A Change in Direction – Inauguration 2017

And so the 2016 Presidential Election have finally came to an end. Donald J. Trump was elected by the Electoral College, beating Hillary Clinton despite her having more popular votes. Unfortunately for Clinton the president is selected by the Electoral College, not the overall popular vote.

Today I watched the inauguration for most of the day. I had to laugh a bit at all the people saying not to watch it, or coming up with ideas such as leaving their television sets on because it would “drive Trump crazy” over low ratings. Ignoring the fact that they efforts wouldn’t have had any bearing on the ratings,

I have news for them. Trump couldn’t care less. He was the one with his hand on the Bible. It he who took the Oath of Office. It is he who will be sleeping in the White House tonight.

People are already comparing photos of today’s crowds with those of Barack Obama’s first inauguration, using that as some kind of indication that  nobody was there.

It makes no sense to compare the two. First off, the weather was terrible compared to way back in 2009. But, beyond that, you cannot compare the inauguration of the first African-American president with today’s event.

The 2009 crowd, estimated to be around 1.8 million people was the single largest event crowd ever in assembled in the United States. But, let’s be honest. How many of those people were there because he was the first African-American president? I don’t say that to be mean or racist. It’s on honest question. Heck, if I lived on the East Coast I might’ve even made the effort to be there.

Don’t get me wrong. I was not a Trump supporter. But, I look at all these efforts to somehow diminish the situation, or even somehow reverse it, and shake my head. He will be the president of the United States for at least the next four years, unless he resigns or is impeached and removal from office. 

Let him have his day today. Tomorrow will be a new day, and the first day of the 2020 Presidential Election campaign.

So what did I take from today’s speech and festivities?

When Trump was inside the Capital he ha a glazed look on his face. The same look that he had back in November when it first hit him that he’d won the election. That night he seemed rather magnanimous in his victory speech, and more subdued. I was wondering whether he would repeat that today. Turned out to be not so.

The speech was less of an inauguration speech, and more of a campaign speech with some of the words tweaked for the occasion. I said that to myself just a few minutes in. None of the political commentators said the same thing until legendary Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward did a few hours later, which was reassuring.

The president usually uses the speech as an opportunity for reconciliation throughout the country. Not so with this speech.

Trump painted a rather gloomy picture of the current state of the American country, and went on to pledge to eradicate ISIS from the face of the Earth.

I’m hoping that I am wrong. But, after hearing that statement I’m going to predict there will be “boots on the ground” within Syria and western Iraq by the end of 2017. Those of you who voted for the man and have children of prime drafting age should be saying your prayers now because efforts to reestablish the draft cannot be far behind.

Trump has made known some of the goals during his first 100 days in office.

Obamacare, in its current form, will be going away. But, the question is what will be left? The Republican controlled government is ready to repeal Obamacare with nothing to immediately replace it. But, there are undercurrents that this might not happen immediately. In fact, the first executive order signed was to “ease the burden” of Obamacare. What that exactly meant is unclear, and nobody is talking tonight.

The item with the biggest impact on our nation for the long term is filling the vacancy in the U.S. Supreme Court created by the death of Anton Scalia.

As of last fall Trump had a list of twelve candidates he considered to be his short list. Hopefully, he has had unofficial conversations with those people so that the list is whittled down to two or three names, and we can move forward.

Mind you I’m not suggesting there should be a rubber stamp of whomever he places into nomination. But, I’m hoping the opposition can be mature enough to have their hearings, and then vote.

Tonight Trump took a few moments to rail on the press. I had hoped the rhetoric was going to slow down. But, it hasn’t. I can’t even blame it on a few too many celebratory glasses of champagne since Trump does not drink alcohol.

My prayers for the next few days is that protests will be peaceful. You have an absolute right to protest. But, you do not have the right to willfully take a baseball bat or ball pin hammer to a store front. If you do not want to police breaking up a protest then police yourself. It is the anarchists amongst you who are forcing them to react.

The Intolerance of Tolerance

Is anyone else getting really concerned about the polarization of society lately? I'm not talking only in the political sense, but the way people treat each other in general.

Clearly, we're not going to agree on everything. But, everything seem so be a hot button issue.

The most heated example surrounds the debate on homosexuality and same sex marriage.

