Can Scientists Tell Carbon Dioxide to Scram, to "Take a Powder"?

“You have to take CO 2 from the air — there’s no way around it,” said “Even if we stop emitting CO 2 , we still need to take it out of the air. We don’t have any other options.” 

Omar Yaghi, a reticular chemist at UC Berkeley who is also chief scientist at Berkeley’s Bakar Institute of Digital Materials for the Planet.

So, most of climate change efforts are engaged towards finding alternative sources of power, shifting away from fossil fuel driven cars, electricity generating plants and factories. From Bill Gates with his TerraPower investment, a “Natrium” liquid sodium cooled nuclear reactor, now under construction in Kemmerer, Wyoming to new wind and solar farms, sensible construction designs and geothermal alternatives, event these nascent efforts just aren’t enough. The slam of recent hurricanes inflicting massive damage to the southeast should (but doesn’t) convince the climate change skeptics that they a wrong, sometimes dead wrong! The entire MAGA GOP has stated that they will pull all of the climate initiatives in the Biden-sponsored (and passed) in his infrastructure legislation. That would only make a bad situation unbearable. And no, Mr Speaker, God is not coming in to save the day… the responsibility is all ours.

Are they crazy? The realities are scientifically undeniable. Much of the resulting global migration is causing immigration issues to rise as one of the highest-level global political footballs, not just here in the US. As once productive agricultural land is decimated by climate change driven disasters, in addition to fleeing from regional violence, many are no longer able to sustain even subsistence farming any more. Much of the Earth is already uninhabitable… much more is on the edge of that harsh inevitability. So. what’s missing? What are we not really taking seriously?

In addition to alternative energy, reducing power usage and learning to live in an energy limited world, we actually need to figure out how to extract sufficient greenhouses gasses by massive amounts. Replanting forests, preserving what we have with greater care, are part of that effort… also understanding that the vegetation beneath our oceans is also mission critical, but we need to be more proactive. Universities are designing, and experimental carbon extraction efforts are being deployed with increasing efficiency (the image, above left, reflects an MIT design). Where there are massive accumulations of carbon dioxide, these machines work well enough, but the extraction levels needed to make a difference are incomprehensibly huge.

In October of 2019, MIT reported on a system that can generate electricity, then focus on the CO2 build-up efficiently: “Most methods of removing carbon dioxide from a stream of gas require higher concentrations, such as those found in the flue emissions from fossil fuel-based power plants. A few variations have been developed that can work with the low concentrations found in air, but the new method is significantly less energy-intensive and expensive, the researchers say… The device is essentially a large, specialized battery that absorbs carbon dioxide from the air (or other gas stream) passing over its electrodes as it is being charged up, and then releases the gas as it is being discharged. In operation, the device would simply alternate between charging and discharging, with fresh air or feed gas being blown through the system during the charging cycle, and then the pure, concentrated carbon dioxide being blown out during the discharging.

“As the battery charges, an electrochemical reaction takes place at the surface of each of a stack of electrodes. These are coated with a compound called polyanthraquinone, which is composited with carbon nanotubes. The electrodes have a natural affinity for carbon dioxide and readily react with its molecules in the airstream or feed gas, even when it is present at very low concentrations. The reverse reaction takes place when the battery is discharged — during which the device can provide part of the power needed for the whole system — and in the process ejects a stream of pure carbon dioxide. The whole system operates at room temperature and normal air pressure.”

But there is an even newer technique, using a fairly inexpensive powder developed at Berkeley, that promises a much more efficient CO2 extraction process: “A typical large tree can suck as much as 40 kilograms of carbon dioxide out of the air over the course of a year. Now scientists at UC Berkeley say they can do the same job with less than half a pound of a fluffy yellow powder…

“The powder was designed to trap the greenhouse gas in its microscopic pores, then release it when it’s ready to be squirreled away someplace where it can’t contribute to global warming. In tests, the material was still in fine form after 100 such cycles, according to a study published Wednesday [10/24] in the journal Nature… ‘It performs beautifully,’ said Omar Yaghi, a reticular chemist at UC Berkeley and the study’s senior author. ‘Based on the stability and the behavior of the material right now, we think it will go to thousands of cycles.’

“Dubbed COF-999, the powder could be deployed in the kinds of large-scale direct air-capture [DAC] plants that are starting to come online to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere… Keeping the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide below 450 parts per million is necessary to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and prevent some of the most dire consequences of climate change, scientists say. Measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii indicate that CO 2 levels are currently around 423 ppm.

“‘You have to take CO 2 from the air — there’s no way around it,’ said Yaghi, who is also chief scientist at Berkeley’s Bakar Institute of Digital Materials for the Planet. ‘Even if we stop emitting CO 2, we still need to take it out of the air. We don’t have any other options.’” Karen Kaplan writing for the October 24th FastCompany.com. As politicians and large corporations remain unwilling to spend what it takes to fix or give up revenue sources built over a century, disasters are increasingly making life exceptionally difficult and expensive… or simply taking lives. The clock is ticking… and time is definitely not our ally. We really cannot live with unchecked CO2 release at anywhere near current levels.

I’m Peter Dekom, and as nations and their leaders dawdle, Mother Nature, armed with the immutable laws of physics, could care less; she started with nothing and can do it again… or not.

The Roe vs Wade Reversal (the Dobbs Decision) Legacy – More Dead Babies & Mothers

 

              Texas’ elderly male dominated Senate

Have red state, mostly elderly, conservative, white male legislators, unchecked by popular overrides, turned their medical doctors into “unethical,” uncaring, insensitive butchers? Has Texas law turned the nation’s largest, highly rated, medical complex (in Houston) into a second (or lower) rated hospital where women, seeking emergency care, unwittingly go to die? Are women in Texas, particularly those unable to afford a trip to a state with rational healthcare for women’s reproductive rights, now avoiding pregnancy even if they want a child?

What in God’s name – this means you who use religion to control women and push them to second rate citizenship behind “men” – gives untrained legislators the right to exercise their “beliefs” to supersede top-of-the-line physicians with decades of experience dealing in very personal healthcare decisions shared with their patients? Profound insecurity bolstered by radical biblical interpretation?

This male machismo ethos, reinforced by the same man who was recorded in 2005 saying “if you grab them by the p*****y,” “boasting at public events and in social media posts that he would ‘protect women’ and make sure they wouldn’t be ‘thinking about abortion.’ At a rally Wednesday [10/30] evening near Green Bay, Wis., Trump told his supporters that aides had urged him to stop using the phrase because it was ‘inappropriate’ … He told the crowd that he told aides: ‘I said, ‘Well, I’m going to do it whether the women like it or not. I am going to protect them.’” Los Angeles Times, October 31st. Hapless women? Seriously? Just stop killing them!!!

