Climate Sunday: Fire, Water, and the Sacred Things

 

Saudi Health Minister Fahd bin Abdurrahman Al-Jalajel said that 83% of the 1,301 fatalities were unauthorized pilgrims who walked long distances in soaring temperatures to perform the Hajj rituals in and around the holy city of Mecca.https://t.co/ULoOMijRBI

— KATU News (@KATUNews) June 23, 2024

The Saudi Health minister can go ahead and blame the faithful for being "unauthorized" to come to do the Hajj, but this denial is hiding a very terrible story--the Hajj is becoming unsustainable. The pilgrimage to the site of the two holy places is too hot in the summer months for many people--the aged, the disabled. The faith of the pilgrims is great--the human ability to withstand the temperatures that are becoming more common is limited.

We've seen climate activists target several works of art, but most recently, the painting of Stonehenge got our attention:

This act disturbs ancient lichens that have protected the stones for one thing (ignore JK Rowling--she actually is Dolores Umbridge which is just the worst thing, and even worse, she is and probably knows it).  It's a weird act of vandalism that detracts from the message that we need to protect the things we love, for another. Also, just as a person with some ancestral connection to Blighty, there's some folk shit you need to leave alone. You fuck about with ancients liths and you are bound to get spirited off and knackered by rogue Morris dancers the next time you're exiting last call at the pub. 

This is Stupid. Don't be This.

 

There's simply no condemnation of Hamas that is not at the same time a condemnation of the Palestinian resistance. pic.twitter.com/FzZmsqUlQO

— Vijay Prashad (@vijayprashad) November 9, 2023

No, actually, you can condemn Hamas because they have not accomplished shit. If being a terrorist entity that lobs missiles all over the place, and most recently did a pogram and raped and mutilated Israeli and other people and went on to kidnap hostages and are the kinds of unstable fucks who don't care if literally tens of thousands of Palestinians die as a result because it's all GOOD PRESS, then actually, I would not call this shit "resistance" but "sociopathy."

If one was really interested in the cause of Palestinian liberation but didn't care if the people lived or died, I'd be skeptical. So let's talk stupid numbers: if the IDF has killed 10,000 people to get to 60 Hamas fighters (and they've killed more UN aides and journalists including their families) you probably see 500K Gazans dead before the government thought they were done routing out Hamas. MAYBE.

Don't ask what number of Gazan dead is OK for the Israel government: what is OK for the supposed liberators of Palestine? What the fuck are they doing? I condemn what is supposedly a "Palestinian resistance" because they aren't shit. They are not shit. The Palestinians dying all over the place? The way Hamas has fuel for rockets but not generators and all that? The way there is tunnels for terror, not to save lives? 

Climbing One Hill After Another

 

A Florida School Has Banned the Poem Read at Biden’s Inauguration

Amanda Gorman’s The Hill We Climb is restricted after just one parent complained about it.https://t.co/AMLRSaUSOA #BannedBooks #IStandWithTheBanned

— PEN America (@PENamerica) May 23, 2023

There is some back and forth over what we count as a "ban" for purposes of conversation--so let's go with "restriction". One parent complained about this poem. One confused parent, who thought it was written by Oprah Winfrey (which right there is a bit of a red flag--no?) And so it was decided on the basis of one opinion that maybe the younger ones would be "confused" or "indoctrinated" by a poem that was read at a presidential inauguration for all the world to hear. 

So, let's talk about the parent--who apologized for promoting the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a notorious anti-Semitic hoax that still has a lot of play among a certain set of conspiracy theorists. She admits she's not much of a reader. One could argue what sort of thinker she is. But the point is--she's one person.

And she has the ability as a parent to restrict her own's kids' reading. I can wonder about what sort of strange, unwell bonsai her kids' curiosity might be pruned to as a result. But my own parents pulled messy romance novels and Mad Magazine out of my sweaty little hands as a kid--it was their right. At issue is whether a very few, and possibly very cranky few at that, should have veto power over all the kids' reading. 

After all, just eleven people filed most book bans across the country. Maybe these people need new hobbies, because that sounds like an industry, if not its own agenda.

