What Do Donald Trump, The Sightline Institute, Sierra Club of Washington and Columbia River Keeper Have in Common?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

like_trumpThey All Want You to Ignore Recent Studies on Climate Change…

An important new study on Climate Change was released last week by multiple agencies of the Federal Government. The study concludes, again, that the world’s temperatures are rising and that human activity is a significant cause. 

So, did President Donald Trump embrace the science? The newly released study?

Nope. 

“I don’t believe it.” was all he said. He placed his uninformed opinion above the competent researchers that produced the report. 

This nonsense only happens on the Right, right? Wrong. Here in Washington State, environmental activists are doing the same thing.

Two weeks ago, an independent and thorough study was released that shows building a proposed methanol plant in Kalama, Washington will reduce Global Greenhouse Gases by as much as is produced by 89% of all private cars on Washington State Roads.

The response from The Sightline Institute, Sierra Club Washington and The Columbia River keepers? 

“Ignore the study!” (See here, for one example)

Wow. We on the Left can be as daft as the Right.

Some Background…

In September 2016, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released for a Methanol Production Plant proposed to be built in Kalama. The report made claims that building the plant would have net-positive effects on Global Greenhouse Gases (GHG). Specifically, that by building this plant & shipping methanol to China, that methanol would replace coal in Chinese production processes, resulting in a significant reduction of GHG. Or said more succinctly, using methanol for producing products in China is significantly cleaner than the coal that China currently uses.

More Research!!!

Activists, however, were not satisfied that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement provided enough research into the overall affects of building the plant. 

Specifically, opponents, including Sightline Institute and Columbia River Keepers, wanted the State to consider not only the impacts of building the plant within Washington State, they wanted a more thorough study on both the upstream (the GHG that is produced in fracking the natural gas that the Kalama Plant would use) and the downstream (the GHG produced in transporting and burning the methanol in China).

Fair enough. I agree with them! We need to understand the entire lifecycle of the projects we build. 

To that end, the Shoreline Hearings Board put the project permits on hold, and in May of this year, Superior Court Judge Stephen Warning (that name!) ordered exactly that, saying that the environmental review was inadequate & that a full lifecycle analysis had to be done.

Chop! Chop!

Behold! A Study!

So what happened? Well…as the Hearings Board, the Judge (Warning!), and environmentalists asked, a study WAS done. And not a small study, but a comprehensive cradle-to-grave lifecycle analysis of the entire project. 

In other words, the opponents got exactly what they asked for…and guess what? The study answered and refuted not some, but most of their concerns.

The study concluded not only that building the plant would reduce the Global Greenhouse Gases by a little…it would reduce them by a lot! 

Building the methanol plant at Kalama, according to the commissioned study, will reduce GHG by 11.5 million metric tons per year. That’s just a number…so how much is 11.5 million metric tons? It’s the equivalent of removing 89% of all privately owned cars from Washington State Roads.

Think how much work we do to try to improve transportation…and then realize that in one act, we could remove 89% of the negative impact of those cars. Now.

Environmentalists Are Satisfied! Right? Right?

The critics raised serious and important questions that needed to be answered. And they won! They forced the independent study! And the most important questions they were asking have now been answered.

You’d expect them to be satisfied, to move from being skeptics to supporters, right? After all, this project represents the single-largest reduction of GHG that Washington State will have ever undertaken. That’s a win! Right?

In my 25 years in political activism, I’ve learned one important truth: activists are rarely happy.

Many are so identified with their opposition to a thing that they can’t recognize when they’ve won an important battle. And that’s what has happened here. Sightline, The Sierra Club and the Columbia River Keepers won an important battle. And they’re still not happy.

Trump Wants Coal. Environmentalists Want Coal Too?

Trump has been busy trying to prop-up and revive the coal industry. And here again, we find a parallel with Sightline, Sierra Club and Columbia River Keepers.

These enviros are screaming “Fracked Gas!” as though they are telling you the whole story. They are not. Their complaints are short-sighted and disingenuous. Why? Because “fracked gas!” is only one side of the equation. The other side? Dirtier Coal.

