Hershey's cookbook I had. It basically entailed starting with a base of half a cup of water with cocoa and sugar. You would heat the water and then mix it in with the sugar and cocoa. After getting that assembled, you would add your hot milk and stir. Done. Fairly simple.

My question was: Why water? Why am I adding water to hot chocolate. I never liked adding water to such a concoction. Just as one should not be watering down scotch or gin, one should not water down one' hot chocolate.

The usual suspects. . . 

So I replaced the water with Irish Whiskey. and yes it was Jameson. I know, it could be argued that I was wasting good Irish whiskey for hot chocolate. Guilty as charged. I was just curious how it would come out. I did it in the name of science.

It was, however, a positive result. I did have to heat up the whiskey and that process I imagine broke down some of the alcohol. that in turn added some additional sugar to the flavor, as alcohol is if I remember my chemistry, basically sugar. Not only did it sweeten it a bit but it also thickened it. Whiskey is simply more viscous than water to begin with. And there was still a hint of the whiskey in the final product. So not bad. Not bad at all.

This is not a hot chocolate for children, but tasty.

Hot Chocolate with Molasses

The next experiment was involving Molasses. Instead of a base of water and sugar, I would simply use molasses and cocoa. I decided not to heat this version up. Certainly not like the water. And this time I was using the one serving suggestion right on the Hershey's tin. And yes I was using basic Hershey's cocoa on both occasions.

This was not my first run-in with molasses. I have been making gingerbread men every holiday season for a long time. that is what started my fetish for molasses. I like it over sugar. A slightly different taste. I find it cool that the history of molasses shaped the United States. It was basically part of a trade war if I recall, that led in part to the revolution. Apparently molasses is needed for rum, and rum back in the eighteenth century was the drink of choice for the young Americans.

So I was and am intrigued with molasses. I was especially excited when Starbucks had a gingerbread latte. The latte was fine, but what got me was the whip cream on top with a good dose of molasses dripped on top! Screw the latte, just give me the whip cream and molasses. They have sadly discontinued that drink. I on the other hand do continue with the molasses! I bake my pecan pies with it. I add it to ice cream. and now I am mixing it up with hot cocoa. I like it.

I digress, back to my kitchen and hot cocoa. I am basically relying on the hot milk and some stirring to mix the ingredients, the cocoa and molasses concoction, which has been previously mixed and heated ever so briefly in the microwave. The ingredients, if you want the specifics are two heaping table spoons of cocoa, and likewise two heaping table spoons of molasses and the specified cup or two of milk. Feel free to throw in some vanilla I suppose. Basically, I again left out the water and this time sugar too.

And this too worked worked out nicely. Just as sweet with a hint of molasses. Surprise surprise. Again a little thicker perhaps. So another variation on hot chocolate. neither is earth shattering, but something to mix it up a little bit on a cold winter night. File it away for next year!

Of course at some point I am going to have to mix up the Jameson, and the molasses. My guess is that I won't taste either in such a concoction, but still worth a try.

Is Deportation Just?

An Introduction:
The issue of deportation is very much present today. This essay came out of a series of chats on Facebook involving reports of a mother of three, her children now grown, who had been in the US since 1999. She was deported last week, (For details on that story. . .). As I went browsing the web to confirm the details of this first, I came across another more recent article, this one detailing a transgender woman who was recently deported back to El Salvador, where she was murdered. 

The standard, most common argument for the deportation of illegal aliens. . . undocumented immigrants is that we have laws. These laws require all immigrants to apply for the appropriate visa and so forth. If one fails to apply for a visa, if one simply enters the US without such, then you can be removed. and there is a legal process in place for such. That is basically deportation and it is the law.

That. however, does not really answer the question. It only defers to the law. We assume that the law is just and we know that is not always the case. That is why the US Constitution has processes in place both to amend the Constitution and too simply write new law. It is simply understood that we will need to update and refine our laws.