Most people are familiar with the Holy Bible. Perhaps not the contents, but at least by name.

Leviticus is the third book of the Bible, and can be described as a Conduct guidebook. Some consider Leviticus 18 and 20 as specifically addressing same-sex relationships.

This blog entry isn't to tell you which way you should think. People believe what they believe, and I'd hazard a guess that most people are tolerant of others having viewpoints that don't jive with theirs. But, then there are groups like the Westboro Baptist Church.

WBC goes out of their way to practice a form of extremism in professing their beliefs, and are eager to offend those who don't share those beliefs 100%. I guess the hope is that shock value will make people change.

WBC's intolerance is obvious in their actions. But, what about the opposing side where the most common goto statement is to label anyone in opposition to the same-sex lifestyle as being full of hate regardless of whether they really do hate them, or not.

* * *

Look at the political climate in the United States.

Since the early to mid 1800s, most Americans have been in one of two major parties, the Democratic and Republican. (it may surprise you to know there are currently five major and 33 minor parties nationwide; along with all sorts of regional parties.)

It's fair to say that Democratic and Republican controlling interests have polarized this country to a point not seen previously in our lifetime.

Four years ago, Barack Obama was elected President. He is the first African-American to ever hold the post. Obama is also a Democrat.

Within a week's time we started seeing distasteful things like Obama Monkey and Moo-chelle Obama. Clearly those have overt racial implications and were aimed at the first family because of their race.

In 2010, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) famously proclaimed,  "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." It's one thing to say that after codifying social issues that would lead to how that would be accomplished. However, more than once, it was stated as being the top priority, and seemingly the only priority, with anything else happening along the way being gravy.

There's no denying that many comments were only because of the color of Obama's skin, but I think it can be said that much of the anti-Obama behavior can be summed up as a lack of respect for the man, with no consideration for his position.

It's become more important to tear down those in the opposition than it is to support your own position.

During the recent political conventions, actor Jason Biggs lashed out with a string of vulgar tweets about Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and their wives. Not to be outdone, commentator Ann Coulter followed the next week, smearing Bill Clinton and Sandra Fluke.

WHY???????

* * *

Even deep within the heart of liberal and progressive Northern California, our little community of Albany isn't immune to the intolerance of tolerance.

We have a small core of people that regularly comment on things. One of the vocal individuals is Ulan McKnight. (In full disclosure, Ulan and I graduated from high school in the same class, though we didn't run in the same circles.)

Over the past couple of years we've had two very contentious issues make their way to the forefront of local politics; a proposed medical marijuana dispensary and the development of the University of California's Gill Tract.

Ulan was very vocal on the pro-dispensary side during the VitalGen application, and I think it is fair to say he agrees with the Occupy the Farm movement. While he and I may have been on opposite ends of the spectrum in many of our comments on Albany Patch articles, I've never felt the need to personally attack him.

Unfortunately, that cannot be said for some others who seem to relish any opportunity to disparage him by bringing up things from the past, which have no connection to the topic at hand - even to the point of belittling him based on his choice of clothing captured in a Patch photo.

* * *

Recently, I experienced this myself.

On a photography forum I sometimes visit, someone started a thread about the need for photographers to be more conscious about labeling some of their photos "NSFW," the acronym for Not Safe for Work. It's usually used as a warning for images where there's a good chance someone somewhere might find something objectionable.

I supported his argument because, as of late, there seems to be more and more photos with less and less clothing in them.

Many of the comments were along the lines of, "It's fine for my workplace" or "why were you surfing a photo gallery at work anyways?"

If those were the only comments, I'd ignore them. Unfortunately, there was someone feeling the need to start labeling people as babies and whiners. Then, when I said it was sad about the comments being left, I was told I was seriously lame. Yes, these are childish, but when said over and over they are obviously meant to be hurtful.

* * *

I'm not suggesting we should all sit down around the drum circle, bang on the bongos, and sing Kumbaya. What I AM suggesting is that it should be OK to have differing views, and to feel free to express them without resorting to Over the Top behavior, or being subjected to it. People MUST think about HOW we treat each other when expressing those feelings, no matter how distasteful we may find them.