By opposing the plant in Kalama, these environmentalists are propping up the coal industry in China. They are arguing that instead of taking this opportunity to displace coal, we should maintain the status quo. Do nothing. Allow China to simply proceed as normal. In other words, burn more and more coal.

The methanol produced in Kalama will replace a much dirtier fuel. So while we can all agree that fracked natural gas and fossil fuels are not a long-term solution to climate change, we should also be able to agree that taking strong steps to reduce the dirtiest sources of pollution should be a top priority. The methanol plant at Kalama does exactly that. In a big way.

But, don’t just take my word for it

Read the report!

Netflix, not Frank Underwood, is the Real Devil

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by
net_underHouse of Cards is a dangerous and cheap exploitation of ignorance.
 
I’ve previously criticized journalists who mix fiction and non-fiction by using their persons to portray fictional journalists on TV.
 
But more than that, Netflix, its writers and producers, its executives and owners, cross a dangerous line when they mingle fiction with actual and current nonfiction issues.
 
For example, when they suggest that Frank Underwood is leaving to start a Foundation, to put himself where real power lies. When they mix in stories about Syria, chemical weapons, and Isis; stories which are current and which need real and nuanced understanding.
 
By playing loose with these real and present world issues, they are influencing the public with fantasy, not reality. It’s irresponsible, immoral.
 
Morality; does any care about that?
 
Frank Underwood at one point says “there is no justice, only conquest.” And Netflix is aiding that sentiment.
 
The most prescient danger we face is that people, even relatively well-informed people, can no longer distinguish between fact and fiction.
 
Netflix is playing that for laughs. For subscribers.
 
It’s deadly serious.

Jean Baudrillard, Postmodernism and The Wiz

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

baudrilaardwizWherein reading the postmodern philosopher Jean Baudrillard causes recall the sage words of The Wiz:

“Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle.” — Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation

‘Living here, in this brand new world
Might be a fantasy
But it taught me to love
So it’s real, real to me”

— “Home” from The Wiz

Note: Stephanie Mills is preferred over Diana Ross

Guns Don’t Kill People, Statistics Do

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

PrintThe primary reason given for gun ownership is protection. That is one valid potential use for a gun. But that is not the only way that a gun can be used. Here are common uses for a gun:

  1. Protection
  2. Intentional self-harm
  3. Accidental self-harm
  4. Intentional other-harm
  5. Accidental other-harm

On this list, protection is statistically the least likely. Uses 2-5 are much more common than is protection. So, when a gun is introduced into a home, it is significantly more likely to be used for unintended reasons than for the intended reason.

That would be true in a home of one person. Now let’s multiply the above list by the number of people who have proximity to that gun:

  1. Self
  2. Family Members
  3. Visitors to the home
  4. Thieves

None of us can predict future circumstances or know of future mental states. None of us can predict the potential for mental illness (either permanent or temporary) either in ourself or in those with proximity to the gun.

Gun x Unintended Uses x Others x Unknown Future = Danger

Take the statistically more likely uses for the gun (2-5) and multiply that by the number of people proximity to that gun, and multiply that again by the unknown future mental state of any of those with proximity, and you begin to understand why a gun in the home is significantly more likely to be used in a manner that is not intended.

Homes with a gun are more dangerous than homes without a gun.

The Misinformation Age

/3 Comments/in , , , , , /by

boat-storm2This age may not be as good for humanity as is commonly assumed. We are in grave danger of being harmed by too much information.

Information, on its own, is neither good nor bad. Rather it is either valid or invalid.

Signal-to-noise ratio is a measure used in science that compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise. In communication theory, this indicates the amount of valid information (the signal) to the amount of invalid information (the noise).

Signal can’t be analyzed apart from noise. An increase in good signal does not automatically mean we are better informed; if there has been an even greater increase in bad noise, we are less informed.