The concept of justice evolves. Simply look at the tale of slavery in the United States. From a group that were indentured servants to becoming simple property to citizens with voting rights certainly indicates an evolution. Certainly a progression. Things, including justice, at the very least change.

So regarding undocumented immigrants, it is routinely seen that deportation is unfair, problematic. The argument is that these people have made lives here. They are part of the community, often with families. Their husbands and wives are often American citizens, their children were raised here, or were simply born here. They work here. They commonly pay taxes here, which often requires them again committing fraud. That is an amazing fraud! They commit a crime so as to pay taxes.

Yet regardless of all that, they did commit a crime, granted what is seen as a misdemeanor, but still a crime. And their continued presence in the US from the day they entered till the day they depart from the US is a violation of US law. In short, the fact that they have established roots here, does not justify it. Such roots and history complicate the story, but it does not justify or allow for the disregard of the law.

So we return to our original question. Is deportation just? Is it unjust?

It is a law that most of us do not like, but most likewise feel is necessary. Most Americans agree that we need to regulate who enters and who does not enter our country. We do want to have some say regarding who enters the United States. and with that, we do want to have some consequence, and some process for dealing with those who ignore and disregard these statutes.

So there is a tension here. Those who point to the law and all it entails, and those who point to the cost of the law. It again brings us back to the question: Is the law, in this case, deportation, is it just?

Three Grounds for Deportation:
Now there are three other arguments, at least three, for why deportation is just. These are in fact arguments against immigration, or at the least undocumented immigration, and therefore also support claims for deportation. Those arguments are: 1) the cost of these immigrants is too great, 2) these immigrants are often violent dangerous criminals, and 3) these immigrants are stealing our jobs.

I will address the first two, cost, and criminals simply arguing that they are not true. The third, however, I grant is true, but I believe if you consider it for a moment, you will arrive at the conclusion that deportation is not just.

The first argument is that it just comes down to cost. The United States cannot afford undocumented immigrants straining our social services, our entitlements and as such we need to deport them to their country of origin. These immigrants illegally enter our country, and take advantage of our healthcare, our schools, our welfare systems, etc.  We simply cannot afford this.

They simply are not entitled to the rights and privileges afforded US citizens, and other legal residents of the US. I acknowledge this is something that needs to be addressed, but I believe it need not be dug into here. I will make only two claims regarding this argument. The first is that typically undocumented immigrants in fact do not indulge our entitlements at rates comparable to US citizens. I offer up a CATO Institute's policy brief titled Immigration and the Welfare State.

Aside from the links above, I am not providing further facts to support the above claim. I rather appeal to my second and larger point, that most entitlements, healthcare, education, welfare, are offered by the state and local government. The point is that within our system, whether an undocumented immigrant has access to our various entitlements is largely contingent upon where he or she resides and whether that state and local government will welcome or challenge such people. And that is a different question from the one I am posing here, whether deportation is just.

The second argument for deportation being just is that undocumented immigrants are criminal not only in their crossing the border, but in that they simply are criminals. It is believed by many that undocumented immigrants simply engage in often violent criminal acts more so than American citizens. They are a violent bunch and we need to get them out of here. That is the argument here. To such arguments, I simply say no. It is a false claim. Numerous studies illustrate that undocumented immigrants engage in less criminal acts, violent and non-violent, than do American citizens. For further reading on this please consult this article, Illegal Immigration Does Not Increase Violent Crime, 4 Studies Show, found on the NPR site, detailing four recent academic studies involving such.

In short, I do not find either of these arguments, that undocumented immigrants are costly, or that they are violent criminals convincing, and as such neither is grounds to say that deportation is just. As I said above, the cost of undocumented immigrants is a state and local issue, and immigrants in general, documented and undocumented, do not for the most part commit violent criminal acts. American citizens are for more likely to take advantage of the entitlements our systems offer, and likewise are for more likely to commit violent crimes than immigrants.