I can't say age restriction is wholesale bad--I definitely question things of a sexually explicit nature being in the hands of kids and think maturity restrictions do make sense, in context. But, for example, nudity was used as a reason for banning the graphic novel "Maus" in a context that had no sexual conten. And I can see where there are challenges to LGBT+ content on the basis of "sexual references" where nothing is explicit. (I want to put out there that not all "coming of age" novels are for the people who are coming of age themselves, but for people who have also been through it.)  But also, just because something is contentious doesn't mean it's wrong, as in the case of, I dunno, the grand sweep of American history.

Those decision aren't one hill to climb--but one after another. And shouldn't be lightly decided just because school officials can't be bothered to fend off random cranks.

Climate Sunday: The Riskiest?

The riskiest places aren't always obvious, but some of them have already demonstrated vulnerability in the face of storms they have already experienced. And fire and drought also matter. You would not understand how the places most subject to experiencing climate change are also the places most likely to vote against politicians who would not do  anything for climate change unless you understood the saturation of political propaganda. 

Investing in fossil fuels is jobs and money and success and capitalism and why would you not want these things, you Commie? 

But it's dumb. We sometimes use the idea of a frog in boiling water. The frog doesn't know how fucked he is because it's slow and steady--and the damage climate change is doing is mostly slow and steady. 

They Only Needed to Be Shamed

 

The PACT Act will be going to President Biden's desk to be signed after needless and spiteful delay on the part of Senate Republicans, who spent the weekend trying to defend their fist-bumping vote against the bill with sad claims of "gimmicks" and "pork". They got rightfully hammered for that, but 11 Republican senators still voted against--all of whom also voted against the bill in June.

This group includes Rand Paul of KY, who argued that veterans would take advantage of the program because one could not tell for sure that their illnesses were from service-related expose (that's right--he's basically accusing cancer-stricken vets of trying to pull one over on the government), Mitt Romney of Utah, generally incorrectly perceived as a moderate, and my outgoing (but not soon enough!) senator, Pat Toomey, who opposes spending money to help people or basically being useful at all, just on general principles. 

So, what happened here? It looks like the Republicans got caught out for being spiteful hacks that literally didn't have a problem with the bill, just with Democrats.  And some of them still pretty transparently seem to have contempt for the idea that after having served and made sacrifices on behalf of this country, veterans want to be compensated for the harm done to them.

This is who they are. Don't forget it. 

And as an afterthought, although so many people worked to make this bill a law, a lot of praise goes to Jon Stewart for using humor, outrage, the superpower of celebrity, to advocate forcefully for the Seante to just do the right thing. He's a good guy. 

The Curb Problem

I've seen the video of PA State Rep. Brian Sims confronting anti-abortion protesters outside of a Philadelphia Planned Parenthood, and I am honestly a little conflicted. I'm extremely on his side regarding the good work that PP does for community health, especially for reproductive health, that sometimes social shibboleth. I also view anti-abortion protesters as basically busybodies who want to tell other people what they can do with themselves, without ever having to weigh and consider the life stories of the people who have bodies with histories, with health issues, with any human, entirely personal matter that is not up for some curbside "counseling". 

I get it. What they do is intrusive and constitutes personal harassment of people living their own lives according to their constitutional rights.  If they gave such a shit, camp out at a legislative office or work harder on educating people about not getting pregnant in the first place if you want to stop abortion, but getting in the face of regular folks with their own problems has always been bullying (and sometimes the harassment of clinic personnel goes even further--so there's definitely that). Sims, a lawyer and LGBT rights activist who has also worked as a PP escort, has all the experience he needs of these judgmental, "doing more harm than good" people, praying at (not for, oh, make no mistake) patients as if to try to shame them out of claiming their bodies' needs.

I think of this really excellent video of a man who was being curb-shamed by these so-called "counselor" activists, when it was not at all the right time for them to insert themselves (and yes, I know it never really is).  They didn't understand the trauma a young family that wanted children could be going through, and were callous and defensive. These protestors are full of self-importance and relative ignorance about why people are even visiting a clinic, and I don't disagree with the idea that they are the ones who should find something better to do. Adopt a kid, if you think unwanted babies need love. Fund people with at-risk pregnancies and support universal health care. Support well-family programs for nutrition and day-care. But just don't holler in people's faces. 