The October 31st Houston Chronicle provides a salient example of Texas’ sacrificing women on their false altar of statutorily mandated misogyny (Senate Bill 8 known as the “Heartbeat Act” passed in September of 2021) “after doctors delayed performing emergency services on her out of fear of being prosecuted under the state's strict abortion laws… Josseli Barnica, a 28-year-old mother of one, was 17 weeks pregnant when she began to miscarry, but doctors at a Houston hospital were unwilling to perform emergency services until her baby's heartbeat was undetectable, according to ProPublica's investigation. Doctors delayed providing her care out of fear of being civilly prosecuted under Senate Bill 8… It requires physicians to not intervene unless there is no fetal heartbeat, or there is a ‘medical emergency,’ which is not defined in the law's text…

“Barnica's doctors were concerned about the law's gray area, and because she was in ‘stable’ condition, she remained in a hospital bed with a dilated cervix, according to ProPublica. Experts told reporters that she was left with her uterus exposed to bacteria and an increased risk of developing an infection. Barnica died of infection three days after delivering her 17-week-old child.” Every minute of delay amplifies the risk of sepsis, which took Barnica’s life in the end. But even in red counties and cities in otherwise blue states where abortion is still allowed, local officials and hospital administrators have taken it upon themselves to replicate those red state laws… on their own. As pregnant women face high risks, even death, the impact infant mortality is even more telling. Religious beliefs remain the standard excuse.

The October 30th Los Angeles Times reports a September lawsuit, filed by the state’s attorney general that alleged that, “in February, Providence St. Joseph Hospital [a Catholic facility in very conservative Humbolt County] denied a patient emergency care when her water prematurely broke while she was 15 weeks pregnant with twins. It allegedly placed her life at risk by telling her to drive to Mad River Community Hospital, a smaller critical access hospital 12 miles away, armed with a bucket and towels, while she was hemorrhaging… Mad River Community Hospital is scheduled to close its birth center at the end of the month, leaving Providence St. Joseph Hospital as the only labor and delivery unit in Humboldt County. [That] Catholic hospital in Eureka has agreed to provide emergency abortion services after a state lawsuit said it had refused to give abortions to pregnant patients in life-threatening emergencies.”

The Trump-reconfigured Supreme Court – his appointments specifically recommended by rightwing, anti-abortion political organizations who recently have become filters for Republican judicial nominees, including that highest court – reversed Roe v Wade in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization… and the maternal and infant mortality rates in states that subsequently severely limited or totally banned abortion slowly rose to “horrible.” As Karen Kaplan writes for the October 22nd Los Angeles Times, those negative statistics took time to rise, but within “months of the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe vs. Wade in June 2022, researchers found a significant increase in the rate of deaths of infants in the United States born with severe anatomical problems…

“By the end of 2023, there were six months when the death rate for infants with severe anatomical problems was significantly higher than in the years leading up to the high court’s decision. The researchers also identified three months when the nation’s overall infant mortality rate had increased… The findings, reported … in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, were seen as a clear sign that the Dobbs decision has prevented some women from terminating pregnancies that otherwise would have ended in abortion.

“‘There’s a really straightforward mechanism here,’ said Alison Gemmill, a demographer and perinatal epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who wasn’t involved in the study… ‘Prior to these abortion bans, people had the option to terminate if the fetus was found to have a severe congenital anomaly — we’re talking about organs being outside of the body and other things that are very severe and not compatible with life,’ Gemmill said… However, if women in these situations had no choice but to continue their pregnancies, ‘those babies would die shortly after birth,’ she said.

“Gemmill said the new findings are in line with her own research, including a study published in June that documented a nearly 13% increase in infant mortality in Texas in the wake of a 2021 state law that banned abortions after about the sixth week of pregnancy. Deaths due to congenital anomalies in particular rose by 23% while they were falling in the rest of the country, that study found.” Texas has been a purple state for a while now, gerrymandered severely red. We have become a very cruel and vindictive nation, exacerbated by red state attorneys general threatening to track their own citizens who travel to states with less or no restrictions on women seeking control over their own bodies. When do we make the bad, elderly legislators and jurists, stop?

I’m Peter Dekom, and I am deeply saddened by insecure men, seemingly searching for a redefinition of “masculinity,” willing to use religion as an excuse to stop the rise of strong and competent women who are giving them a real run for their money.

Reassessing Receess

“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” 

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution

"We don’t need any Democrats to help us. We have got the numbers… But, he added, [Trump needs] a team around him that’s going to help him. He can’t do it by himself.” 

Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala, November 10th.

“You have to have people you trust to go into these agencies and have a real reform agenda. And that’s why I think there’s real momentum, real momentum to get these nominations confirmed to actually deliver what President Trump promised on the campaign trail.” 

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo, November 10th.

It’s bad enough that the richest man in America is acting as if he spoke for the President-elect. Trump himself is playing at the edges of constitutional limitations. Although I will drill into the historical details and intent below, let’s start with the reality that Article II, Section 2 was never supposed to usurp or replace the requirement that major presidential political appointees be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. It was simply a stopgap measure to cover moments, when the Senate was not in session, when our country needed major federal leadership appointees until those approvals could be vetted and voted on. It was most certainly not a tool to install controversial appointees to serve long enough that their failures would be difficult to undo. The reason for this power had more to do with travel time… back then.

“It was during this first congressional recess that President George Washington made the country’s very first recess appointments. The U.S. Constitution provides that the Senate must approve presidential appointments. But at a time when cross-country travel by horse prevented senators from quickly convening, the framers of the Constitution decided to add a clause allowing the president to make temporary appointments during a congressional recess.

“Recess appointments became controversial as modern travel and longer congressional sessions have eliminated some of the reasons that the framers created the exception in the first place. These appointments drew increased scrutiny in the 21st century, with the Supreme Court ruling on them for the first time in 2014.” History.com

“During the nation’s early history, Congress would take months-long breaks from Washington, and presidents could use recess appointments to avoid having an important job go unfilled. But more recently, the process of recess appointments has been featured in partisan fights with the president.

“President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments and President George W. Bush made 171, though neither used the process for top-level Cabinet positions, according to the Congressional Research Service. President Barack Obama tried to continue the practice, using it 32 times, but a 2014 Supreme Court ruling put a check on the president’s power to make recess appointments.” Stephen Groves, Associated Press, November 14th. In NLRB v. Canning (2014), the US Supreme Court became skeptical of such appointments, which last until the end of the sitting term of the Senate (generally such a term could last as much 2 years – the time between elections), made under an overly short recess.

Today, if Trump’s nominees to key cabinet posts seem unlikely to be confirmed through the “advice and consent” vetting and Senate voting process, Trump is now pressuring Senate Republicans to recess long enough to get these objectionable candidates into cabinet leadership positions as recess appointments. This would render Art II, Section 2 virtually meaningless for recesses that follow a major change reflected in the November election. For the possible instant appointments, this would provide that maximum 2-year appointment without any Senate vetting.