That leaves us with the third argument. Undocumented immigrants steal American jobs. There is no refuting that claim. A good number of these jobs may be unwanted, but a job is a job. It likewise, cannot be disputed that the wages for such positions are typically lower than what most Americans would accept. The presence of undocumented immigrants does facilitate such wages. So their presence in the American market does limit the options of some American workers. So a case can be made that deportation is just, as undocumented immigrants do steal jobs from Americans.

Just Laws:
Is that the whole story though? Is there more to this story? Let me pause here again and question what makes a law just. If we are asserting that the rule of law allows for justice, then part of that must entail that all are equal before the law. The law must be fair to all. It must not be the case that it applies to some but not others. For the law to be seen as just, all must be treated equally before it.

When in an American court, or signing a legal contract, it should not matter if you are rich or poor, black or white, or brown, Muslim or Christian. In short, the law should not recognize any caste or class in its processes. To function properly, it is required that justice be blind to such differences. And if any of these do factor into the decision-making process of our courts and contracts, it is a problem. It raises questions of legitimacy for the law and legal process, it raises questions of justice.

Considering this requirement of fairness in pursuit of justice, conspiracies are a challenge. In such crimes we have one or several crimes committed by multiple parties, multiple individuals. Often times these individuals will come from different classes, rich and poor, different races, different cultural backgrounds. The challenge here is to insure that all of those involved in the crimes are investigated, charged and prosecuted regardless of these details. If such is not the case, there is a problem. To have a criminal conspiracy where only certain people are investigated, prosecuted and ultimately convicted and others not to be touched indicates a failure of justice. Again, it is simply a case of fairness.

Two conspiracies come to mind where we had various levels of success regarding pursuing all participants. The first is the Watergate scandal, which ultimately lead to the President of the United States resigning. Shortly after, he was pardoned by the man who followed him in the office, ending the pursuit of justice. Was his resignation enough? Here I point simply to the fact that this began with the men responsible for the actual burglary of the Democratic National Committee's offices and did ultimately lead to the President's resignation, despite the power of that office. We had some success.

One that was perhaps not as successful was the Iran-Contra scandal, a much more involved conspiracy involving members of the CIA, the US military, and various members of the Reagan White House. In the end, ultimately that scandal ended when many of those under investigation were pardoned by President Bush, who some claim was  in the scandal himself. He was after all Vice President throughout the Reagan administration.

So the law must be fair in its application. Likewise, we must insure that the law is not biased. Perhaps the President was right when he claimed that the judge in his case was Mexican. The judge perhaps was biased and the President or soon to be President was not getting a fair trial. Likewise, regarding the infamous Central Park Five rape case, where you had five young black men convicted of brutally raping a women in Central Park in NYC. A crime, it was ultimately found, they had not committed.

Regardless of the fact that the judge in the first case, the Trump University case I allude to, was not biased, we simply do not want nor can we accept such. We cannot accept biases against one's race, or one's sexual preference to effect a legal decision. Nor do we want public figures making such charges against our judges and our courts, our legal systems without some proof of such. In the second case I point to, the Central Park Five rape case, it was such a bias as I point that allowed for these five to be convicted for a crime they did not commit.

The system despite its successes, and there is some success, is biased. and with that, the system is at times unjust. It must continually be refined and improved.

Now, I want to point to one other case that most are familiar with - the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. In this case we have the President of the United States become sexually involved with an intern. Ultimately, it was the fact that the President lied under oath regarding this involvement that brought him to be impeached, but it is not that which I am interested in here. this is not strictly a legal case, but it allows for something to be seen

What I want to point to or contrast here are the two participants. We have the President of the United States and an intern. If that were to happen today, I think it safe to say the President would be urged to resign, regardless of the matter of lying under oath and the associated obstruction of justice. Simply the imbalance of power between the two and what occurred would be unacceptable. There was no crime in the act, but it was still wrong. It was an unethical and improper action on the part of the President. and I say that not due to the sexual aspect but because of position that he put that subordinate, an intern at the White House. How does an intern at the White House deny the President of the United States?

