This morning I was on KGET 17 New's Sunrise Edition, where we discussed Donald Trump's decision to end DACA - an Obama era program that protects young undocumented students and workers who were brought here as children. You can access the segment by clicking here.
Among the points I made, while responding to Cathy Abernathy, is that Donald Trump doesn't have a mandate to end DACA (he lost the head count by 3 million, and needed the Russians to stumble across the Electoral College finish line). I added that the undocumented groups who are here are undocumented as a result of a broken immigration system, so what Trump is proposing is "cruel, inhumane, and ... designed to create a climate of fear."
I also noted how Trump's decision doesn't appeal to our better angels, and that trying to hound good, productive, and hard working people out of America is not who we really are as a nation (the NY Times' Paul Krugman has a strong economic twist on this here).
At 4:10 into the segment I take on Cathy Abernathy's assertion that we are a nation of laws by pointing out how we have changed the laws in the past for people who work hard, and are here doing the right thing. The history behind the Homestead Act (1862) and Ronald Reagan's Immigration Reform Act (1986) are just two examples of this.
There's more, but you can watch the clip by clicking here.
So President Trump is poised to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, with a six month delay. What a humanitarian.
To try and understand Trump's decision making here, we could talk about his petty desire to rewind anything that President Obama has done. We could also discuss how Trump and the GOP are going to use DACA over the next six months to extort the Democrats over other legislative issues. Simply put, they could threaten not to cooperate on DACA unless they get what they want in other areas. Or we could discuss how Trump wants to distract - for the next 6 months - from the Russia investigation, by holding the lives of hundreds of thousands of hard working productive people hostage to his very real financial and political problems.
Let's be clear here. Rewinding President Obama's policies, political extortion, and political diversion are all part of Donald Trump's DACA thinking.But I don't want to focus on the petty and divisive reasons for Trump's decision to rescind DACA. At least not in this post.
Instead let's focus on the reasons Trump, the GOP, and Congress should begin working on strengthening and expanding DACA. I'll be brief. IT'S IN THE ECONOMICS ...
For starters, DACA has been an economic success, and a humanitarian triumph. The number of DACA recipients in school or working, and contributing to society, makes it clear that DACA should be a strong first step in making our undocumented population "legal" participants in America. Work hard and get ahead has always been an American refrain, and DACA's successes here means it needs to be honored, and extended.
Unfortunately, the economic contributions of DACA recipients are often overlooked by hateful bigots who use the status of the law to demand draconian measures against children who had nothing to do with their undocumented position here in the United States.
What this means is that, rather than looking at the positive economic and humanitarian contributions of DACA recipients, the primary focus for many conservatives is how DACA recipients are here "illegally." IT'S IN OUR HISTORY ...
What people who focus on the legal angle ignore, or never learned, is America's long history of changing laws to welcome or accommodate those who contribute to America. What they forget is that many of the people who helped settle and win the West were once considered "illegal." The squatters who moved west, because much of the land on the Eastern seaboard was owned by others, or had been exhausted by poor farming techniques, became outlaws in the eyes of the law during the 1850s and 1860s.
Fortunately for them, Abraham Lincoln and Congress decided to act. In
spite of simply focusing on the ugliness of a nation that was enmeshed
in a bitter and ugly Civil War, the Homestead Act was passed in 1862.
Virtually overnight, a large group hardworking people who were once
viewed as a public nuisance, and even considered illegal squatters in
the territories, became the backbone of America's middle class.
Manifest Destiny and the building of the American Dream were energized in the process.
If we fast forward 124 years we see another episode of "illegals" being granted legal status. In 1986, under the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 President Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to almost 3 million undocumented workers and their families.
At the time Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) said, "It's not perfect, but 2.9 million people came forward. If you can bring
one person out of an exploited relationship, that's good enough for
me."
Reagan's amnesty, in effect, was viewed as a humanitarian gesture (even if the proposed crackdown on abusive employers was stripped out of the legislation).
Let's fast forward another 22 years. It's 2008 and both Republicans and Democrats got together to allow investment banks, who collapsed the economy in 2008, to qualify for federally backed insurance they had not previously paid into. The American taxpayer, in effect, guaranteed Wall Street's bailout.
In the process we took a group of people - the nation's biggest investment bankers and Wall Street financiers - and made their bailout both legal and politically acceptable. All of the illegal trading and bets they had made, with money they didn't have, were suddenly cleansed transactions. Wall Streets biggest market players lived to see another day.
