My thoughts on the physical and human world around us. The blog title comes from my childhood where a train ran nearby. Often, in the night or early morning, I was awakened by a train whistle and I would lie awake with my brain full of questions and ideas that I wanted to discuss..

Sunday, December 4, 2016

President Obama's Legacy

President Obama’s administration will be recorded in the annals of history as one of the strongest in modern times, I’m convinced. Because of my conviction, I wish to share some of the facts and my thoughts.

Barak Obama took over the presidency at one of the most dismal time in recent history. Flag-draped coffins bearing America’s heroes arrived regularly at Dover. The housing market recently crashed leaving millions facing loss of their homes through foreclosure. Unemployment began spiking upward on it way to nine percent in a few months and this added to the horror of home loss. The stock market tanked—Dow down to the 9000s. GDP growth was negative for most of two years.  Hardly any segment of our society was unaffected. This was the ugly legacy handed to Mr. Obama on the day of his inauguration.

The Banking System Repair
The previous administration in its sunset days made the agonizing decision to fund bail-out of the banks failing because of their heavy weight of derivatives from the housing industry that had become near worthless. Incoming president Obama was left to implement the rescue. We witnessed uninformed criticism of him for the decision (not his), even though consensus among experts was that it was the only decision possible.

Working with Congress, Pres Obama’s financial reform program intended to prevent future financial meltdowns was passed as the Dodd-Frank bill and signed a year later. Again, the president received criticism by some for its ineffectiveness and by others as being overbearing on economic growth. Yet, another financial crash has not happened.

The Auto Companies Rescue
During the waning months of the previous administration, General Motors and Chrysler informed the Government that they were on the verge of bankruptcy and needed a government financial support to remain in business. Provisions were made for this funding and were handed over to Mr. Obama at his inauguration. The bail-out was implemented and the companies survived and an estimated million jobs were saved. This did not happen without a lot of criticism saying this was a government takeover of private industry. Yet the companies repaid the government and now are at their strongest position in years. It might seem ironic that Michigan and Ohio, the largest beneficiaries of the bail-out switched from Democrat to Republican in the 2016 election.

The Stimulus
Another effort to restore the economy was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act a.k.a. the stimulus. A fund of $800B was allocated for repair of infrastructure, schools, etc. It is difficult to see value received for this funding and a number of reasons are debated—too little funding, not enough shovel ready projects approved, etc. But Pres Obama has received endless criticism for the increase in the federal debt. As time went on, however, some experts stated that the stimulus prevented more severe unemployment.

Affordable Care Act
When Mr. Obama became president, the United States was unique among developed nations by having a large group of citizens without a path to adequate health care. Millions having preexisting health conditions could not obtain health insurance and at risk for catastrophic illnesses like cancer with no way to pay for the expensive medications and procedures. His landmark bill, the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, narrowly passed Congress and has been harshly criticized ever since. Major criticism is based on the increased insurance premiums that have increased for many—a result of the program being based on a free market and a pooling of premiums to be able to cover the high-risk individuals. Presently, some 20 million Americans have access to healthcare through this program and millions of persons under age 26 can have health insurance on their parent’s plans.


Mideast Relations
President Obama announced early in his presidency that he wanted to establish dialog with Iran and other unfriendly nations. I personally saw this as a move from Middle Ages conquest war mentality. Our armed forces are the strongest, best trained, best disciplined, best equipped in the world. We have the power to do virtually anything to any country. It also gives us the ability to negotiate from a position of strength with anybody. There were immediately cries of “Moslem”, “soft on defense” and more from his opponents. Yet, in his second term both Republicans and Democats denied any desire to put “boots on the ground” in the Mideast. Could this be the heralding of a change in world powers where means other than killing and destruction are sought to settle differences? Leadership must come from a strong nation.

Mideast Wars
 In January, 2009, when Mr. Obama took office, the United States forces were heavily involved and taking huge casualties in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He presided over the final removal of combat troops from Iraq. This removal was in accordance with an agreement with Iraq by his successor, and was heartily welcomed by the American people. Long afterwards, Pres Obama’s opponents began criticism for his not trying to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement without which it would have impossible to leave combat troops after the Agreement expired in December 31, 2011. It should be noted that as the last combat soldier arrived home from Iraq, we heard no such criticism.
The war in Afghanistan—America’s longest war—continues with minimum combat requirements.