Caucus Conundrum

As I'm writing this the Colorado Caucus has just opened its doors, and they are in the process of counting the votes in Minnesota, and in the non-binding Missouri Primary.

Most states use the primary system to cast votes in presidential elections. However, there are eleven states that use the caucus system for all parties, and three states that use it for one of the majority parties, but not both.¹

For those that are confused by the caucus process, you're not alone. Most Americans scratch their head when asked exactly how it works. Basically, people from the party get together and then discuss things before voting. Once voting is completed they announce the vote for their precinct and that tally is passed on for the state convention.² Honestly, it reminds me of what it must've looked like back at the time of the Founding Fathers.

But, that's the problem. While that may have worked when the population of the country was below 1 million, it's an outdated system when you're talking about states that have millions of people, and those people work all sorts of different schedules so they cannot necessarily make it to a particular time on a particular day. With few exceptions, caucuses usually see turnout below 10%.³ You'd be hard pressed to find a primary turnout at that low of a level.

What does it say for the caucus process when votes can be tallied on a notepad? To me it says you have such a low turnout that it has to question the cost of the process. The plus side is that those who show up to "caucus" get to also select who will represent them at the state convention, as opposed to the state party handing them out depending on party politics at the state level. Additionally, the state party generally pays for the caucus rather than the state as a whole.⁴

Frankly, I'd rather see all states go to a primary system so people can cast absentee ballots, which will cause more turnout.⁵ Additionally, I'd rather see a national primary date set for sometime in April. A national primary would not preclude having a whole bunch of debates as we have seen with the Republican presidential candidates this year and it would still give the national committees over two months to prepare for their national conventions.

* * *

More troubling is what happened with last weekend's Nevada Republican Caucus, where it was decided to have a separate caucus for the Orthodox Jewish population of the state. This special caucus took place in Las Vegas and you had to sign a letter saying that you could not take part in the normal state caucus due to religious reasons. (Orthodox Jewish people are not supposed to work on the Sabbath, which is considered sundown Friday to sundown Saturday).

However, people supporting Ron Paul decided to attend this special caucus, even though they weren't necessarily prevented from attending the normal caucus due to religious reasons. As a result, Ron Paul received a vast majority of the votes as the special caucus, despite the state going to Mitt Romney overall. Additionally, a major Newt Gingrich financial backer chose to attend even though he had publicly said he was not an Orthodox Jew.⁶

This special caucus was arranged a month prior to the actual date of the caucus. There was no special caucus in 2008 even though it was also held on a Saturday. The 2004 Republican Caucus was held on a weekday, while the Democratic Caucus was held two weeks prior, on Saturday, January 21st. Again, with no special caucus.

My feeling is that if states are going to continue using the caucus system then then should plan ahead for contingencies like this. And in this circumstance, the date of the Nevada Caucus was moved to make sure it was held prior to the Florida moved it's primary.⁷ And was done quite some time ago.

Having special caucuses, due to religious reasons, starts moving us towards that slippery slope of supporting one religion over another. What would happen if a Christian group demanded a separate caucus due to religious reasons? Not as widely known, members of the 7th Day Adventist Church were also allowed to attend the special caucus as well, though they weren't the catalyst for it being established.

---

¹ Answers.com, What states have presidential caucuses,
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_states_have_presidential_caucuses (Feb. 06, 2012).

^2,3 The Caucus System in the U.S. Presidential Nominating Process,
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/caucus-system-us-presidential-nominating-process/p15640#p2 (Feb. 06, 2012).

⁴ What Happens at a Presidential Caucus,
http://www.ehow.com/video_4871897_happens-precinct-caucus_.html (Feb. 06, 2012).

⁵ Caucuses Will Still Lack Absentee Voting,
http://www.thenation.com/blog/165218/caucuses-will-still-lack-absentee-voting (February 06, 2012).

⁶ Special Nevada caucus participants sign religious declaration,
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/02/05/3091525/special-nevada-caucus-participants-sign-religious-declaration (February 06, 2012).

⁷ Nevada Presidential Caucus Moved to January 14th,
http://www.nevadagop.org/nevada-presidenti%E2%80%8Bal-caucus-moved-to-january-14th/ (February 06, 2012).

Power...Glorious POWER!!!