The current presidential campaign is instructive. Turn on any news channel; by the end of the program, you will be left with more questions than answers. This is due to being given more noise than signal. And each day is increasing the noise, and thereby decreasing the signal.

Brandolini’s Law: The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it

News and journalism should increase signal & decrease noise. There can be no doubt news is now increasing noise. In fact, most journalism now revels in noise, because noise can create controversy, and controversy can increase viewers and readers.

It may be that humanity has not evolved in a way that allows us to process information as quickly as it is being presented. We have not been adequately educated to separate signal and noise.

The point is this: we are less informed today than we were yesterday. But, you may respond, what about all the new information we have received!?! It’s true; we’ve been blessed with unprecedented levels of good information in the recent past. But if in that same period we have been flooded with misinformation, the net result is a reduction in knowledge, not an increase. If there is more noise, there is simply less signal.

This is not a small problem. It may very well be the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced. And we are losing.

Judging Hillary: They Who Are Without Sin…

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

hillaryI became angry at a fellow Democrat this weekend…

She’s a solid Hillary Clinton supporter, never a doubt that she was going to vote for her. But over drinks, she said what we all hear over and over again about HRC: “She’s a liar, she’s power-hungry, she’s…” You know the list.
 
Dear Everybody…Here are some things about Hillary Clinton you have insufficient evidence for:
  • She’s dishonest
  • She’s really in it for the power
  • She doesn’t really care about the issues
  • She doesn’t really love Bill
  • She’s a cold, distant mother
  • She’s a cold, distant grandmother
  • She’s shrill
  • She’s really in it for the money
  • She’s in the pocket of Wall Street
  • She’s really a Republican
  • She’s really a Socialist
  • …
We are all free to hold to the “who would you rather have a beer with” trope. We are certainly free to make the judgements I list above. But if you judge Hillary Clinton without acknowledging the systemic and cultural sexism through which we judge her and the relentless nearly three decade campaign of deliberate misinformation that she’s been subjected to, well then…
  • Who’s being dishonest?
Has Hillary Clinton lied? Yes. After years of scrutinizing every charge that has been leveled at her (I know, I need a life), here’s the one thing she’s said that I think was a lie: the incident of “sniper fire” on her 1996 trip to Bosnia.
 
But rather than implicating her as a “liar” I marvel at how under such scrutiny, recorded in detail far greater than nearly any other human in history (maybe Princess Diana?), how little evidence there actually is for the primary narrative about her. Being honest with myself, I’ve lied and exaggerated stories. Even so, I value honesty and integrity, and would consider any judgement that labeled me “a liar” unfair.
“They who are without sin…”

Hillary Clinton & Racism

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

06-hillary-clinton-black-voters-2.w710.h473.2xRecently, in a discussion on racism among recent presidential candidates, a friend asked me what level of racism I think Hillary Clinton holds. Here is my answer:

Building a Scale: 1 to 10, 10 being the most racist.

Clinton: 2 or 3

Let’s say there’s a dividing line at 5, and the dividing point is whether a person is teachable on the subject of racism; do they fundamentally understand racism and are open to learning and improving on their own biases as well as the systemic racism in our culture? The dividing line is where I think it is ethical to call someone racist; above a 5 they are fairly labeled a racist, and below 5 they are not.

Rather than answer from my perspective alone, let’s rely on the support that Clinton receives from the African American community (note, we could talk about minorities in general, including Latinos and Asians, for example, but for the purposes of this discussion, let’s focus in on African Americans).

I’d place Clinton at 2 or 3 on the described scale. That means that she maintains the remnants of racism naturally inherent in all humans and the remnants of racism inherent in white privilege. But she’s also keenly aware of her own racism and the racism in our society, and more specifically, the systemic ways racism manifests in government.

Let’s look at how African Americans see her:

On the question of who they will vote for:
Clinton: 80 %
Trump: 3%

Let’s look at favorability:

While Ciinton’s favorability ratings among all voters sits at 41 favorable and 52 unfavorable, among African Americans, Clinton has an 83% favorability rating.