But I also feel like there's a rule about what public servants should be doing vs civilians. Is a persona with a public platform as an elected official in the right place using his social media to shame a protester? Or to use that platform to crowd source doxing? I'm not as cool with that, and not just because it gives license to right-wing pols to dox leftist protesters. It's just, you have access to better tools--use those! Bring that energy--without personally getting up in the activists' spaces because that deal is unequal. 

I also think he got unnecessarily personal in addressing the old white lady as an old white lady. I know, I'm starting to radiate some serious "Talk to your manager" energy myself, but while I don't see "white" as a slur, please don't get all up in someone's case about whether they are old. Yes, some of the protesters are post-menopausal and don't need to consider their own likelihood of coming down with a case of baby on board. But also, some people just have old faces and can get caught out in their fifties. 

The Hour is Getting Late

BREAKING: young people arrested in Mitch McConnell’s office. Kentuckians need a Green New Deal. https://t.co/4XesRVXZr6

— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) February 25, 2019

A kerfuffle of sorts occurred over a Sunrise Movement video featuring a confrontation of adolescent protesters with Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, which in the truncated version makes the Senator appear condescending and a little hectoring, and in the extended release version still seems kind of awkward even when people try to find ways to remind us that Dianne Feinstein has been really great sometimes and that child activists are necessarily attention-getting and emotion-provoking. And as a good little card-carrying Democrat, one of my first impulses was a full-body cringe: "Why the fuck are activists camping out on Democrats--our folks are the good guys!"

Except I know why--Republicans are not listening to a word and aren't good for a damn. Dianne Feinstein can tell us she won her last election, probably isn't figuring for another one, and that those kids aren't the folks who elected her. But those kids are the people their parents elected her for, and if her safe-seat behind does not understand what they need her to do, let my old-enough pundit ass explain--it is time to go balls to the wall regarding climate change, because we (meaning people with the power) never went hard enough before. It's one thing to patiently explain to kids why there's a thing about legislation that will be voted on and can even pass and all that, and it's another thing to know this process isn't cutting it, and if it means recommitting to go harder and talk more expressively and directly about the crisis we will experience as the climate problem grows worse, then that is the kind of allyship the climate issue deserves. The above video reminds us though, that the Republicans, like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, are on a whole other level regarding their response to climate activists--they don't mind seeing them arrested. They would prefer that to offending their donors, or maybe, they just can't be bothered to value human lives over dollar signs.

But playing at who is better feels inadequate in the face of the problem we're facing. I've addressed on this blog before about the extremes of weather we're already facing in terms of wildfires and droughts vs. floods and blizzards. even if I've failed to do so regularly lately because of the sheer volume of so much other fuckery. But let me get this straight, the situation regarding the environment is probably worse than we've been thinking, and the most optimistic and radical-sounding (to moderate ears) ideas about what to do are probably still conservative in the face of what we need to accomplish. Disaster threatens to come from a cloudless and clear-blue sky.

We've got to suck every ounce of humorless, joyless, plane and car-grabbing, cow fart-monitoring right-wing accusations up, and holler back. Fuck you, diesel-powered denialists, and get railed, you running-coal shit-signifying smoke throwing annoying fuckshits. We're seeing species dying before our very eyes, even mammals, and you won't even discuss modifying a minimal part of your lifestyle? Just even reducing meat consumption, travel, or adapting to different energy sources to some degree (which we could all do to a degree, and not really even feel constrained). We could certainly do better regarding dumping toxic wastes in delicate and vital ecosystems, and consider renewables like wind and solar as the real future of energy.

Knowing all that is necessary and possible, people need to demand more from our leaders. That doesn't just mean challenging opponents (or defeating them entirely so they can no longer contribute to the prolonged anti-environmental fuckery) but changing the paradigm in which we discuss climate change, and no longer giving credence or quarter to denialism. They need to be shamed. Their sources of fossil fuel funding need to be discovered and dried up.


I'd love it if institutions like Sunrise Movement focused a little bit more on the McConnell kinds of fuckery, than the Feinstein kinds of not so much fuckery as just not being highly motivated just enough. But I understand their urgency, and I will support their goals, even if I hope they stay strategic, and don't frag possible friends in the midst of holding feet to the fire.