Normally, this would seem a longshot, but with the US Supreme Court as currently configured, particularly in light of their sweeping presidential immunity decision, that conservative, pro-Trump 6-3 majority may well rule in Trump’s favor. What’s more, while “It would be a significant shift in power away from the Senate… Trump is returning to Washington with almost total support from his party, including the more traditional Republicans who still hold sway in the chamber.

“Their commitment, however, is being tested now that Trump has turned to picked people outside the Republican Party mainstream like former Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii for top positions… It quickly became apparent… that figures like Gaetz, who Trump announced as his choice for attorney general, may struggle to gain majority support from the Senate, even though Republicans will enjoy a 53-seat majority. But that may not matter if Trump is able to use recess appointments.” AP Who are the most controversial nominees to date?

Attorney General: Resigned on November 13, House Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida to serve as his attorney general, opting for a loyalist who has built a national reputation as a disruptor and has vowed to dramatically overhaul the Justice Department. Previously under investigation for having sex with a minor, trafficking with underage females, possible drug use, both by the DOJ and House Ethics Committee. As he left the House, there is controversy about the release of the results of his House Ethics Committee Report, which is said to contain extremely negative information about him. Many believe he is Trump’s designated “retribution tsar,” ready to target Trump’s critics and opponents, allied with the designated FCC-chair, Brendan Carr, expected to rein anti-Trump media operating under federal licenses.

Secretary of Defense: Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host, who was investigated in 2017 over "an alleged sexual assault" at a California hotel that was hosting a gathering of Republican women. Anti-DEI (especially women in combat roles), in favor of firing “woke” generals. Also combat veteran who was a captain in the Army National Guard, he served overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. He has no senior military experience.

Health and Human Services: Donald Trump has picked vaccine sceptic and former independent presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr as his health secretary. Kennedy, commonly known by his initials RFK Jr, has a history of spreading health information that scientists say is false. Environmental lawyer and member of the Kennedy family (which has rejected his policies and his political aspirations), Kennedy is the chairman and founder of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group and proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation.

Energy Secretary: Major Trump donor, Chris Wright, who calls himself “a tech nerd turned entrepreneur,” is a media-friendly evangelist for fossil fuels who promotes a feel-good message that oil and gas can lift people out of poverty, while disparaging climate science. The “fracking king.” He is expected to work with former GOP Congressman New York Rep. Lee Zeldin, the desingated EPA-chair, who is promising to lift environmental regulations that Trump feels are killing American jobs.

Director of National Intelligence: Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman and an outspoken critic of the Biden administration's foreign policy, to become his director of national intelligence. Know to admire autocrats and has a strong proclivity toward isolationism. She has no relevant experience in this field.

I’m Peter Dekom, and it seems that Donald Trump didn’t even wait until day 1 to be dictator.

Undergraduate Education Today: Great vs Polarized, Dangerous, Unnecessary, Expensive?

Corrected for inflation, the cost of an undergraduate degree has almost trebled since the 1970s. This higher cost has not been accompanied by a parallel increase in grants and scholarships, shifting the increased costs to students and their families. Most of these deal with this anomaly with student loans at a time when interest rates have also increased. With bankruptcy law specifically tilted against student loan defaults, this debt often travels with graduates (and even those who drop out) for decades. Roughly averaging $40 thousand, often a vast multiple for advanced professional degrees (in business, law, engineering, and medicine), this average undergrad debt load results in reduced consumer spending, delays in marriage, decisions not to have children, etc. While the earnings advantages of undergraduate degrees tend to pan out, looking back from retirement years, it is a long hard road to get there.

But college also is faced with political polarization, from schools pushing out DEI programs (per the Supreme Court’s ruling against UNC and Harvard DEI-tilted admissions programs) to curricula considered “woke” by state legislators in red states. For college students who expect to be sexually active, colleges in states with strong anti-abortion laws are non-starters. The October 15th USA Today reports on survey results based on application trends: “More than one-quarter of college applicants have ruled out a school solely because of the political climate in its state, a new survey finds.

“And those concerns span the political spectrum… Liberal applicants exclude colleges in states with restrictive abortion laws or lenient gun laws, the survey found. Conservative students avoid applying to schools in states with liberal LGBTQ laws and lenient crime statutes… The findings come from a survey released Monday [10/14] by Art & Science Group, a consulting and research firm that serves the higher-education sector… ‘For a student to say, ‘I’m willing to rule out a state, a school in a state,’ before they even decide where to apply, that’s a strong indication of how important these issues are to young people,’ said Nanci Tessier , principal at Art & Science Group… In recent years, college leaders have grown wary of partisan state politics scaring off prospective applicants at a time when college enrollments are flagging .” Polarization perpetuated.

A may 23rd Pew Research report, presented by Richard Fry, Dana Braga and Kim Parker, even asks “Is College Worth It?” The numbers suggest that just might be a resounding “no” for a rapidly rising number of high school students contemplating their future:

• Only one-in-four U.S. adults say it’s extremely or very important to have a four-year college degree in order to get a well-paying job in today’s economy. About a third (35%) say a college degree is somewhat important, while 40% say it’s not too or not at all important.

• Roughly half (49%) say it’s less important to have a four-year college degree today in order to get a well-paying job than it was 20 years ago; 32% say it’s more important, and 17% say it’s about as important as it was 20 years ago.

• Only 22% say the cost of getting a four-year college degree today is worth it even if someone has to take out loans. Some 47% say the cost is worth it only if someone doesn’t have to take out loans. And 29% say the cost is not worth it.

Republican-leaning students are more likely to opt for non-college-educated careers than liberal potential applicants. As the second Pew chart above suggests, the recent spate of solid wage increases seems to have tilted the earnings field somewhat back to those without college degrees who have trade skills that are in demand, without the same debt level as college grads face.

Still, those colleges and universities at the top of the academic food chain are seeing applications soar, often accommodating three-times the number applicants faced in the 1070s. Graduates of these top schools do earn more than their comparable graduates at lower-rated universities, which often foster a greater percentage who also move on to post-undergraduate degrees. And while financial aid at these elite schools is often higher than most, the competition to enroll is exceptionally more difficult. Since many of these upper-level schools also reflect graduates with the greatest “income inequality” numbers, this elite force also tends to reflect the wealth of families who can afford to pay for college prep at levels unavailable to most students. And so, the economic disparity moves from generation to generation.

An extreme example of this “preparation” has moved well beyond the chi-chi expensive elite Ivy-feeder, name-brand prep schools, is a new extra level of opportunities only available to parents with considerable disposable income. “Tuition-gate” criminal prosecutions of parents, willing to bribe school admissions officials with fake credentials… and particularly their expensive enablers… brought criminal convictions (and the admitted students tossed). With that avenue turned off, still bringing true admissions expertise into the pre-application process, regardless of the cost, helps perpetuate this rising wealth gap, income inequality, that has killed off the upward mobility equalizer of higher education.