While one might conclude that she only does this well in contrast to Trump, I’d note that Clinton pulled similar numbers in her matchup with Bernie Sanders.

Finally, as a measure of her awareness on these issues, I’d direct you to read her policy positions:

Racial Justice
Criminal Justice Reform
Voting Rights

Polling taken from http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/…/PPP_Release…

Wikileaks is not Journalism

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

woodward_184_2_650Wikileaks has been dubbed “Journalism” in an attempt to secure a measure of legitimacy for what they do. Recently, I heard the analogy that Wikileaks is like Deep Throat and Woodward and Bernstein of Watergate fame.

Wikileaks are not Deep Throat or Woodward and Bernstein. Wikileaks are the burglars who broke into the Democratic National Committee office at the Watergate hotel. The info released by Wikileaks is the info stolen from the Democratic National Committee.

Imagine if the Washington Post, instead of telling us the story of the break-in as THE STORY, published the information stolen from the Democratic National Committee. And then treated the burglars as Journalists.

That’s the state of both Wikileaks and our Press today. In the era of sensationalism, we’ve lost site of the real story. Let’s not crown the Burglers of Watergate as the heroes.

assnage_watergate

 

The Seven Social Sins…

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by
  1. stormy-night-1920Wealth without work.
  2. Pleasure without conscience.
  3. Knowledge without character.
  4. Commerce without morality.
  5. Science without humanity.
  6. Worship without sacrifice.
  7. Politics without principle.

Attributed to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

The Beginning of Life…

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

tVqNo1pDdutC5mdV9mqhUWfu“As for when “life” begins: The gametes that join to form the zygote that becomes the embryo are all alive. Life is no longer something that “begins.” It is something that is transferred from one living thing to another. You carry within your cells a genetic code that connects you with every other living thing on the planet—as well as every other dead thing that was once alive. Plants, trees, bacteria, human embryos, etc., they carry remnants of the same genetic markers that you do because you are all related by a common ancestor (or several). Life began on this planet over a billion years ago—it hasn’t begun since.”

— from an internet post by BreakerBaker (Andrew).

No More War?

/1 Comment/in , , , , , , /by

syrian_boy

We’ve all seen the picture. Heartbreaking.

A Washington State Delegate for Bernie Sanders posted this picture on Facebook and then stated “This is why we chant “No More War”. Because NO child anywhere should have to have these experiences. I don’t care who pulls the trigger, and I don’t care who has to give the order. Humans should be working together to make our world a paradise, not fighting about money, food, water, oil or lines on a piece of paper.”

In other words, he’s using this picture to justify disrupting the DNC with chants of “No More War.” He’s using this picture to justify labeling Hillary Clinton a “War Monger.”

Let’s analyze that. This boy was just bombed by the Russian-backed Syrian Air Force. It may have been Russian Planes.

The overly simplistic chant of ‘No More War’ says that there’s nothing to be done to come to the aid of this child and his family. It says that the U.S. should always stay out of such conflicts around the world.

How, exactly, would this approach help this child?

And this…

“Fifteen of the last 35 doctors in rebel-held eastern Aleppo have written a letter to Barack Obama with an urgent plea for intervention to stop the bombardment of hospitals in the besieged city by the Russian-backed Syrian air force.”

Would the ‘No More War’ crowd simply shout down these doctors with that chant?

Radical leftists claim a moral high ground through simply ignoring reality. By staying out of the complex problems that exist in the World, they pretend to be unsullied. By lobbing opinions from the peanut gallery, they pretend to be offering solutions. In reality, they offer nothing.

The world is complex. War and peace are complex. Anyone who tells you otherwise has nothing meaningful to offer to the conversation.

The irony of this Facebook post is that he is using this picture to justify actions that would do nothing to help this child.

Fix it.

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

957155The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to keep us safe.

The result of the 2nd Amendment is that we are less safe.

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t work.