We empathize with persons in such a position. And this is a common theme in justice. Lewinsky might have in some sense been a willing participant, but it is the person with status, who has the power in such an imbalanced relationship. It is the person with power, with status, who is seen as responsible for those events. They are culpable for what takes place. The other person, it could be argued, is powerless. Certainly, the second's options are much more limited.

Those in positions of power are simply seen in various events and situations, good and bad, to lead. Their participation effects the outcome, regardless of what event or action we are describing. Through their status, they take ownership of events and actions. And this is just as true in conspiracies. They are more culpable than those without status. To be in a position of status, in a position of leadership has certain obligations including taking ownership for the good and the bad. The buck does stop here.

What of the person without power or status in a conspiracy, the White House plumber, or the White House intern? They participate, but their actions are almost discounted or diminished considering the other participants, those in power, who directed or led the conspiracy. Our eyes are focused on the later and I would say, rightfully so. In short, I am suggesting that we distribute responsibility, culpability, based not only upon the actions of the participants, but also upon who those participants are.

It seems almost paradoxical, but we must in the end factor in status, race, wealth, etc. Such things can neither eliminate nor determine who is a suspect or who is guilty, Yet these same aspects, are required in recreating the crime and understanding what happened, understanding who did what, and ultimately in attributing guilt and innocence to the individuals.

To sum up the above, justice must be fair, meaning that all are treated equally before the law. Wealth and power cannot allow one to escape prosecution. Likewise biases towards race, gender and sexual preference cannot lead to prosecution. I go on, however, and argue that those with wealth and or power also have a larger liability in a criminal conspiracy. One's status often does make one more culpable. Further, justice is often aligned with mercy. Those who though not innocent but without status, who have been treated unjustly, should have that considered regarding their guilt or innocence.

A Challenge to the Justice of Deportation
With the above considerations: That all are equal before the law and that one's status does factor into one's culpability, I return to the original question: Is deportation just?

Above, I had accepted that undocumented immigrants do steal jobs from Americans and that this is a valid argument to stop their entry into this country, and likewise justify their removal. Considering my recent comments on justice, however, I wonder if we are missing something.

The grounds for stopping undocumented immigrants from entering the country, and deporting those who are here is that they take jobs that otherwise Americans could have. Not only do they take these jobs, but they accept them at a lower wage. That said, these are market transactions. Employers are not forced to hire undocumented immigrants. They willfully hire them. In short, undocumented immigrants can only steal jobs from Americans if American employers hire them.

And considering the roughly eleven million undocumented immigrants we have in the country, I refuse to believe that employers and others are not aware that the worker(s) he or she has employed are undocumented and with that not legally authorized to work in the US. Rather I believe that there are many employers who choose to ignore such laws or even actively work with these employees to evade immigration law. Not all but many.

Not only employers, but the general public. We accept that the people cutting our grass and grooming our yards are possibly undocumented immigrants. We still hire them. We know that the house painters that gave us a quote which is half the price of the American painter is probably using undocumented labor. We know the Mexican dude that just came out of the kitchen of a Chinese Restaurant for a smoke is probably undocumented. We still like the place - they make the best damn General Tso's, regardless.

What about the cleaning crew at my office? None of them speak a word of English. Maybe. . . Hello. Oh, you say I am being awfully judgmental now, perhaps racist. I see a janitor who does not speak English and looks Hispanic and I think undocumented. You might be right, but I would bet a good percentage of the time, I am right. The same is true of those who harvest our fruits and vegetables. And the list goes on.

American employers and consumers have accepted that we have an undocumented labor force available to us at a substantial discount. We have accepted this for roughly the past thirty years. And that leads to what I call a conspiracy. We have collectively in our day to day lives ignored these laws. If undocumented immigrants are stealing American jobs, than the employer and the consumer are receiving stolen goods. We have and continue to facilitate the crime. We are co-conspirators. I have yet to see employers punished for hiring such workers, much less consumers. And employers can be prosecuted for such. They rarely are.