ISIS
In 2014, the world was shocked by the sudden brutal force known as ISIl, ISIS or Daesh as it overran northern Iraq and Syria with perhaps the most brutal warfare ever known to mankind. They overtook a major piece of land including the cities of Mosul and Fallujah. The fierceness of their attack, including beheadings, caused the poorly-trained Iraqi soldiers to abandon their weapons and vehicles and run away. The U.S. and coalition forces planned for the re-take of this land. Iraq and surrounding nations would provide ground troops, U.S. and other nations would provide air power; U.S. would also provided Special Forces and advisors for non-combat operations. This slow process has taken back a major section of the land including Falluja, has killed thousands a combatants and dozens of leaders, cut off sources of money and are certain to take beck Mosul. No surprise, President Obama was again harshly criticized for bringing the troops home from Iraq and allowing ISIL to take over of Northern Iraq (although there are others who say that the roots of ISIL were borne when insurgents took back that land before a too-little, too-late surge in 2007 drove many insurgents underground) .

Iran Nuclear Agreement
The West watched with concern Iran’s buildup of a nuclear warfare capability for decades. The Obama administration along with the United Nations Security Council and other nations maintained sanctions of Iraq requiring it to cease major activities in its nuclear program--activities that could support development of nuclear bombs. After negotiations (which were conducted from a position of strength) an agreement was finally reached in mid 2015. The terms of this agreement included, removal of material and cessation of activities that produce material beyond what is required for peaceful uses. Iran completed the first phase of its obligation in February 2016 and the sanctioning nations prepared to release assets to Iran in accordance with the agreement. This seemed to me like a major step in stabilizing the middle east even if its terms were only for ten years. But not the critics—there were cries of giving money to Iran (its own money we held in sanction), of weakness and the agreement doomed to failure. Time will tell if this agreement holds, but it could be a landmark achievement that improves Mideast stability for generations.. We’ll see.

Immigration
A flood of undocumented persons crossing (primarily) our southern borders has existed for decades and has been a subject of debate. Principal voices in the debate are rule of law, compassion and employers’ need for workers. The debates produced no solutions until 2013 when President Obama sent his Immigration Reform plans to Congress where it became the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act. It included increased border security, a path to citizenship for some, increased visas for low skill and high skill workers and a four year phase-in of e-verify, a program to detect workers applying for a job with counterfeit documentation. The bill (S 744) passed the Senate with a bipartisan vote, but when sent to the House of Representatives, it was never brought to a vote.

Seeing a large portion of the immigration population that was U.S. by birth but vulnerable for export because of the undocumented status of their parents, President Obama proposed a program to delay deportation of 4 million children and young people who were born in this country to illegal immigrant parents. Because Congress would not accept this deferment, Obama imposed an executive action known as The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). Again severe criticism by opponents and eventually a Federal court acted to halt it.


Waves of Criticism
While the achievements of the past eight years are remarkable, the administration has had problems that have not been solved such as a high poverty rate and many single teenage girls becoming parents. These are systemic problems that cry for a bipartisan solution, yet the administration takes the full blunt of criticism for these conditions.

These problems along with the criticisms described previously have resulted in the harshest imaginable bombasting throughout Mr. Obama’s term. Of course, this is part of the territory for anybody entering high political office. Nobody gets a free pass. We hear suggestions of an element of racism these criticisms. As white persons, we might shrug off this idea; however if we could walk a mile in the shoes of an African American, we might see the extreme pain in the implication of these criticisms. Think about the “birther” movement in which as late as January 2016 over 50 per cent of Republicans believed that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States. But the Obama family endured all this with calm dignity. They have my greatest admiration.

President Obama completes his term of office with an approval rating above 50 percent, a remarkable level for an outgoing two-term president. And if the Affordable Care Act and the Iran Nuclear Agreement reach their hoped-for success his approval will be nothing short of spectacular. A legacy for future generations!

End note: On Wednesday December 7, CNN will present a two-hour show on President Obama’s legacy. It will be an eye-opener for many, I’m sure.


Thursday, November 3, 2016

What if Trump wins?

Donald Trump’s winning the most important job in the world doesn’t appear likely, but here are some things that could happen if he does.

Supreme Court   President Trump will nominate Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), an opponent of abortion and same sex marriage—or another candidate of similar views. If the Senate has a filibuster-proof Republican majority, the appointment will be confirmed; otherwise the Democrats will block the appointment at least until the next election. (The precedent for blockage and letting the court operate without its full number has already been established).