I Hope the Kids Will Be Alright

The March For Our Lives march/movement has gotten a very special response from pro-gun RW voices--personal attacks against the leaders of the movement, who also happen to be kids who have endured a traumatic event in the form of the school shooting, and are not just working through the grieving process of having lost people, but doing so with courage, thoughtfulness and purpose in a very public way.

Some of these wretched excuses for public comment, such as these comments put out by an NRA spokesperson:

"To all the kids from Parkland getting ready to use your First Amendment to attack everyone else's Second Amendment at your march on Saturday, I wish a hero like Blaine Gaskill had been at Marjory Douglas High School last month, because your classmates would still be alive and no one would know your names, because the media would have completely and utterly ignored your story, the way they ignored his," Noir said.

treat these young people as if they are opportunists who were just looking for the right occasion--like the murder of their friends--to become "famous". (The individual, Blaine Gaskill, did not actually stop the shooter at Great Mills High School, it turns out--and the presence of resource officers don't always act as a deterrent to the murder-minded, because individuals who intend to kill people don't necessarily seek out "gun-free zones"--they seek out the people they mean to kill, and often have no expectation of their own survival.) It's fine to wish someone had stopped Nikolas Cruz before he murdered 17 people, but it's something else to suggest this tragic event simply gave these young activists a "story" or that the media gave them a platform that they have no right to. What happened was tragic, it was their experience, and it is their right to tell their own story, and not have it taken away from them because it doesn't agree with someone else's political views.

Others, like my former Senator, Rick Santorum, want to suggest that their time could be better spent doing something (or rather, doing something else, because they certainly are doing something, or you wouldn't hear such raging and gnashing of teeth). He suggested "taking CPR classes" because he is a fuckwit:

“How about kids instead of looking to someone else to solve their problem, do something about maybe taking CPR classes or trying to deal with situations that when there is a violent shooter that you can actually respond to that?” the former Republican senator suggested on State of the Union.

Notwithstanding that Santorum seems to have being a qualified pool lifeguard confused with anything like the life-saving interventions that might be required to save someone whose flesh, bones and organs might be pulverized by bullets, consider the stupidity of saying the high school kids are "looking to someone else to solve their problem". Well, yeah. They are high school kids. But how is school shootings just "their problem"? But also, appealing to elected officials to pass laws to remedy problems is something a former legislator should comprehend as being a part of democracy. He doesn't seem to get it, which really explains why he no longer holds an office.

But then, there are the just plain sick attacks, the smears and lies. There is really very little we can expect from Infowars, home of the Sandy Hook Truthers, and Brietbart is not much better. Likening activists who are just interested in promoting a debate about stopping school shootings to neo-Nazis (when actual neo-Nazi sympathizers like Anders Brievik and Dylann Roof have actually been mass shooters) is hyperbolic, confusing a raised fist for a Nazi salute is just plain moronic. And running a smear that pretended that David Hogg was not present at the school during the attack and then claiming that one was "confused" is kind of pathetic. The Photoshop of Emma Gonzalez that is making the rounds should make people feel ashamed, but the sort of people who would share that are not the sort of people who feel ashamed about such things.

And yet, for sheer inappropriate, personal, bigoted, and wrong, I present Rep. Steve King of Iowa (for now), who went after Gonzalez for wearing a patch that honors her Cuban heritage. I thought so much (or little) or his meme that I made one of my own (above).

These young people have shown they have real wit and humor, but this kind of attention, and these kinds of attacks, are intended to wear them down. Finding purpose in loss and tragedy is healthy, but I hope they give themselves the self-care of shutting out these negative voices, and I also hope people don't treat them like mascots or pour more on their shoulders than they've already got. They are human, and human beings are never perfect, and life is fragile. I wish them the best.

Not...Quite...There

In an interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi disappointed me a little. Although she quietly pushed Rep. Conyers to give up his role in the House Judiciary Committee, she seemed to dismiss the claims of his accusers, claiming she did not know who they were.