Douglas Belkin, writing for the October 15th Wall Street Journal, focuses on one particular “expert,” able to build a college consulting empire valued at almost over half a billion dollars: Jamie Beaton, a 29-year-old Rhodes scholar from New Zealand with a reputation as the man who has cracked the code on elite college admissions—and who is Wall Street’s favored partner to mine the rich vein of parental anxiety embedded in the college process.

“Private equity is also paying attention. Crimson, launched in 2013, is now valued at $554 million after several funding rounds, according to PitchBook. Investors include venture capital giants Tiger Management and related firm Tiger Global Management, plus Icehouse Ventures, former New Zealand Prime Minister John Key and Verlinvest, a Brussels-based fund created by the founding families of Anheuser-Busch.

“This year, Beaton’s clients made up nearly 2% of students admitted to the undergraduate class of 2028 at several elite schools including Brown, Columbia, Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania. Among his clients, 24 earned admission to Yale, 34 to Stanford and 48 to Cornell. The acceptance letters were certified by PricewaterhouseCoopers and a list of students admitted was provided by Beaton to The Wall Street Journal.

“Clients pay Beaton’s firm from $30,000 and $200,000 for a four- to six-year program that includes tutoring in academics and test-taking, and advice on how to gather stellar teacher recommendations and how to execute extracurricular projects. Those can range from writing a book, to publishing an academic research paper or starting a podcast… Eager families pay more and more for a leg up into an elite school, aiming to acquire what is seen as a vital chip in a winner-take-all economy… Revenue in college consulting overall has tripled to $2.9 billion over 20 years, according to IBISWorld, a market research firm.” It’s not illegal, even if it is neither fair nor good for the country as a whole.

I’m Peter Dekom, and as many other nations now provide high quality, but less expensive college programs (some even virtually free as in Germany), money is the lethal bullet that has perpetuated American inequality, feeding the angry political polarization that has torn this country apart.

I Repeat: GDP is a Terrible Measure of True Wealth and Prosperity

 

“Gross domestic product (GDP)”: the total market value of the goods and services produced by a country’s economy during a specified period of time. It includes all final goods and services—that is, those that are produced by the economic agents located in that country regardless of their ownership and that are not resold in any form. It is used throughout the world as the main measure of output and economic activity. Encyclopedia Britanica

Huh? The biggest problem of using GDP statistics is that this is an aggregated averaging – meaning successful rich companies and people can tilt a negative reality for most people into a huge positive for the country – while also ignoring the costs associated with losses due to climate disasters as well as dwindling renewable and non-renewable natural resources. Because GDP is a “slice in time” and because it embraces metrics that exclude losses that have never been measured historically yet impact us all, it is a false summary. Example: in a sample of ten people, assume nine of whom earn $60,000/year and one of whom earns $1,000,000/year; the average earnings are thus $154,000/year, well over double what the supermajority in this sample earn. Thus, GDP overvalues the big numbers from the richest segments of society and undervalues the rest. Since that “rich” segment is a tiny minority, that is a huge distortion!

As hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, searing heat, and rising seas (with concomitant coastal erosion) continue to wreak havoc with this planet’s resources – these represent trillion-dollar slams to almost every nation’s underlying aggregate value – we can watch as food costs and scarce resources soar in value and once arable farmland plunges. Why? Simply put, GDP is a metric from an earlier era and became ingrained as one of the key deciders is terms of national economic health and competitiveness. When people began using this artificial valuation criterion, the notions of man-created climate change, over harvesting, overfishing, excessive extraction of non-renewables and the resulting “natural disasters” weren’t even a glint in the eyes of the economists who embraced this statistic as the global standard of economic success or failure.

Politicians often tout GDP success as evidence of their successful policies. But this metric can be used to cut taxes for the rich, eliminate vital economic and ecological safeguards and allow for-profit mega-industries to embrace wasteful and severely harmful activities – costing the rest of us trillions of hard dollar damages – without paying remotely for what the losses their activities actually cost. Since an increasing number of business planners and economists are recognizing the underlying fallacy of using GDP numbers, what is a viable alternative metric that reflects these changes? For that, I turn to an October 22nd World Bank report (The Changing Wealth of Nations {CWON} 2024 report) as seen by the Yale University School of the Environment:

“‘GDP is just the income side of ledger. GDP also, in practice, has not done a good job of accounting for the maintenance costs or using up or degrading natural resources.’ [Eli Fenichel, Yale Professor of Natural Resource Economics and co-author of CWON]… Globally, real wealth per capita increased by about 21% between 1995 and 2020, the period examined in the report, with two-thirds of the 151 countries in the sample experiencing growth, and 27 countries experiencing declines or little change. (In contrast, real GDP per capita increased approximately 50% in all regions over the same period, the authors note.) The increase was driven largely by rapid urbanization and the growing number of women participating in the labor market, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa region, and Latin America and the Caribbean.

“While human capital and produced capital increased by 9% and 47% respectively over the past quarter century, renewable natural capital — which should be able to regenerate itself if managed sustainably — declined by more than 20% globally. While that figure is likely an underestimate due to the challenges and limitations of measuring and valuing renewable capital, Fenichel said many countries are getting better at measuring at least some forms of renewable capital.

“‘In the U.S., I think we are getting much better at accounting for water, for example (which is not presently included in CWON). At the global scale, it is harder to organize the data, but with some new remote sensing products, I’m optimistic we can get there soon. Then, there is the challenge of valuing changes in water, which can be heavily institution dependent. Indeed, many countries may act as if water has a negative value, which it might in flood prone areas,’ he said. ‘So, I suspect valuation to remain hard at the global scale but doable at the local scale for the foreseeable future, so we might be able to start adding up those local measures as they develop.’...

“CWON uses monetary estimates from the System of National Accounts and the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting to produce a wealth database that assesses trends in economic progress and sustainability that go beyond GDP — encompassing and tracking over time a broad portfolio of market and non-market assets. These assets fall into four general categories: produced capital, such as buildings and machines; renewable natural capital, such as agricultural land, forests, and fish stocks; non-renewable natural capital, such as oil, natural gas, and minerals; and human capital.

“‘The scope of what counts for GDP is pretty narrowly defined to address questions associated with things like the federal budget and how many taxes can be collected,’ Fenichel said. ‘The World Bank’s comprehensive wealth measure is intended to start going beyond that boundary to include other things people value like shoreline protection services and non-timber services from forests, as well as the value of investments in the labor force…. It seems like non-declining wealth should be a minimum requirement. What I think we want to see is income, production, and wealth all rising — and also to think about how that wealth is distributed across asset groups and among people.’” But since many of these criteria suggest policy failures, there will be massive resistance to altering GDP as the general measure of success, as seriously flawed as it is. Adopting a new worldwide standard may take decades, and what the relevant criteria and formulae should well be an international battle royal. Human beings are very good at lying or explaining away their shortcomings… even at a national level. Lying with statistics is clearly nothing new!