While the point of reminding everyone about the Homestead Act, Reagan's amnesty, and Wall Street's bailout is to show how quickly America can clean up the "illegal" status of any group - homesteaders, migrants, and bankers - the reality is our GOP lead Congress have yet to demonstrate they have a political spine to go against Donald Trump.
So let's take another route, and look at what the Bible says about the topic. IT'S ALSO IN THE BIBLE ...
If it's political backbone our Republican Congress needs, perhaps infusing them with the spirit of the Bible might help. Specifically, for those of you wondering "What Would Jesus Do?" I'll leave you with this YouTube clip of Father James Martin, who explains what the Bible says about refugees, migrants and foreigners.
One thing's clear: Donald Trump's position on DACA is not what Jesus would do. Not even close.
In "Sowing the Seeds of Hate: The Unforgivable Disgrace of an American President," Germany's Der Spiegel Online offers up this commentary about President Trump:
Trump is the first president to offer his protection to right-wing
extremists, and he has lost the ability to distinguish between good and
evil -- if he ever possessed it in the first place. Such a shortcoming
would be horrific in any political leader, but the U.S. president is
more than just another head of state. He sets an example for the entire
world, particularly when it comes to fighting hate and fanaticism in his
own country.
The online subtitle for the article pretty much sums it up:
There has never before been a U.S. president who trivialized the
violence and racism of neo-Nazis. For many Republicans, Donald Trump
has now gone too far. The populist leader has become more isolated than
ever before -- in the world and inside his own party.
With Breitbart "News" currently welcome at White House press briefings, I've been asked whether Breitbart is now a legitimate news source. Let me make this real simple. No, Breitbart is still not a legitimate news source. And, no, having a large following of committed readers and true believers doesn't help their cause. Here's why.
The White House is a reflection of what's happening in America. The people who occupy the White House have to appreciate and react to what's popular, and even faddish, in the country. Unfortunately what's popular, no matter how repugnant, has a shot at being mainstreamed by the White House. Slavery? Check. Sexism? Check. Jim Crow? Check. The White House is, after all, the people's house. Fads and even repugnant ideas all make their way through the White House.
What this means is that just because Breitbart, and Fox News, are part of the White House press pool doesn't mean they are going to be accepted news or research sources outside of their immediate circles. The final arbiter of what constitutes reliable information, or good research sources, rests with those who regularly follow legitimate research protocols, or abide by the scientific method.
It was, after all, the scientific method that enabled us to fight infectious diseases, go to the moon, and predict things like cyclical eclipses. Richard Dawkins tells us how we ultimately know that the scientific method works, in layman's terms.
The scientific method is the relentless and methodical pursuit of the truth. Breitbart doesn't pursue the truth. They pursue an agenda. They want to shape the narrative. They are very clear about this (as is Fox News). Rather than explain the scientific method, let me make this real simple by borrowing from my January 2017 post to illustrate how the scientific method works in the field of education.
Over the years teachers and researchers have studied how we learn and acquire knowledge. In the process they have developed tests and standards that tell them if a student is on the right track or - and unfortunately - if they live in an Alternative Facts "anything goes, as long as I believe it" universe. What we've learned in the process is there are objective truths in education. By the time a kid enters Kindergarten they should be able to color between the lines. If a 2nd grader is asked to add 2 + 2 and comes up with "leventeen" there's a problem. By the time a kid gets out of middle school they should understand that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth. If we understand these agreed upon, peer-reviewed, truths, then we can begin to understand why arguments that begin with "Breitbart or Rush Limbaugh said ..." are not going to be acceptable answers.
So, yes, there are objective truths. Similarly, just as there are good sources and bad sources, there are real universities and fake universities. Remember Trump University?
To be sure, if you want to point to the time someone from the Alternative Facts world happened to get something right that's fine. We can do this. But this doesn't mean they represent the truth. And just because something makes sense to the Alternative Facts community doesn't mean they are logically coherent in their presentation of the "facts" (as the clip below makes clear), so others must follow their argument.
No, this is NOT the Scientific Method
It simply means they may have stumbled on anecdotal evidence, which we can discuss (remember, even a broken clock gets it right twice a day).
Simply put, unless you're studying rhetoric, media & propaganda, psychological profiles of cult leaders, or similar themed courses and topics, simply claiming something is "fake news" or bringing in Alternative Facts from sources like Breitbart News or Info Wars have no standing in my class, or any legitimate institute of higher education. We're not here to discuss sources that have the logical coherence of a Monty Python skit.