This isn't quite what I want to see in response to claims of sexual harassment in this day and age. I respect John Conyers for his long years of service and his generally being on the side of right, too. I think he is an icon politically and has done some good. And yet, even icons fail. Even "good guys" screw up. The point is that there really isn't anyone so sacrosanct that we can dismiss the claims against them. This is why, even though the claims against Sen. Franken bear a certain whiff of rodent carnality, I'm reserving my judgement about why his accusers are being heard now--because for a long time, so many would-be accusers' voices were never heard, because they would not have been believed. Yes, maybe some claims are going to be flummery. But we can't get anywhere by dismissing people out of hand, and we need to create a process for people being heard out and supported. 

Rep. Conyers is 88 years old. Maybe you can call this ageism on my part to suggest that one of the things I find very troubling is the idea that the Representative is not quite as able as he needs to be and is not as in control of his own behavior as he should be. He is still putting up a good fight. But I want to know that the leaders of my party are truly capable of carrying out what they promise us. I need to know they understand that times are changing, and that they will need new, young, vital and unstained people to move into safe seats, get their bones made, and move up into leadership. They need to be working now to mentor and motivate people to run for House seats and become the leadership we need tomorrow. Like, Tuesday. Actual tomorrow. 

Without intending it, Rep. Pelosi kind of sent a message that if it were politically expedient, she would maybe throw accusers under the bus. That is not ok. 

I think she understood she fell short later on, after the interview, but I would have felt so much better about this if her instincts were right-on in the first place. I do have to wonder if this is in part, a generational thing--a difference between her expectations, and what I might expect. 

Another interview that was "not quite there" was an interview in The Guardian of Susan Sarandon.  Now, I don't hold Sarandon to the same standard that I would Pelosi. She is an actor first and an activist second and for a lot of things, her heart seems to be in the right place. She cares about climate and the death penalty. She knows inequality exists--she just isn't in a place to experience inequality except as a person in the upper end. So maybe her ideas of economics fail. Maybe she claims Hillary Clinton would have lead us to war as president, notwithstanding we were already in Iraq, Syria, much of Africa, Afghanistan, etc., and that the GOP choice has apparently revised the ROE of our alleged anti-terror combat to be more tolerant of civilian casualties, and the failure of Trump to even acknowledge diplomacy as an option has lead to the utter degradation of the State Department. 

I don't expect her to understand that. I wish I could. I wish the understanding that diplomacy is the better part of military valor and Clinton would have elaborated on that was a commonplace not just for her, but for, you know, people who vote in elections as a general thing. But what I shudder at is her understanding of feminism as "strident" and "shrill".  Her interpretation of what Weinstein et als being recognized as abusers means, seems stuck in the "nobody sees" camp.  She is happy to dismiss. She succeeded. Isn't victimization culture about failure? 

Sigh. 

This is what we might call "exceptional feminism"--women who prevailed despite sexism (which might being owing to white privilege, class, or connections) have experienced a privilege that many women don't, and therefore don't even entirely grasp the discussion. I feel like we need a better and broader understanding of intersectional feminism to even start these conversations without prominent voices stalling them. 

Taking it to the Streets and the Town Halls

The 2016 elections certainly seem to have had an effect on the populace at large--they have gone activist. The above video of UT Rep. Jason Chaffetz in all its length and glory shows people who have real concerns about what their US Representative is really representing, and who are demanding he hear them out. Chaffetz is a unique feature of the current House of Representatives. I don't much care for him, myself. And the US Representative's ever-so-very considered response to the hour plus of raucous exchange?

It was totally a Land of Thousand Fakes. He thinks the people who gave him a hard time were paid protesters instead of his actual constituents. I wonder what he'll think next time--there will be a next time.

(This is basically what some people have been trying on about the Women's March a couple weeks back. And nope--real women, real signs, real knitted hats, and really, really pissed off folks. Just try to imagine how much one would even have to pay to significantly fill out even a thousand-seat venue for a couple hours. Then imagine what it would be like to try and mobilize a protest for several hours in every state and every continent, basically. Not even doable.)