I’m Peter Dekom, and the accuracy and relevance of GDP stubbornly appears to begin to approach conspiracy theories as the major factor in determining global governmental monetary and fiscal policies.

Democracy without Truth

 

From Ipsos Week in Review

Democracy without Truth

Pre-filtered Social Media, the Demise of Traditional Media, “Mandates” from God and Conspiracy Theories on Steroids

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

George Orwell in “1984”

If people are no longer able to differentiate between rumor and real on the biggest issues facing our nation, if their votes are based on “alternative facts,” how exactly are they able to cast a meaningful vote? We used to believe that the internet-driven information era would provide ultimate access to everyone to facts that once were relegated to libraries and newspapers. It was already bad enough when we transitioned from the “nightly network television news” to 24-7 cable news networks – unable to fill that vast expanse of time with hard news – they found a lucrative ratings-boosting opinion-bias format that made cable networks billions. Fox News was the biggest winner – it is easier to reach a monolith of conservates than the rainbow coalition of liberals – and many only looked to that network for all their news. But then…

Once the internet became the information superhighway, as native digital users (particularly the younger generations) found ways to filter news sources that contradicted their beliefs, they followed online content consistent with their values and filtered out contradictory platforms. So-called “mainstream media” was the go-to news source for the elderly and those with confirmed basic opinions. Today, a vast younger audience does not watch television, does not follow any particular iconic “newspaper” (even online versions) and is more likely to generate their opinions from TikTok, X, YouTube and selected podcasts.

One particular observer of this change is author Joyce Vance – an American lawyer, host of Sisters-in-Law on MSNBC, one of the first five U.S. attorneys, and the first female U.S. attorney, nominated by President Barack Obama – writing for her November 10th Civil Discourse Substack. Her take seems so Marshall “the medium is the message” McLuhanesque as she focuses on how the Trump sweep was based more on how people who voted generated their opinions than the underlying issues themselves:

“When the dust settles, I expect the people who assess elections will tell us disinformation was key in 2024. It wasn’t the economy, it was the disinformation about the economy. That disinformation successfully led voters across the country to believe they were worse off, despite October reporting in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere that we have the best economy in the world, a remarkable recovery from Covid.

“There was Trump’s persistent lying. There were the highly successful disinformation campaigns by hostile foreign entities. There were billionaire newspaper owners who withheld endorsements the editorial boards wanted to give to Harris, endorsements that would have focused on the strength of her economic policies and the importance of democracy issues. There was Elon Musk, who bought Twitter and converted it from the public square to a mouthpiece for Trump.

“There is data from a Reuters/Ipsos poll in October that shows just how damaging the information gap is. People who are in possession of truthful, accurate information voted overwhelmingly for Harris. In other words, if you believed violent crime in major American cities was at an all-time high—which is not true—you were far more likely to vote Republican. Voters who knew that inflation had declined over the last year and was close to historic averages were +53 Democratic votes. Perhaps most disturbingly, people who did not have truthful information about undocumented people crossing the southern border were more likely to vote Republican.”

Those working for Donald Trump who understood these informational changes may have indeed determined the outcome of the recent election. Social media mavens like Charlie “Turning Point” Kirk who embraced conservatives with strong evangelical leanings, Joe “The Experience” Rogan podcaster with his massive audience and Elon “I own X” Musk (the richest man in the world who contributed $119 million to Trump’s campaign) seemed to have more sway with voters than MSNBC, CNN and the New York Times combined. Vance continues:

“Anything that caught [“Trumps’s”] fancy, however absurd, was something he would repeat lies about long after the truth had been firmly established. Of course, he’s the man who has continued to lie about the 2020 election. Donald Trump established an alternate reality for his voters to live in and then bought real estate there. The problem is fairly obvious; the solution is going to be much more elusive.

“I have been thinking about this problem as much as anything since the election. History is full of examples of authoritarian governments that restricted access to information in order to control people. They burned books in Nazi Germany and suppressed dissenting authors like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Soviet Russia. China uses a ‘Great Firewall’ to prevent access to the internet. The issue used to be access to information. But now, it seems that’s morphing in modern American society. We have plenty of access to information, so much information—online and on social media, often distorted by algorithms that are concerned with selling something or pushing something and not with accuracy—that it’s a flood. It requires education and discernment to separate fact from fiction, and often that's lacking. That’s the problem: educating people so they can make judgments about what’s true.” Filters that enhance biases and hide truth.

We can start with one-on-one conversations, but the problem is so much bigger than that. Our Founding Fathers promulgated the First Amendment under supposition that a free press and separation of church and state were essential to democracy. There was no pervasive, all-reaching internet without guardrails back then. Yet today, biased factions have weaponized that amendment, suggesting not only that it did not separate church and state, but that “truth filters” have no place in national discourse. Apparently, someone can yell “fire” in a crowded internet space… and that is just the way it goes. No harm, even if foul.

I’m Peter Dekom, and unless we learn how to differentiate fact from fiction, decreasingly likely in Trump’s second term, the First Amendment can indeed be used to decimate democracy in ways never intended by those Founding Fathers who drafted it.

                             

 

Retribution and Deportation – A Worrier’s Guide

What got Trump reelected was not his policy of personal retribution but the same issues that have displaced or undercut leaders in Japan, Australia, Canada, the UK and EU nations: inflation and immigration. Incumbents globally are losing in droves over these two issues as the mood among developed nations shifts hard right. Explanations of “why inflation is not our fault” consistently fell on deaf ears, and immigration is as big an issue in Europe as it is here. Support of Israel is waning fast almost everywhere, and that Trump’s pen did not sign the weapons shipment orders to Israel, used to decimate Gaza, saved him from his pro-Israel stance. But what does differentiate Trump’s agenda from all those incumbent-destroying vectors is his pledge of retribution.

But Trump’s pledge to unravel many Biden policies, especially immigration, is a less personal act of retribution than it is an indiscriminate act of force that sends a strong message. Even as “detain and deport” cannot physically quickly be deployed on a larger scale in the immediate future. That issue has been handled with one of Trump’s first appointments. In a social-media post November 10th, Trump said former acting ICE chief Tom Homan would be “in charge of all Deportation of Illegal Aliens back to their Country of Origin.”

“Homan, who served for a year and half during Trump’s first term, was a divisive figure, ramping up arrests of people living in the U.S. illegally and discarding some of the enforcement priorities of the Obama administration that targeted criminals but left alone otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants.” Wall Street Journal, November 11th. “It’s not going to be a mass sweep of neighborhoods. It’s not going to be building concentration camps,” Homan said recently on CBS’ 60 Minutes. My guess it will be a phased approach, testing constituent reactions as the effort accelerates. “Polls show that most Americans want tougher enforcement of immigration laws — but they don’t support indiscriminate deportations, especially if they divide families. That’s how Trump’s first-term crackdown turned into a political disaster, forcing him to retreat.” Doyle McManus for the November 11th Los Angeles Times.

