Author: jxindivisible

And the Putin Republicans

For students of humanity (and the inhumanity of war) “20 Days in Mariupol,” last Sunday’s Documentary Film Oscar winner, is a must watch. (It is available to stream on YouTube here and on PBS/Frontline here [the latter may require a highly recommended subscription to your local public television station].) Strap yourself in. This is not a piece of fictionalized history. It is the raw reality for civilians and those trying desperately to hold things together on the ground in Mariupol in February-March 2022. The time was the beginning of the still-ongoing, Putin-driven, Russian war of conquest of Ukraine. It is totally heart-rending. This type of journalism is the reason that some want people kept in the dark about the realities of life in war.

Strikingly, Mariupol was a modern city, a complex built environment, a port city, that was home to nearly a half a million people, a city not unlike many an American city. Thanks to Vladimir Putin’s warped ambition for empire, all that was Mariupol now lies in ruins—along with the hopes and dreams of its former inhabitants. That men like Putin and Hitler can convince themselves of whatever they use to justify what you see in this documentary totally escapes me.

It is no wonder that the Russian propaganda machine went into high gear accusing this documentary and the TV footage that preceded it of “fake news” staged by “crisis actors.” That similar claims appear on the lips of Putin’s allies here in the U.S. should surprise no one. “20 Days in Mariupol” is a vivid reminder of the importance of a free press—and the need to pay attention to the source of what you are being fed by the media you consume. Putin cannot afford to have real life images of his war of conquest in Ukraine revealed to the Russian people, lest they see themselves in the misery of the Ukrainians. 

Meanwhile, back here in the U.S. it seems like the war in Ukraine almost dropped out of the news, overwhelmed by the Oscars themselves, the presidential primary process, and the coverage of war in Gaza. “20 Days in Mariupol” is a vivid reminder of the toll not only of Putin’s grinding, horrific, unjustified war of conquest in Ukraine, but also a reminder of one presidential candidate’s fawning admiration for Putin and Putin’s authoritarian grip on Russia. We should also be reminded of that candidate’s Republican minions in the U.S. House who have for months, voting as a block under the leadership of Mike Johnson, choked off funding for Ukraine, leaving Ukrainian soldiers short on ammunition. 

I used to lean Republican. In recent decades, as the Republican Party was taken over by the ‘Christian Right’ I considered myself an independent. Now, as the leader of the Republican Party looks up to men like Putin and works to purge all those from his party who voice the slightest disagreement, the Republican label is electoral poison to me at all levels of government. 

Watch “20 Days in Mariupol,” and contemplate the plight of humanity under deranged autocrats.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. I am indebted to Petra Hoy for alerting me to the writing of Teri Kanefield. Her post “Why Some Prefer Oligarchy and (🎶 What’s Russia got to do, got to do with it? 🎶).” You can read it here. Kanefield does a terrific and well-referenced job of explaining how the Republican Party came to be an ally of Putin and Putin’s vision of Russia. 

P.P.S. Russia under Putin is something very different than the vision of the U.S.S.R. that I was raised on in school in the 1960s. The U.S.S.R. was posed as a nation of atheists in which Christian believers were relentlessly persecuted and abortion was supposedly the primary method of birth control. The U.S.S.R. was depicted as a totalitarian state like the state profiled in George Orwell’s “1984.” The U.S.S.R. carried the label of “communist” but it bore only a passing resemblance to the state that Karl Marx wrote about. (In spite of that disconnection, “communism” and “socialism” were still vilified and somehow intertwined with the U.S.S.R.) 

Weirdly, the Russia that has emerged today is still labelled in the minds of many as an evil “communist” or “socialist” state, when, in fact, Russia has become an oligarchic theocracy. Putin has revived Russian Orthodox Church as the pre-eminent spiritual authority. No atheists need be tolerated. Under Putin, church and state are once again fused as they were under the czar, abortion is illegal, homophobia is the standard, gay marriage is unthinkable, and media are controlled by the state. (Note how all this aligns with what the Christian Nationalists of the Republican Party are preaching.)

More potential Interference in our election from abroad

There is nothing quite like a sharp rise in the price of a gallon of gas to trigger the anger of the American consumer. After all, gas prices are prominently displayed on digital signs along every roadway. If you’re not buying gas that day you’re still aware of the price. With our transition toward electric vehicles and renewable sources of power only in the early stages, a rise in gas prices puts a dent in a lot of budgets. 

Any of my readers alive during the gas/oil crises of 1973 and 1979remembers the turmoil brought on by our dependence on importation of foreign crude oil. Back then we could blame the “lines at the pump” on the countries of the OPEC cartel that controlled much of the worldwide oil supply. It was an unaccustomed feeling of dependence and helplessness that spurred efforts to ramp up oil and gas drilling here at home (and helped efforts to improve the efficient use of energy and to decarbonize).

Forty years later, in 2020, the United States became a net petroleum exporter in 2020 for the first time since at least 1949. (This is mostly the result of recent technical advances, e.g. fracking and directional drilling.) 