I think it is hard to deny that there is a conspiracy here, of massive proportions. And yet it is only the undocumented immigrant who is being prosecuted. And consider the deal they get. They fight to enter our country. They abandon their towns and villages and often times walk thousands of miles to arrive here. They pay men to smuggle them across the border, an act that often enough can cost them their lives. They knowingly risk getting arrested by the American Border Patrol and ICE. They pretty much know all of this awaits them and yet they still come.

They know that with a little bit of work, they will find a job working for an American business, making what they consider a good wage, and knowing that it is a shit-rate for American workers. They know that they steal jobs from Americans. They know they are tolerated, but largely despised by Americans. Yet, they come. They come only because of the expectation of employment. They know they can get a job in America. Once again America is the land of opportunity, even if you are undocumented.

And it is with this that I argue that deportation, and our immigration system is unjust. Again, consider what they must endure to get here and what they must do once they arrive, what they are typically paid, and then, after so many years, they still risk being deported. That is their reward for their service to our businesses, our industry, the American economy. You talk of American workers being challenged. . .  and they are. Both American workers and undocumented immigrants have in many ways been played.

Ultimately, considering the above, deportation of undocumented immigrants is unjust. They have done nothing but migrate here and work for American employers, Yes they have engaged in a criminal conspiracy with their employers, their co-conspirators, who are not being prosecuted. There is no reference to these co-conspirators in the cases pursued. And it is their co-conspirators who are profiting here. At the end of the day, we just ship the  undocumented immigrants home, not considering at all their employers, their co-conspirators. Considering that lack of fairness, considering the bias shown these people, and considering the status of their co-conspirators, considering the fact that the law ignores all of this, our treatment of undocumented immigrants, especially their deportation, is unjust.

The Death of the Internet. . .

This is another case of Facebook providing me with material. 

"Lol! Your rebuttal to everyone’s opinion that his speech was amazing is a blog written by YOU? I can’t get off the floor, I’m laughing so hard! . . ." Mary Ganis  on Facebook in response to one of my posts, a response to the President's SOTU, which was simply a link to another of my posts, A Dangerous Speech.  

How dare I offer up a blog written by me.

The internet came into existence in the mid-nineties, and no doubt it thrives today, but a piece of the internet is gone. It is done. 

Originally the internet was a small group of academics that used it for file sharing. It was simply a way to share their research, data and various papers among themselves. that was the original intent of the internet, at least the abridged story. Enter the Netscape Browser, and soon after the arrival of commercial enterprises. Shortly after that you had Amazon arrive. Back then it was Amazon and E-Bay. Google arrived a few years later. Jump ahead to 2007, and we had the advent of smart phones and social media.

So the internet and likewise the World wide Web is far from dead. Today, we have the beginnings of the Internet of Things. And soon enough we have the coming of 5G, the next generation of mobile connectivity. These standards define how data is transmitted, transferred. Wireless phone networks and the internet are merging. What were two different beasts are becoming or basically are one today. All of that innovation in one's hands, in one's pocket or purse!

So it is far from dead.

Yet a piece of it is. I point back to the quote I offer up top. "Your rebuttal to everyone’s opinion that his speech was amazing is a blog written by YOU?"
How dare I offer up a response, and to expect it to be considered. How silly of me! Yet when the Internet and the web first arrived that was the hope. It was seen as a tool of democracy. A platform for all to express their opinions, hopes and dreams. Of course, the question becomes how do you manage all of those opinions, all those pages, posts and blogs? It quickly becomes an ocean of crap. So perhaps the dream was not realistic from the beginning. 

Regardless, there was something there. There was the idea, the hope that all can offer up interesting ideas and positions, regardless of one's place, and the web would be a platform for such. It was seen as a way to express one's self. This hope appealed to our ideals regarding freedom of expression and the value of diversity. It becomes another marketplace of ideas, another meritocracy, a place where the better ideas, the more useful and interesting ideas can rise to the top as opposed to being lost in an ocean of crap. Of course, some value a compost pile. 