Trump also named immigration ultra rightwing hard-liner Stephen Miller as deputy chief of staff for policy. A key architect of Trump's Muslim travel ban and other very harsh, controversial policies targeting immigrants, Miller was a regular target of criticism and backlash for his policies and statements. However, pragmatics, from labor shortages in lower level, but necessary, labor and the sheer cost of detaining and deporting will slow the pace of such efforts.

But the personal persecution/prosecution of clearly identified individual Trump opponents truly depends on who is appointed Attorney General and how much power he (and the list only includes men) is given. It’s hard to see actual criminal prosecutions of high-level Democrats – from Biden and Harris to Schiff and Pelosi – but lesser politicos are quite vulnerable. Nevertheless, the appointment of someone as AG like rightwing Mike Davis, a right-wing activist considered a leading candidate for Trump’s attorney general and former chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee, could signal pedal-to-the-metal harshness. On November 6th, Davis threatened enemies of Trump and the right to (legally) “drag their dead political bodies through the streets” and burn them.

Obvious targets include Fannie Willis, the Georgia DA who indicted Trump and “fellow conspirators,” New York judges Juan Merchan and Arthur Engoron (who presided over civil and criminal trials that found Trump liable), NY prosecutors Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg (who led the business records criminal case based on Stormy Daniel’s payoffs) and NY Attorney General Lettia James (who successfully caused Trump (and several family members) to be banned from doing business in NY, and perhaps some of those who led the impeachment of Trump in the House of Representatives.

We know federal special prosecutor, Jack Smith, appointed by Biden’s AG Merrick Garland, is winding the federal criminal cases against Trump down… but he could well be in the crosshairs of a legal Trump vendetta. You can also expect Trump’s weaponized Departments of Justice/Treasury to begin criminal investigations of and IRS audits against major journalists and other politicos who opposed him. With the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, Donald Trump seems to have generated a “get out of jail free” card, an exemption from any criminal investigation that could be described, even remotely, as a possible “official action” (not defined). This ruling pretty much gives Trump free reign to turn federal agencies into his spear tips of retribution.

“If Trump appoints a more pliant attorney general this time, he has the power to order the Justice Department to investigate his critics, a GOP lawyer who is reportedly advising the president-elect wrote last week. The department’s independence from political meddling is a long-standing norm, but it isn’t protected by law.

“Still, if he targets his critics, his term will be dominated by legal firestorms — potentially getting in the way of the rest of his agenda. Last month, he claimed that he refrained from prosecuting Clinton during his first term because ‘it would look terrible’ — an implicit bow to political constraints… He has also promised to pardon most of the more than 1,000 people convicted of or indicted on charges of storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.” McManus. Yet, that pardon may serve as a greenlight for MAGA extremists to pursue “woke” targets and clear their opponents with relative safety not only in red states but now without fear of convictions under federal law, particularly hate crimes and civil rights prosecutions.

But if he goes too far, Donald Trump, who seeks adoration from as many Americans as possible, also faces massive protests – which he may well counter with violent suppression – not unlike the long-forgotten Vietnam War protests that took down a President (which sustained far longer and more significantly than the relatively mild “Black Lives Matter” protests of recent years). I am sure he will start with a bang, but reality will catch up to him if he embraces extreme responses which clearly fly in the face of what the majority of Americans are willing to accept. Does he worry about his legacy? Is mega-extreme JD Vance likely to ramp up harshness if he replaces an ailing Trump? And exactly what will such extremes do to the MAGA movement?

I’m Peter Dekom, and this new Trump vector of retribution with place unprecedented demands on the judicial system, which will test the Constitution against the very justices he had appointed or appoints.

Boys to Men?

 

Boys to Men?

In Search of Masculinity Redefined by Donald Trump

In a world where physical strength was a determinant of domination and success, men ruled. Sure, wartime created temporary openings for women (like Rosie the Riveter in WWII) in formerly male physical labor, but technology seems to have leveled that factor. We even have women fighter pilots today. The reality for post-pandemic America is that women outnumber men in so many professional schools (like law schools), and in the arena of basic college education, as Pew Research reported in 2021: “The growing gender gap in higher education – both in enrollment and graduation rates – has been a topic of conversation and debate in recent months. Young women are more likely to be enrolled in college today than young men, and among those ages 25 and older, women are more likely than men to have a four-year college degree. The gap in college completion is even wider among younger adults ages 25 to 34.

“Women’s educational gains have occurred alongside their growing labor force participation as well as structural changes in the economy. The implications of the growing gap in educational attainment for men are significant, as research has shown the strong correlation between college completion and lifetime earnings and wealth accumulation.” “Breadwinner” is no longer a masculine descriptor. But notions of “woke,” DEI treating women in the work-world as minority hires (that glass ceiling still exists), and feminized “style values” for men, a new emphasis on “emotional intelligence” and a new Christian national emphasis on a traditional family structure have introduced new complicating vectors into the electorate. We are also learning that voters who were “expected” to support an inclusive Kamala Harris presidency… didn’t:

“National exit polls show that 53% of white women voted for an adjudicated rapist whose previous actions in office laid waste to Roe vs. Wade. So much for Democrats tapping into the hidden power of a ‘silent majority’ of women who were thought to be hiding their political views from their husbands. They were in step with white men, 59% of whom voted for the former president.” Los Angeles Times, November 8th. But the interesting new variable in this mix embraces men, beyond the shift in a segment of machismo-driven Hispanics, and in particular GenZ males who really did not experience any negativity at a time when they were too young to be political and, like most GenZ’s, simply did and do not get their information from traditional mass media. Henry Chandonnet, a GenZ male writing for the November 7th FastCompany.com, explains part of this pro-Trump shift within his peers:

“For years, young people were supposed to be a bastion of progressivism, the fearless luminaries saving older generations from their chosen demagogues. But, in 2024, four in 10 young people voted for Donald Trump… The stragglers here are young men, who broke for Trump en masse. Early estimates have Trump up 14 points among men 18-29. That might be shocking; after all, young men have voted blue consistently in previous elections, only descending to single-digit Democratic support in 2022.

“But the truth is, young men are in a political crisis. As a college student, I see it every day: Men my age are increasingly contained by their media bubbles, wrapped up in disregard for the political system and devastating economic outlooks. Pundits love to lament sociological issues like the ‘masculinity crisis,’ which certainly exists for some. But, on the ground, it looks like young men have lost their faith in democracy and, in turn, the Democratic party. Simply put, they stopped caring.

“Over the past four years, I’ve watched the young men around me increasingly disavow themselves from politics. Some of them had policy-oriented reasons, like American support of the war in Gaza. Most, though, simply began feeling like legislators did nothing at all. Almost no one in my generation is talking about Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, or Trump’s string of long-tailed executive orders. For many, the last significant policy change (outside of some landmark Supreme Court decisions) is still the Affordable Care Act, which happened about 14 years ago…

“Where these young ‘bros’ truly fell for Trump, then, was in friendlier spaces. Appearances on podcasts from Mark Calaway, Andrew Schulz, Theo Von, Adin Ross, and Lex Fridman made Trump seem more human. He wasn’t the violent insurrection-starter of late 2020; he was a laid-back guy talking wrestling. On TikTok, Trump moved from threatening to funny, with compilations of his most humorous moments racking up millions of likes.