But to understand why people are getting the activist spirit, take a look at this Florida town hall:



The "death panels" lie was so widely reported that this crowd is completely wise to it. The phrase "OK children" is an appallingly insulting thing to say to people who actually do know what they are talking about. And no, I don't think these are fake protesters either. They know what the ACA is--and they know there has to be a replacement before any talk of repeal should happen--now that talk of repeal is more than just talk, but a real thing the GOP can do.

There have been marches and protests, some with a solid pedigree--like the Moral March in North Carolina, and the ever-present counter-protest to the anti-abortion "Defund Planned Parenthood" contingent.

The protest movements aren't new, but have renewed purpose.

Protest is the new normal--and it will happen way too often for anyone to believe it to be fake:

Expect it. Because  in a democracy, people feel it is right to petition their representatives for redress of grievances, and man, we are griefing.

Democrats Should Hold Up Neil Gorsuch

Sen. Ted Cruz: "The Democrats are engaged right now in unprecedented partisan obstruction" https://t.co/UYpqI3w42L https://t.co/rNBruSGDF9

— CNN (@CNN) February 1, 2017

President Trump has named Judge Neil Gorsuch of the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit as his SCOTUS pick, which, to my mind, should not have ever been Trump's pick to make. The Supreme Court Justice his pick would be replacing, Justice Antonin Scalia, passed on in February of last year, and the popularly twice-elected president in office at the time was Barack Obama. By all recognized norms, Merrick Garland should have got a vote. Even a "yes" or "no" vote. He didn't.

So now, we find ourselves with Republicans who are soooooo mad, you guys, at the "unprecedented partisan obstruction" of even things like delaying a vote on Sen. Sessions for AG, or a boycott on voting for HHS pick Tom Price, well, what about how Republicans performed regarding confirming AG Loretta Lynch, or how about that Gina McCarthy boycott for EPA?  

Yeah, there is exactly nothing unprecedented about what Democrats are doing, or thinking of doing, with respects to people Trump wants to round out his Administration's universe with. The Republicans gave President Obama constant obstructionism.  They were ready to say that if Hillary Clinton became president, they would block her pick, because it had already been established that the court could run on eight justices. Their justification for blocking Obama's pic was that it was an election year. (There is nothing in the Constitution or any historical precedent backing this up.) They said things like, let the "will of the people decide" who gets to pick the next SCOTUS Justice.

Oh well. I guess the court is able to bang on with eight cylinders. The current occupant of the White House wasn't the popularly-elected choice. And anyhow, Trump has already filed for the 2020 presidential campaign, meaning his entire term is technically "campaign season".

Also this bunny has a pancake on his head:

so Trump's pick is obviously invalid.  And Gorsuch's point of view clearly has church all up in our state, and I never like to see that. So I say let's give him a miss, hm?

UPDATE: Is this for real?

I never have gotten the hang of Young Republicanism. But it isn't really the most fortunate quote to endorse for a future in jurisprudence, is it?  (Although most everyone goes through a pirate stage when they are young I guess.)

About the Maddening Crowds

The day after Donald Trump was sworn in as the United States' 45th president, a rather astonishing thing happened--an extraordinary, mostly woman-centered, nonviolent protest, occurring globally (even in Antarctica!) took form. Numbering in the millions, this is one of the largest demonstrations ever--maybe it calls to mind some of the anti-Iraq war protests circa 2002-2003? They were pretty global and well-attended--but no. This was a unique experience of sisterhood and brotherhood, intersectional support for human rights and a call-out for dignity and against (really!) President Trump's lack of concern for all of the same.

Let this lovely backdrop of unity and positivity highlight our Trump era contrast: the just-yesterday sworn-in President made a visit to Langley, ostensibly to make things less awkward between himself and the intelligence community. I don't think it worked. Standing in front of a wall commemorating the sacrifices of CIA line officers to bitch about whether you're getting good press is possibly not a good look. It's also probably pretty awkward to be gung-ho about torture and indicate a willingness to go back to Iraq to take the oil of another country as if we didn't have people still serving there when Iraqis might take those statements some kind of way, but I am probably confused about whether the far larger issue that should be consuming us all is his inauguration's crowd-size.