That is different from what we have today. Few folks offer up their lone blog and posts today. They are out there, but have to be searched for. What we have today are major news sites and various writers and commentators associated with each. Smaller sites today imitate larger sites in their look and feel. You will find the graphics and arrangement of content almost identical. Making it impossible at times to differentiate sites.

And these sites are commercial ventures today. The New York Times recently acknowledged their goal of 10 million digital subscribers by 2025 and $800 Million in digital sales by 2020. The idea of a private individual expressing their opinion has nothing to do with this. This is pure commerce. 

Further, those subscribing to the New York Times can be defined pretty quickly. Most live on the two coastlines of the United States. Again the type of information we get, where we get it, and what we do with that information is so tied to who we are, what we believe, what we value. This is not surprising, but the consequences of such had not been thought out when we moved our lives online. And for those who think this is unique to the New York Times, just think Breitbart or Infowars.

This idea of expression versus commerce can especially be seen in music. Rockers were fascinated with the potential of the web in the mid to late 90's. Musicians and artists saw it as a way to have direct access to their fans. (Hmmm. That does remind me of a current political phenom, No doubt!) The hope was that they would no longer need their record labels. They could just focus on their music and share it with their fans courtesy of the World Wide Web. And today we do have Sound Cloud and other sites such as Pledge Music. Reverb Nation was another I use to go to. So there are some cool sites out there, but the idea of just maintaining a simple website for all to come to never happened. No.

So when I say the internet died, I am pointing to the hope of individuals being able to simply express themselves and more importantly being heard on it. The reason for that not happening are many. It is in part because it was a pipe dream to begin with. In the end it comes down to that the web is not all that different from the rest of the world. It offers some hope, some opportunity, but a lot of shit too. And like the rest of the world, when one is  mocked and told that their opinion does not matter, the common and appropriate response is the middle finger. 

A Dangerous Speech

The President offered a fairly solid State of the Union Address this Tuesday night. It simply was in line with what one typically expects from such fare and with that, he appears to have gotten good grades from the public at large.  He told us he could act "Presidential" and this Tuesday night, he basically did. Below is my take on it from various angles. In the end, however, I do believe it is a dangerous speech, a controversial speech. The end of the essay explores that briefly.

Oh no doubt there were interesting moments. Comments such as peace and legislation can only happen without war and investigation? He said something like that. Not sure what that was. In short, that was the exception.

Again he basically did offer up a pretty typical State of the Union. He boasted about his achievements, perhaps exaggerated on a few of those. Surprise, surprise, surprise. He also boasted about America's and American's achievements. He talked of and introduced World War II Vets, a former federal prison inmate who had been sentenced to life for a first offence if I heard correctly.

He introduced a family who suffered a home invasion and lost their parents to illegal aliens, a Holocaust survivor and Pittsburgh shooting survivor, and the police office who basically stopped the later. Oh and let us not forget a Hispanic Border Patrol Officer. So he had in his speech a full house of Americans, and American achievements.

In some respects it could be suggested that these were custom tailored to his agenda or issues. In the Holocaust and Pittsburgh shooting survivor and police officer, he acknowledges both the uptick in antisemitism and gun violence. One of the Vets he introduced in fact had participated in the liberation of the camp the survivor was in. It tied together nicely. So the first comment is that the speech worked and helped the president with various populations, black prisoners, Hispanic Border Patrol Officers, Jewish shooting victims, etc.

And no doubt his speech writers were probably cognizant of such things. They of course want to address various issues that he might have missed or they simply want to bolster. That is one of the intents of the State of the Union, past and present.