2020 Election   Paul Ryan’s posturing for the 2020 presidential nomination is no secret, but with a Republican POTUS, his campaign activities must be kept secret among a trusted few. What a target for WikiLeaks!

Hillary Clinton  No longer a candidate and receiving the slings and arrows of the last 25 years, Hillary will realize her incredible power and use it to (1) aggressively press for Pres. Trump to release his tax returns and (2) spearhead Democratic effort to regain the Congress in 2018 and the White House in 2020.

President Trump’s favorite initiatives

(1) Repeal Obamacare:  The Republican House of Representatives will pass a bill to repeal. (They have already done it several times.) But when sent to the Senate it will go to committee to evaluate what will happen to the millions of people who previously couldn’t get health insurance—and acceptable health care. What kind of a financial liability will the Government face? The bill will die in committee after endless debate.

(2) The Wall Across the Southern U.S. Border: The House will pass such a bill, but the Senate will refer it to the Congressional Budget Office for budget impact. The bill will go back to the House to re-structure for less deficit impact, and back and forth, back and forth, with no satisfaction until the bill dies.

(3) Ban on Muslims entering the Country: Not even the partisan House would carry this forward.

(4) Re-negotiate NAFTA: This of course can be done without going to a reluctant Congress. President Trump will assign a blue ribbon panel in his State Department to negotiate. When the panel is unable to make progress, Trump fires them and says that he will head the negotiations himself. He will finally abandon the effort when Canada imposes punitive new tariff on the United States for the bad will he created.

(5) The Trump tax plan: The administration will send to the House a hastily-formulated plan which reduces taxes on incomes over $1,000,000 but increases taxes for some middle income levels. The plan goes to the CBO where the revenue loss it determined to be gigantic. Speaker Ryan, fearing damageto his reputation for fiscal conservatism, will refuse to take the plan to a vote.

(5) Destroying ISIS:  President Trump will assign a select committee of admirals and generals to develop a strategy for defeating ISIS. When reviewing the details the decline of the terror group in Northern Iraq, the consensus will be to keep doing and strengthen what President Obama began. Trump will fire his committee.


It looks as though the Government might accomplish little except a few monument dedications during Mr. Trump’s administration. But then, many believe the old adage, “That government which governs least, governs best.”

Thursday, July 28, 2016

MYTHS AND LEGENDS

I’ve attempted to understand the differences between myths and legends—and maybe I’m getting a some insight.  Two examples from the on-going research that we’re doing on the history of Santa Barbara North County help. The first is from stories of the First Nation of the region which my partner Rich has recorded. The ancient Chumash have a delightful myth about creation of the earth and its peoples. It is for us a story and not intended to be fact.

A legend is different. Although it also might be repeated over and over, it is within the realm of possibility. It however has not been proven or disproved and might never be. From our history project, we noted the tale of early explorers or missionaries in California scattering mustard seeds to provide road marks for their return. Could this explain the swatches if mustard along the roads that we saw this spring? Fact? In reading the diaries of the Portola expedition—the earliest non-indigenous people’s entry into the area--I found no mention of scattering mustard seeds. In fact, the diaries tell of a rather logical means of recording daily distances and directions which would be useful in any return journey. Bur when we saw these yellow fields reflecting the sunlight, we wanted to believe the legend.  And it certainly could have happened.



Aside from the enjoyment of such a legend, there might be a greater truth in it. The legend of seed scattering is surrounded by the accounts of the undaunted explorers into this land--totally unknown to them-- and facing unknown hazards and discomfort. Just a part of what we might want to understand about the echoes of our land’s past.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

The Gladiators

Two citizens enter the Coliseum on the day of gladiator matches.  One asks, “Pray tell what match will we watch today?”
“Today we will see the match between Trumpius and Cruzius—the fiercest of them all.”
“So there will be blood?”
“There will be much blood and sweat as they battle under the hot sun.”
“And I surmise the people will cheer?”
“Surely they will.  The empire has provided these contests for the entertainment and inspiration of the countrymen.  It will keep them from other less important interests.”
“Yet, there are those scholars who say that this will lead to the downfall of the empire.”

“Forsooth?  The empire was designed to last for a thousand years.”