You remember the scene in Oliver Twist where all the kids are sitting around the dining hall tables and Oliver has the audacity to ask for more. Then they all break out into “Food...glorious food!” I completely understand it, only its not food, but electricity!

Today I woke up around 9:30a. Just as I walked into the upstairs hallway I heard my computer's battery backup making noise. Thought to myself, “hmm, the power must've just went out.” Sure enough no power. I was going to go make coffee. Wrong, the coffee maker runs on electricity. Next I go back upstairs and decide to watch the Speed Racer DVD I received from Netflix yesterday. Ugh, I can't turn my computer on, can I? Oh well, there's always the Tivo recording of last night's episode of Sanctuary. NOPE...can't watch that either if I can't turn on my television set, can I?

Wanted to call PG&E to see about the outage. Problem there too. We use a cordless phone, which runs on electricity, and our phones aren't working since my router /modem is not on and we use Earthlink's phone service. But I can always use my cell phone. As I slide the keyboard out it gives me a low battery indicator and tells me to plug it into the recharger. :-)

I had thought about going out and shooting some digital photos today, but I needed to recharge my camera's batteries since I hadn't used it in months. Scratch that one. I was about to scream at this point!!

So what's the thread through all of that? ELECTRICITY!!!!! Without thinking of it, American society has grown so intertwined with the dependency on energy, especially electrical energy, that when it's not available we're basically stuck. One of the big themes that we keep hearing by this year's presidential campaigns is try to rid us of the reliance on foreign oil, and the mantra of “Drill...baby drill.” I'll give the Republican candidates kudos for coming right out an publicly admitting that for all to see (even though I don't wholly agree with it. Then there's the talk of “clean coal” as if there really is such a thing.

Build! Build! Build! Build coal-burning power plants. Build hydroelectric dams. Build oil refineries!! Those are always the primary answers that seem to be heard. However, there seems to be very few sound bytes promoting the #1 renewable energy source that will always be here as long as Man walks the Earth....Solar Power.

I'm hoping that someday some president will see that logical conclusion and try and solve the looming energy problem by attacking the crisis head on, with a groundbreaking speech akin to John F. Kennedy's “Moon” speech given Sept. 12, 1962. If you're reading this Mr. Future Present, I would come up with a $1 billion tax break for the first American car company to develop a fleet of cars that rely on electricity. There HAS to be a way to develop a solar cell system that can cover the entire exoskeleton of the car body so as to provide a long lasting charge of energy without giving up many of the creature comforts we've came to enjoy, and being able to drive at more than 30mph for 200 miles at a time. Think of it as a governmental version of the XPrize. (The XPrize foundation HAS an automotive-based XPrize, but it doesn't go far and doesn't have the potential impact this government handout would).

Oh, by the way, YES...I said billion with a B. That's one big tax right off going to big business! However, it would only be available with some strict limitations. The company must be American-owned. The company must build their vehicles here in the US. NAFTA doesn't count. The vehicle must consume 100% electricity as its fuel source. The cars must be in full production and available to the general public no later than 2015, and the company must pledge it will manufacture the vehicles for at least three years after being rewarded with the tax break. If the latter is violated then the company will give up their tax break and publicly publish their patents for all the World to see AND use. By converting our vehicle fleet over to relying on electrical energy, and not looking like something out of Back to the Future, Part II, that will put a huge dent into our consumption of fossil fuels.

Now that's the Pie-In-The-Sky vision, especially when you've got car and oil companies telling us that a 100% electrical car is not going to ever happen because of such and such a reason. It happened with the space industry. It can happen with the auto industry. Also consider the natural advancements in other industries that will be an off-shoot of such an automobile industry revolution.

In the immediate future better tax-breaks should be more readily available for Joe Citizen so they can install solar electrical systems on their buildings to help relieve stress on the Grid. If the leadership of this country cannot envision at least that there will be no emphasis on development. Kennedy had a vision and that vision was realized in less than a decade. This one should be too.

After all, it's not rocket science!


(BTW: If you're interested in knowing what I ended up doing, first I took my fossil fuel burning car and went to my bank, followed by coming home and picking up a book I'd started reading a few months ago. Unfortunately, with my eyes I seem to only be able to read for about an hour before I've got to put the book down. Power eventually came on around 2:30p when I sat down to write this blog.)