There was something lacking though. You have these various individuals. The WWII Vets, the law-enforcement officers, the former prison inmate, and the shooting and home invasion victims. What do all of these say to one? For me it says it is a crazy world. We have a concentration camp survivor who find himself in America sixty years later in the middle or at least in proximity to a shooting spree in a synagogue. A family who loses their parents in a home invasion by some illegal aliens. And then a Hispanic Border patrol Officer and a Black woman who was in prison for life for a drug charge. The last does not sound right, but that is what I heard during the course of the speech. I want to go largely by memory on this, as will most people.

It is a crazy and dangerous world. It is a world that requires walls. The elites have walls. If the family there in that hall had a wall, they might still have their parents. Interestingly, he did mention D-Day, which was the taking down of Hitler's Atlantic Wall. In general, though, what was conveyed is the danger of the world. and the need for protection. Not freedom but a violent world and the need for protection.

This is a theme he has stressed before. His is a zero sum game. In his world there can only be one winner. This time he did not state these claims, but rather illustrated them. Such is a rhetorical devise that allows one to slip something in quietly. The claim or assertion is unstated. He actually never made such a claim regarding how dangerous the world is - not last night. Yet, if we look at his guest list and their stories, it is there. The world is a dangerous place - that is the claim.

He is not the first to make such claims, but this President stops there. He does not explore what makes it dangerous. For the recent Bush Administration it was Saddam Hussein and radical Muslims. For Obama, I am not sure. For previous Presidents perhaps the Soviet Union. For this President it is illegal immigrants, ISIS, and perhaps socialists. In short, the list is left undefined.

The speech though, despite the guest and despite the rhetoric that went with these guests, did not leads us anywhere. It simply wandered. He had not grand bargain. he simply asked for or demanded his wall, and and likewise said that he could not be investigated. He offered no City on a Hill, but only the fear of being shot in a synagogue or in your own home, the threat of going to jail for life on a drug charge. There was not grand challenge. Despite the rhetoric, he did not challenge his audience, neither there nor those watching on their TVs.

No one left saying yes, I want to be part of this President's grand crusade. Again, all he asked for was a wall, no investigations of himself, and oh yes the elimination of AIDS and childhood cancer. The later two are noble but they do not inspire. For better or worse, AIDS is not the disease it was, not in the public consciousness. Cancer likewise has been chipped away at and hopefully that will continue. These are not in 2019 amazing startling claims.

There was no goal of a man on the moon or a man on Mars. There was no challenge to improve all of our schools. There was no challenge to insure all live a good life or at least a life out of poverty. All that we were offered is a violent world, the ability of American to use force, and that we need walls to protect ourselves, our property, and our jobs. This is our life. This is America.

That is my basic take on the speech. Now my critique and why I felt it was a dangerous speech.

Typically, when World War II is introduced in a speech such as the State of the Union, it is with a certain intent. The war is usually used to point to what followed it, a uniquely American era, a uniquely American world with a system we are largely responsible for. Things such as global trade, the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, and even an emergent China. All of these could and probably should have a label slapped on them, "Made in the USA." All of these were inspired by and facilitated by America. And it was that global war, which we jumped into in 1941, and that we helped to win, which allowed us to define much of what followed.

None of that was mentioned. He did not discuss what we had accomplished since the end of that war. Nor did he go into why we engaged in that war. Yes he talked of the concentration camps and the Normandy invasion, but he did not talk about  nationalism, fascism, nor of a more global system to challenge such phenomena. All we were shown is a violent world. He did not explore the causes of that violence.

Rather what we witnessed is a progression from D-Day to concentration camps, to a synagogue shooting, to home invasions and MS 13.

In short, it was a speech to help us forget who we are, and what we have achieved. It offered nothing regarding an American past nor future. It did not help us determine our place in the world. It gave us nothing to pursue or strive for. It basically put us in a fog, leaving us uncertain of where we came from and more importantly where we are going. And this was done once again right there in front of us in the course of a pretty much standard State of the Union Speech. Such a standard speech is why people responded well to it, and that only makes it more dangerous.