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

The Demaon of Fear

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” So spoke president Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his first inaugural address in 1933.  The economy suffered a deep depression that would have devastating effects on people, poor and rich alike, for years.  Was his statement overly optimistic or perhaps bravado?  To the extent that it gave people hope and prevented deeper morose, the words were worth their weight in gold.

But hardly before the Depression ended, a new fear enshrouded the country—the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the start of World War 2.  The uncertainty of the outcome was a basis for fear, but was eventually offset with a profound faith that we could prevail.  And we did with the end of the war and the beginning of a period of unparalleled economic growth, scientific advance and social advance.

But shortly into this happy state a new fear emerged—the Cold War and the Soviet Union’s nuclear advance.  The fear now was destruction of the entire world.  But after more than 30 years, this fear ended, at least for a while.  We emerged into a new era of peace and prosperity, much of which might be attributed to the Cold War and its scientific and technology advances.

But the technology advances spawned a new fear known as Y2K.  Because everything from business to banking to transportation depended on computer technology, the fear was that the data processing could not roll over from December 31,1999 to January 1, 2000 and everything that we depended on would come to a screeching stop.  This, unlike earlier fears, turned out to be totally unfounded, but many people world-wide cowered in fear.

A little over a decade later, terrorists struck on what is known as 9/11 and killed over 3000 of our people.  A new fear struck us—that of continued acts of terrorism on our soil.  Perhaps our intelligence community changed its ways, perhaps the terrorists were not as capable as we thought or for other reasons no mass destruction has occurred since then.  How many attacks have our forces thwarted?  One might need access to classified information to know that.

Now we are in a new fear mode—the fear that ISIS (Daesh, ISIL or whatever) will come here and kill us en mass.  There is a tendency to see them as ten feet tall and unstoppable, and to be unaware of what is being done to stem the tide. It’s a reprise of old fears and should be dealt with rationally. 

The beneficial side of fear is continued vigilance (so that we never again look back after an event such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and reflect on our lack of awareness).  The bad side of fear includes irrational thinking and the ugly blot of anger which can spawn road rage, family discord and lack of proper community responsibility.

Our society needs to deal rationally with this and any fears that will appear in the future.


Wednesday, February 3, 2016

New Climate Data

In November of 2013, my blog post expressed skepticism about global warming.  Skepticism, not denial but basically a desire for more information, because I saw a hiatus or leveling of the warming data measured by NASA.  Essentially, the period 1975 to 2002 showed a steep increase in the earth’s temperature.  The average increase was 0.023 degrees C per year.  If the trend remained it could have resulted in a 2.3 deg C (4.1 deg F) increase by the year 2100.  This was in the Al Gore (An Inconvenient Truth) era when sensitivity to the possibility of severe global warming became widespread (and the deniers flared up like a prairie wildfire).

Then about 2003 a hiatus in the warming began. Looking at the NASA data as it was published for several years, I saw a definite flat curve and that lead to my blog post in 2013.  In the 2003 to 2013 period, the annual temperature increase was only 0.0018 degrees C per year.  If this trend continued, the increase would only be 0.16 degrees C by 2100.




(This information is from NASA web site http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/



Now in 2015, the NASA data shows a sharp turn upward—sharper than in the earlier period.  The tabulated NASA data shows a temperature increase of 0.09 degrees C in 2014 and 0.13 degrees C in 2015.  These points are alarming—they could mean 0.11 degrees C per year or 9.4 degrees C (16.9 degrees F) increase by the year 2100.  Startling numbers!  Although two points on a chart aren’t conclusive, the need to take climate data seriously is obvious.

This increase is, to me, as mysterious as was the 10-year hiatus.  Let us hope that the scientists can freely delve into the nature of things without interference by politicians and their minions and provide us answers about the environment that in which we will live for future generations.

Friday, November 6, 2015

The Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat

I recently read Eugene Field’s  poem about a dog and a cat that got into a terrible spat. All through the night angry sounds filled the room and bits of gingham and calico flew furiously.  Come morning, the two antagonists were nowhere to be found, giving rise to the suspicion that they ate each other up.  Delightful children’s entertainment?  Or is it a forecast of things to come in today’s body politic?

Do we see a parallel of this poem with the battle between presidential candidates Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson?  Could their fight, played out heavily on the media, end with their devouring each other?


Who knows?  It’s like our dog Petey says, “politics is ruff.”