Alan Turing, Transforming the System of Government

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

24turing1-popupAlan Turing was perhaps one of the greatest minds the human race has ever known. He transformed the way we think of systems, and is often referred to as the father of computer science. But even now, in death, he is helping us to analyze a different kind of system, the system of human governance.

Alan Turing was convicted of the crime of being a homosexual. The punishment for that crime led to his taking his own life. Many now understand how egregious such conviction was, and have worked hard to change the laws around homosexuality. We are witness to one of the great advances in human rights as the system of democratic pluralism is leading the way in recognizing the fundamental right to the free expression of sexual orientation.

Human institutions make mistakes. Recently, the Queen of England granted Turing a Royal Pardon. I’m glad to see this action taken. There are many acts that our Government has taken, much more horrific even than this, for which we have yet to make amends.

Most important is to learn the core lessons of such mistakes, and to implement changes to the system of government to avoid similar mistakes going forward. Alan Turing is a hero; we honor his sacrifice by learning and applying the lessons.

“Nearly 60 years after his death, Alan Turing, the British mathematician regarded as one of the central figures in the development of the computer, received a formal pardon from Queen Elizabeth II on Monday for his conviction in 1952 on charges of homosexuality, at the time a criminal offense in Britain.” New York Times

New York Times: Alan Turing, Enigma Code-Breaker and Computer Pioneer, Wins Royal Pardon

 

 

Destroying Plato’s Theory of Forms

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

This short video succeeds in destroying Plato’s Theory of Forms, Christianity’s idea of the perfect man, and Mormonism’s Proclamation On The Family. All in under 5 minutes.

On Transcience by Sigmund Freud

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Note from Timothy: As a child in the mormon religion, it was drilled into me that absent that faith, life would be meaningless. Again and again I was told that only the eternity of life, immortality, would imbue the existence of this life, my life, with importance. That only the hope of heaven could assuage the pain of death and loss. For many years, I accepted this notion, simply because everyone I knew and loved told me it was so.

Later, however, upon leaving my religion, I found a different formulation of value. I found that the lack of certainty in my own immortality gave increase to the value of each day, each new friend, and each new experience. I had found that my joy had been amplified.

As I look back upon that time, as I have fewer and fewer conversations with those who are still within the faith of my childhood, it strikes me that they have yet to allow themselves to mourn for the losses that have and will occur in their lives; and absent that mourning, they are unable to accept anew and fully the emergence of new beauty, new love, new truth. By refusing to let that which we love perish, we miss the opportunity to experience it as it is, in its true nature. And in this way, we lose the value of everything. Freud had found the same idea.

—–

Not long ago I went on a summer walk through a smiling countryside in the company of a taciturn friend and of a young but already famous poet. The poet admired the beauty of the scene around us but felt no joy in it. He was disturbed by the thought that all this beauty was fated to extinction, that it would vanish when winter came, like all human beauty and all the beauty and splendour that men have created or may create. All that he would otherwise have loved and admired seemed to him to be shorn of its worth by the transience which was its doom.

Read more

Dan Savage in Conversation with Andrew Sullivan

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

This is an amazing conversation; perhaps the pinnacle of modern sexual morality presented by seasoned voices of reason.

What Is Your Relational Orientation?

/34 Comments/in , , , , , /by
Are you Monogamous or Polyamorous?

In addition to sexual orientation, humans can identify a relational orientation.

The mating and social behavior of animals is of particular interest to humans. In our effort to understand the animal kingdom, we classify and document behaviors and traits, labeling a species as either “this” or “that”. Leaving aside a Western or religious understanding of monogamy as lifelong and exclusive pair bonding, there are animals that tend toward monogamy (3-5% of the animal population) and animals that do not.

At best, these classifications give us approximations. Not every species fits nicely into categories, and individual members of a given species may behave differently than the norm. These qualifications aside, we’re comfortable taking a 30,000 foot view of animal behavior and classifying them accordingly.

We tend to wear blinders, however, when looking at ourselves, the human animal. It is, perhaps, simply bias that prevents us from studying ourselves in the same way we do birds and bees.

Read more