“And then, the biggest get: Trump’s appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience. Many older liberals scoffed at the episode, opting to fixate on a gaff around his election denialism. But, among my own generation, I only heard positive things. I wasn’t surprised on Tuesday [11/5] night when NBC News showed a long line of MAGA hats at Arizona State University; some of those students said that the Rogan episode had tipped their vote.

“While pundits—myself included—attempt to break down the sociological dynamics of this voter bloc, we cannot ignore the underlying economic tension. Young people are wounded by the state of the economy. I’ve seen my grocery bill go up in the past few years, something more difficult to stomach on a college budget. With skyrocketing home prices, much of my generation has resigned ourselves to never being able to afford a home.” Add to this quagmire of manhood with highly filtered social media, a rising pressure from evangelical fundamentalists, effectively the stronghold of Trump’s base. As Sonya Gugliara, writing for the November 7th Daily Mail illustrates: “Protestors have caused outrage after turning up to a Texas college campus with despicable signs bearing derogatory messages about women.

“The religious demonstrators, self-identified as members of Official Street Preachers, arrived at Texas State University on Wednesday [11/6] afternoon with an array of signage which immediately sparked uproar among students… The protestors, who claim to 'share the gospel every day', were also heard shouting provocative religious-themed slogans at students,' a university spokesperson told Lonestar Live … 'Women are property,' one sign read. [see above picture]… Another man held a sign which stated: 'Types of property: women, slaves, animals, land, etc.'

“Another message seen at the San Marcos campus shared hatred about the LGBTQ + community… The group, called the Official Street Preachers, is not affiliated with the college, but was let on campus because it is considered a public space… A crowd of counter-protestors surrounded the street preachers until they eventually left campus. Campus police did get involved, but no arrests were made… Beyond the Texas campus community, the offensive signs have caught the attention of people across the country.”

Some fundamentalists are even questioning whether women should be able to vote and stretch to suggest slavery might have a place in our future. J.D. Vance excoriated Harris women voters as anti-family “childless cat ladies.” And the Trump social media machine, with lots of help from Elon “X-man” Musk and Charlie “Turning Point” Kirk, a Christian nationalist social media communicator. Is Trump an anomaly or simply the new Amerika?

I’m Peter Dekom, and somehow a MAGA movement pushing back to a past America was more tech-communications savvy than the purported “modern” Democratic Party machine, mired in the media vectors of the past; we have changed!

Using FEMA and Disaster Relief as a Political Weapon

 

It has happened in the past, even before Donald Trump was elected in 2016. Superstorm Sandy (above left) devastated blue New York and New Jersey in the fall of 2012, inflicting an estimated $70-$100 billion in damage, all told. Enough Republican members of Congress saw the vote for disaster relief as a way to send a clear message to blue states: we do not want to send you a dime. It took New Jersey GOP Governor Chris Christie to convince those state representatives to reverse course, noting how many GOP donors lived in those decimated states… Wall Street mavens with big conservative checkbooks. Still, GOP resistance mounted under the guise of containing budget deficits, notwithstanding earlier disaster relief bills passed with Democratic support for their own GOP-controlled states.

The $51 billion aid package passed, but “Among the 179 Republicans who voted ‘no’ are several lawmakers who were elected in 2010 in the Tea Party wave and who promised to rein in federal spending. There were also prominent committee chairmen, such as Dave Camp of the House Ways and Means Committee, Fred Upton of the Energy Committee and Jeb Hensarling of the Financial Services Committee, who were among the bill's opponents… Another ‘no’ vote: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the GOP's 2012 vice presidential nominee.” USA Today, January 16, 2013. It could happen again, and the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that exempts the president from legal responsibility when there are colorable “official acts” involved; disaster relief weaponization may evolve into a presidential tool, regardless of party affiliation.

But it’s not just the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that has generated Republican wrath. To MAGA, news supporting the reality of climate change, and the disasters that experts prove are the results of that horrific global transition, is an anathema to climate change deniers. Simply, they view meteorologists even mentioning “climate change” in their forecasts as fabricators under the influence of deep state governmental agencies and research from elites seeking to crush GOP operatives and beliefs. Shut off mention of climate change, and the problem is solved. In May, Florida MAGA Governor Ron DeSantis even signed legislation that erases most references to climate change from state law. Go Ronnie! But wait, there’s more.

Last year, for example, Chris Gloninger – chief meteorologist for CBS affiliate KCCI-TV in Des Moines, Iowa – was lambasted after he persisted in linking climate change to regional weather-related disasters. He resigned after an 18-year career, saying he was “bidding farewell to TV to embark on a new journey dedicated to helping solve the climate crisis.” Why? He said a primary motivator was "a death threat stemming from my climate coverage last year and resulting PTSD…"

And where do local weathercasters get their underlying information? The federal government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with global satellites and weather-directed aircraft feeding data into very sophisticated computer systems with remarkable accuracy. The November 3rd NBC News reported the obvious: “FEMA and NOAA … have become increasingly politicized in recent years despite the offices’ history of remaining above the fray. But with natural disasters fueled by climate change now regularly slamming the U.S. — this year has already seen 24 weather events that each caused at least $1 billion in damage — the agencies have taken on a greater role. And with it, they’ve become a target for some conservatives who are skeptical of climate change and want to slash government budgets.”

To MAGA elected representatives, including Trump during his presidency, federal disaster relief is a political decision, even when the culprit may just be the federal government itself. Under the guise of budgetary prudence, MAGA is perfectly willing to cut taxes for the wealthiest (which almost always results in a massive budget deficit), but stuff like “forest maintenance” on federal land, exclusively controlled by the US Department of Interior, is expendable. It’s easier to blame blue states and their forested lands for failing to fix their own neighboring forests.

But whether it comes from a presidential mandate or a MAGA-dominated Congress, we seem to live in an era where jurisdictions controlled by the opposition party, even where the tax dollars from those states exceed federal benefits received, face the political wrath of the party in power. As Alex Wigglesworth, writing for the November 2nd Los Angeles Times explains: “Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to cut off federal disaster aid for California’s wildfires if he returns to the White House, most recently at a campaign rally in [California’s Coachella Valley] and in remarks at his golf course in Rancho Palos Verdes.