No, really. This was such a big thing in Trumplandia that WH press secretary Sean "The Forehead" Spicer was called out to pretty much lie about whether the Trump inauguration, was, too, the biggest and best inauguration ever. But it really wasn't. And really, everyone knows it isn't necessarily the crowd-size, but what you do with it anyway, right? (Although if you give a short but brutal, and it turns out, Steve Bannon-penned speech after bragging about writing it all your damn self, maybe you are a bit of a prat.) But that isn't good enough, Spicer strongly suggested. The journalists are just unfairly size-queening the incoming Administration.

Whatevs, says I. Maybe there is some kind of partisan "dick-measuring" to be had between whether Obama or Trump had the bigger inauguration package. But neither of them had quite the support that was shown today for the pussies.

And Now Donald Trump is POTUS

It's something from the "They said it couldn't happen" files: Donald Trump, real estate baron, reality show celebrity, conspiracy theorist and tabloid news regular, has been sworn in as the United States' 45th president. There was no last-minute intervention from earthly or celestial forces to spare the dissatisfied and disappointed from this event, because that isn't how our democracy works. Although Trump's failure to divest himself of his various holdings (such as the DC hotel lease which, as an elected official, he is now in violation of) reflect a conflict of interest (or Constitutional crisis, depending upon how you look at things) that could result in impeachment proceedings (sure, with a GOP congress?) and the investigation into potential correspondence between his presidential campaign staff and Russia may turn up something devastating--Trump is now the president, and will be, very likely, for the next four years.

What does it mean? Well, gosh, it's only just begun, but going from the brief but emphatic inaugural speech--which sounded like the campaign spiel he'd been giving all along, he's doubling down on America First--for a definition of America that I'm pretty sure doesn't mean all of us. I think his depiction of the current state of the country sounds awfully "homeless vets, foreign debts, AIDS, crack, Bernie Goetz"-- a valid criticism of the 1980's, but not really as accurate a picture of today's America. He says he's for the forgotten man, but I don't even know what his cabinet picks or policies will necessarily do for a soul. I'm a little put-out that anyone at all is chuffed enough just to feel name-checked.

As for the festivities themselves, well, it's a rainy Friday in DC, with a president-elect with an historically low approval rating. It was bound to be poorly-attended, relatively speaking.

Tom Hayden Passed

It strikes me as weird that part of my mind always located him in the 1960's. even though I wasn't born then and he went on to do other stuff. Anyway, Tom Hayden was a social justice warrior before that was even a thing, and helped construct what later left activism became. The good, useful kind. Not the dudebro bullshit.  The Port Huron statement still rings a tone to this day. He would have been with her.  I admire his questing and questioning activism. He believed in the ability of peaceful protest to make a difference, and he did make a difference. He lives on wherever people get sold on following their conscience and doing their part. I don't know but that he might have been amused at headlines reading "Jane Fonda's Former Husband Died" as he also understood feminism.

He worked for people. That's the best takeaway. He cared about them. He got what mattered to people. He thought incredibly deeply about it.  And he wanted to do right by them.

What else can anyone do? Let this be his sigil: "If we appear to seek the unattainable, it has been said, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." Which I think suffers to express the concept of "getting it" as the whole thing can be "got". Humans strive not from our feeling of security, but because of our deep knowledge that shit can get worse. But out of that negativity arises visionaries. He was one.

Aspiration Nation

There's something that seems right to me about the celebration of the independence of the original thirteen colonies from the motherland as being based on the date, not of any victory in battle or even the end of the war, but with the date of the airing of the Declaration of Independence itself. The text of this most fiery "Dear George" letter, sounds off on the lack of access of American colonists to the British government they thought they should rightly have had access to, but also states a fairly quaint principle that seems utterly of the Enlightenment and remains an aspirational thought:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--

 The idea of the equality of men (implying also womankind), the idea of the basic rights of mankind, and the idea that government is a man-made machine for the benefit of people, are aspirational goals. At the time this document was written, and even in the fabric of the Constitution, chattel slavery was viewed as a fact of life. The language is centered on men--the idea that women were deserving of the right to vote or serve juries or participate in government did not come until later. We still labor to determine how we partition our voting districts and ensure who has lawful access to the voting franchise of our government to ensure that our government does represent the consent of the governed.