If you believe otherwise, it's up to you to explain why we even have universities or research centers. Seriously, if your "leventeen" is considered valid because it makes sense to you, and that's what you want to believe, what's the point?
Summer 2017 has been brutal in Bakersfield. We already had our share of 110-112°F days a few months back, and the projections for the rest of this week are not good.
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
While one might think that we're supposed to get used to the heat, after so many days at or over 100°F, I'm starting to get a really tired of the successive heat waves. What's worse is that we just moved, so we don't have a pool (yet), for the first time in 13 years. This helps to explain why, for me at least, it seems like Bakersfield is in its own episode of the Twilight Zone's The Midnight Sun ...
Today's temperature was projected to be about 110°F, but dropped to 104-105°F (about 41° C) because of an unexpected light summer shower last night. I know it might be an exaggeration (but not by much) but if you're not from the region, this is what it's beginning to feel like in Bakersfield ...
I know, I know ...
In case you don't recognize the pictured references, they're from The Twilight Zone, episode #75, "The Midnight Sun."
Click here for the FB link to video. For those inclined to say "he was just doing his job," click here for stories and links to Sheriff Arpaio's record as the chief law enforcement officer of Maricopa County, Arizona.
Slate has an interesting article, penned by Fred Kaplan, that pretty much explains what we all see and know. President Trump doesn't represent American values. The interesting part is that it's President Trump's Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense who are making the point. Specifically, Kaplan writes ...
On Fox News on Sunday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was asked about a U.N. committee’s recent warning about racism in America, which criticized Trump’s wavering attitude toward the neo-Nazi marchers in Charlottesville, Virginia. Tillerson replied, “I don’t think anyone doubts the American people’s values,” including those touting “equal treatment of people the world over.” But when asked whether Trump shared those values, he replied, “The president speaks for himself.”
Around the same time, a recent video emerged on Facebook of Secretary of Defense James Mattis telling a small group of American troops, “You’re a great example of our country right now.” He went on, “Our country, right now, it’s got problems that we don’t have in the military. You just hold the line until our country gets back to understanding and respecting each other and showing it.”
Pulling over Latinos to check their immigration status - after being told to stop doing so by the courts - is just the tip of the Joe Arpaio's illegal iceberg, as The Daily Show's Trevor Noah points out ...
Let me make this clear. Sheriff Arpaio is a thug with a badge.
If you want to understand how global warming likely made Hurricane Harvey much worse, according to climatologists, click here. Not that it needs to be restated (actually, it does), but this May 31, 2017 article from the Insurance Journal - you know, the people who write for the guys who have to pay and reject the claims caused by climate change - helps explain what's happening in places like Texas.
Scientific studies have established an acceleration in sea-level rise because of a warming atmosphere. Coal and oil burning and the destruction of tropical forests have increased heat-trapping gases that have warmed the planet by 1.8 degrees since 1880. Earth has been losing 13,500 square miles of ice annually since 1979, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Sea levels are generally rising faster along the Texas Gulf Coast and the western Gulf than the average globally, according to a January study by NOAA.
“The western Gulf is experiencing some of the highest rates of relative levels of sea-level rise in the country,” said NOAA oceanographer William Sweet, lead author of the study. “The ocean is not rising like water would in a bathtub.”
Sea-level rise is making storm surges larger, said John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas state climatologist at Texas A&M University in College Station.
Here's the money quote from the Insurance Journal's May 2017 edition: "Apart from sea-level rise, climate change is expected to cause hurricanes to be more intense and produce more rain, according to the NOAA."
The Washington Post helps explain what happened in Houston ...
For the climate change deniers out there, the Vox article cited here, tells us how the science behind climate change also explains why the damage caused by Hurricane Harvey was most likely worse because of climate change. Our real problem now, in the words of my former colleague David Berri (now in Utah), is how vindication for the scientists in the climate field will largely be a Pyrrhic-like Victory for humanity ...
... Notice the language [of the scientists]. Scientists don't speak in absolutes. They talk about where the evidence likely leads.
This makes arguing with climate change skeptics so immensely difficult.
Unfortunately for us, in the future the scientists will be vindicated and the skeptics will look very stupid. They won't be smart enough to know they look stupid. But they will look stupid.
So, yeah, the scientists win, while we lurch forward unprepared for the inevitable. And the truly stupid will live to see another day.