“Such a loss of federal funds would be a devastating blow to a state where wildfires have grown larger and more destructive in part due to climate change. A single severe fire season can rack up tens of billions of dollars in damage, firefighting costs and economic losses. The prospect of losing disaster aid has state officials and politicians mulling contingency plans… ‘We’re going to take care of your water situation, force it down his throat, and we’ll say: Gavin [Newsom], if you don’t do it, we’re not giving any of that fire money that we send you all the time for all the fire, forest fires that you have,’ Trump said at [that Coachella mid-October] …

“The threats appear to be founded. Presidents have an extraordinary amount of discretion when it comes to disaster aid, which Trump reportedly wielded as a political cudgel during his presidency… He initially refused to approve federal aid to California for wildfires in 2018 [above right] until a National Security Council staffer showed him that Orange County had a dense concentration of supporters, according to a report from Politico’s E&E News. Trump also ignored a 2020 request for aid for Washington state fires amid a feud with Gov. Jay Inslee, with the funds greenlighted only when President Biden took office months later, the outlet reported.” But to be perfectly clear, the power to block FEMA and NOAA funding or to pare or refuse disaster relief can be forced by either the President or a reluctant Congress. And MAGA has often stated that it is not the party for all Americans, just their loyalists.

I’m Peter Dekom, and welcome to the dis-United States of America where helping your neighbor with a different party affiliation is increasingly “yesterday’s news,” a very, very un-Christian notion.

How Now, Red Cow?

 

How Now, Red Cow?

Be Careful what you wish for.

Did Donald Trump, based on the Electoral and popular vote, now controls or is about to control all three branches of the federal government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial). Does he get the absolute mandate, de facto autocracy, he wanted? Or will his efforts to impose Project 25 values, now acknowledged as the guiding platform, be so extreme as to create a backlash bigger than his mandate? Time will tell, but many of his announced policies will actually conflict with what his voters are willing to accept, even contradictory with their true priorities. Which are, according to exit polls? Daily cost of living reduction and tighter immigration policies. Although white working-class men feeling marginalized by DEI policies did resonate, most of his other culture policies were left in the wake of his reelection.

As Kamala Harris failed to distinguish herself from a very unpopular elderly President, and thus the blame for higher prices and immigration nightmares heaped on Biden (whether he could have done more to fix these is a question), the two major issues why Trump won. The icing on the victory cake also brought together two very conflicted constituencies to vote for Trump: pro-Israel Zionists, mostly older, aligned with Trump-fan Benjamin Netanyahu and those GenZ voters horrified at Biden’s unremitting supply of weapons that enabled Israel to pound Gaza into near oblivion. How Trump will handle this conflict is key, but Netanyahu may have an excuse for that ceasefire now.

However, that mandate among not-always-Trump voters did not embrace extremism. If democracy continues – and since got the control he wanted, he did not have to “terminate” the Constitution – Trump might actually be limited by a desire to enhance his historical legacy plus a possible backlash that could tank the MAGA right in the mid-terms and beyond. People want cheaper housing costs, lower daily cost of living realities in insurance food and fuel plus border control as their main objectives.

As David Lauter, writing for the November 9th Los Angeles Times notes, dealing with cost stabilization is easy, but Trump seems hellbent on screwing it up: “Preventing a new round of widespread price increases should be easy: Inflation is already largely under control after the rapid rise in costs of 2022 and early 2023, and interest rates are coming down. Doing nothing would basically get the job done… The problem is that Trump doesn’t want to do nothing. He wants to do several things — including imposing massive tariffs and enacting new individual and corporate tax cuts — that run a high inflationary risk… Immediately after the election, interest rates rose as bond investors began to price in the possibility of renewed inflation under Trump.”

If tariffs act as expected, de facto sales taxes on everyone fomenting retaliatory tariffs on US exports, the normal economic reaction is higher prices here and fewer opportunities to export. The notion that foreign governments will pay the US-imposed tariffs and fund everything is simply not how tariffs work. Importers pay those tariffs and generally pass those higher costs to consumers; many Trump supporters did not understand that. That American-made manufactures (like cars, aircraft, etc.) are rife foreign-made components further complicate this pledge. US consumers will pay more. A massive tax cut for the rich is on the table again. Trump’s tax cut in 2017 failed: where the incentive to “job creators” was more dividends, more merger/acquisition activity, but no increase in those “good jobs” touted, plus a few trillion-dollar hit to the deficit. The tax cut most certainly did not pay for itself. Neither will any further such cuts.

The other factor that I do not hear much about is the potential devastating consequence for the value of the US dollar from a possible international backlash against this US effort manipulate overall trade vectors. US economic bullying could ignite a global response that could result in a fade in the status of the US dollar as the primary global reserve currency (the currency metric which is used in most parts of the world for trade and valuation purposes) and increasing global efforts (already underfoot in Russia and China) to work around US financial standards (like SWIFT banking) with new replacement platforms. Such a result will make our ability to borrow to fund deficits increasingly difficult, reduce the value of the dollar and thus result in vastly higher costs and forced austerity for American consumers.

The other mechanism to pay for that tax cut includes offsetting massive federal budget cuts. And while that sounds popular, most Americans are wary of letting a near-trillionaire, Elon Musk, take his scissors to the discretionary part of the budget. We still owe interest on our deficit, which will not go away. If the tax cuts are not countered by massive reductions to the federal budget, inflation’s gnarled teeth will start chomping away as prices skyrocket. Do we really want reduced healthcare, the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Social Security… cuts to education support?

Rational immigration policies are also a top-line item. Cruelty and budget-busting massive incarceration and deportation of all undocumented residents are not what most Americans really believe will happen. Indeed, pulling out a huge segment of low cost labor, particularly in agriculture and construction, will send food costs higher and prevent the construction of all those new residential projects needed to relieve the housing crisis. And no, that undocumented work force will not vacate desirable houses and apartments.

While deportation of some of these undocumented residents is high on the priority list, “That doesn’t mean, however, that they’d support [Trump advisor and extreme MAGA Stephen] Miller’s dreams [of complete deportation]. Voters’ views on immigration are often complicated. A separate question on [a] Pew survey found that 61% of voters — although only one-third of Trump supporters — said that undocumented immigrants should be able to ‘stay in the country legally, if certain requirements are met.’… Other surveys have found that support for deportation drops when pollsters ask about specific categories of immigrants who lack legal status, such as longtime residents, spouses of U.S. citizens and people brought to the U.S. illegally as children.” Lauter.

And then there are the policies that will alienate those independent voters who thought Trump exaggerated certain promises, but if he implements them… “There’s much less reason to think voters long to hand broad government authority over to Elon Musk or give Robert F. Kennedy Jr. control of federal health policy… On other topics, there’s strong evidence of what might be called an anti-mandate. Even in conservative states, for example, voters made clear that they oppose moves to restrict abortion. There’s very little [grassroots] support for rolling back LGBTQ+ rights, despite the wishes of some of Trump’s evangelical supporters... And there’s little public support for Trump to go on a revenge spree against his Democratic opponents.” Lauter. We’ll see.

I’m Peter Dekom, and there is a huge gap between what a candidate promises to deliver and the harsh reality that often laces those policies with a double-edged sword… and where “alternative facts” just do not work.