Sometimes a Woman Just Has to Do Things Herself

This amazing picture is Bree Newsome, an activist and artist, taking down the Confederate flag in South Carolina. It wasn't coming down fast enough, and was still flying while the Emanuel Nine were lying...

Of course it went back up. After all, there was a pro-flag rally planned, and you know things have to be ready when company is coming.

Women Without Walls: Reason to Hope

When looking into the extremist views and violent actions of groups like ISIL and Boko Haram it's hard not to notice that women and children are especially vulnerable to tactics that include kidnapping and rape--but women are also a huge part of fighting back. Hearing about Women Without Walls, a group of Christian and Muslim women who have joined forces to confront violent extremism, is a great example of people being able to look beyond their cultural constraints and differences to try and find solutions to problems they mutually face.

What they do:

is raise money, raise their voices, help the afflicted, and teach people how to do things in a better, non-conflicted way--while trying to hold their government accountable. It's a tall order and a necessary one. They are brave, they are right, and I find a lot of hope in what they are doing.

True.

Malala Yousefzai Wins Nobel Prize

She is the youngest winner of the prize, and she's basically a boss. Her co-winner, Kailash Satyarthi, has helped save tens of thousands of children from a life of slavery and exploitation. His long-time advocacy against child labor in favor of children's education as a way out of poverty is complementary to Yousefzai's example. I think these choices are very fitting, because it needs to be understood that the best way to create a space for peace in the future is to make safe spaces for children to become the people they are meant to be--to know something about the world they will grow up to help create and to be free to make the best of it.

In a world where too many children are exposed to the horrors of war, abuse, and grinding poverty and labor, and are not well-enough exposed to a good education, sometimes not even good nutrition or basic sanitation,  I realize that the failure to give them a reasonable hope of a good future is what condemns them to a fearful life and people in developed nations to fear what they might become. Because even without a good education, children learn from what they see. If exposed to ignorance and hopelessness and superstition and hate--that's what they will know.

And that is what they will practice.

But the answer to combatting all that is so simple--books and pens and paper and attention and a dialog that gets opened up between a developing mind and everything that might be possible.  Here's to two very good examples of people working towards heading future generations in the right direction. You are doing it right.

This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. The Climate (A Review)

I greatly looked forward to reading Naomi Klein's latest, This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. The Climate, and having read it, I'm pretty happy to recommend it. Klein's book approaches our fossil-fuel dependency as a cultural crisis and an economic fixation on the profit motive--an "extractivist" ethos that insists on exploitation of our natural resources for monetary gain. Her book is, in many ways, a wake-up call, viewing the echo chambers of the denialists and the pie-in-the-sky carbon-fixing schemers as needing to just face reality.

And the reality is grim. We are poisoning our planet with fuels that are not clean to burn in the first place and are increasingly more difficult to extract. We're dumping toxic chemicals into our air and our water, and the possibility that life as we know it right now is in any way sustainable is pretty much foolish.

Which might imply that this is an altogether grim book, but no. Along the way, we are introduced to pockets of resistance across the globe against the extractivist forces. Who, after all, may have the money, the propaganda, the hired security, the ability to purchase government officials by the job-lot and armies of lawyers at the ready--but might not actually be a match for a dedicated local resistance, which comes from, in some cases, even historically disadvantaged people--who are, let's be clear, often disproportionately screwed over by the forces of "progress".

What she shows is an alternative--maybe there's a sustainable future where companies don't make hand-over-fist profits, but people, working together, can discover old and tried methods for  insulating homes against heat and cold, irrigating and fertilizing crops, and mix those things with new technologies like solar panels to live just a bit lighter on the earth. Maybe there's something to the idea that the "quality of life" doesn't have a monetary value, but is precious and should be preserved just because.  Because it's the only way we--humans--even can go on. Maybe we need to see the connections between ourselves and the dying fish and dolphins and coral reefs and caribou and realize we, too, are a part of a chain of being on this planet, and what hurts any creature, weakens us all.

I found this book a wise and engaging read, by no means alarmist, but very clear-eyed and realistic. So if you were wondering whether you'd like this--I'd say if you care about the environment and are skeptical of our Cash Rules Everything Around Me culture, you'd like it rather a lot. I did.