Problem solved, right? We control our own energy destiny now. Not only are we “energy independent” but we’re chipping away at our overall dependence on fossil energy as we turn to clean energy production. (Our oil consumption peaked in 2005.) Screw those oil rich countries that held us hostage back in the 1970s! We’re free! Not so fast.

We as a nation became net total petroleum exporters in 2020, i.e. in very gross terms we produced more than we used. The key word, though, is net: a whole lot of total petroleum was shipped both into and out of the country. “In 2022, total petroleum exports were about 9.52 million barrels per day (b/d) and total petroleum imports were about 8.33 million b/d.” Those import/export numbers demonstrate a huge to and fro. The U.S. “only” consumes about 20 million barrels/day (for a reality check, that works out to 2.5 gallons of petroleum per day for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.). Almost half of that daily total is shipped into or out of the U.S. in a complex web of worldwide trade. There remain choke points in that web subject to manipulation by foreign actors wishing to influence elections. 

Below I have pasted Thom Hartmann’s March 6 Substack post. I sometimes find Mr. Hartmann’s writing a little shrill, but this post resonated with me, particularly as he recounts all the connections between the Trump family, the Saudis and the Russians. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. 

(I checked. The Port Arthur TX refinery is the largest single oil refinery in the North American. It is a major supplier of gasoline and other petroleum products to the southern and eastern U.S. And, yes, it is wholly owned since 2017 by Aramco, the Saudia state oil company controlled by the Saudi royal family.) 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

The Saudi & Putin Scheme for Screwing Biden’s Election Hopes

So, get ready: it’s coming this fall. And unless the administration acts quickly, there will be nothing they can do about it. Gas at $6 a gallon could easily throw the election to Trump…

THOM HARTMANN

MAR 5

READ IN APP

Have you noticed gas prices are rising? Get ready: you ain’t seen nothing yet.

The bloodthirsty leader of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia loves his dictatorial soul-mate Donald Trump and is today setting the stage to intervene in November’s election in a big way, much like he did with a smaller test run during the fall of 2022 when he drove US gas prices up above $5, forcing President Biden to release oil from the US strategic petroleum reserve.

As Stanley Reed reported for the Business pages of The New York Times three days ago:

“Saudi Arabia, the de facto leader of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, said Sunday that it would extend [their one-million-barrels-a-day] cuts in oil production through June, noting that it was acting ‘in coordination with some’ other states.”

That “other state” would be their OPEC+ partner Russia, which also announced last weekend a simultaneous production cut of 471,000 barrels a day. Putin wants Trump back in the White House, too.

This time, though, because Trump refused to block the sale of America’s largest gasoline refinery to Saudi Arabia in 2017 (completed in 2019 with Trump’s blessing), no matter how much oil Biden releases from the reserves will be irrelevant: if the Saudis shut down their Port Arthur, Texas refinery this October “for maintenance,” US gasoline prices will explode.

It’s the largest refinery in America: as Foreign Policy magazine noted in May 2017:

“Port Arthur, referred to as the ‘crown jewel’ of U.S. refinery infrastructure, can process 600,000 barrels of oil a day.”

That alone is enough to radically swing gasoline prices in the US.

So, get ready: it’s coming this fall. And unless the administration acts quickly, there will be nothing they can do about it. Gas at $6 a gallon could easily throw the election to Trump, as Biden will take the blame (just like in November 2022) and Fox “News” and rightwing hate media will hang gas prices around his neck like a flaming tire.  

MBS and his sovereign wealth fund have funneled literally billions of dollars into the Trump family, between Jared’s investment company and Trump’s golf courses and the LIV Tour, in addition to giving Trump himself additional hundreds of millions over the years renting and purchasing Trump properties.

During Trump’s presidency, MBS funneled additional millionsdirectly into the Trump family’s pockets via Trump’s DC hotel and NYC properties in clear violation of the Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution.

In exchange, Trump broke with the US tradition of new presidents visiting democratic allies and made Saudi Arabia his first overseas destination, blowing away congressional concern about MBS having ordered the brutal murder and dismemberment of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi and elevating the international status of that country beyond anything ever done by any US president.

Trump followed that up by organizing a 2019 sale of $8.1 billion in US weaponry in clear violation of US law (such sales require congressional approval). When the Senate voted to block the sale, Trump killed their effort. As Frontline noted in a July 2019 report:

“Both chambers have registered their disapproval of the emergency declaration — the Senate voted to block the sale in June. President Trump, however, has pledged to shoot down the measure when it arrives at his desk.”

When Saudi Arabia and Russia tried to screw Biden and the Democrats by cutting oil production — in October leading up to the midterm 2022 elections — President Biden was furious. Russell Baker wrote about it for The New York Times on October 11, 2022:

“President Biden vowed on Tuesday to impose ‘consequences’ on Saudi Arabia for teaming up with Russia to cut oil production, signaling a rupture in the relationship between two longtime allies and a reversal of his own effort to cultivate the energy-rich kingdom.

“Amid deep anger over last week’s decision by the Saudi-led OPEC Plus, Mr. Biden’s staff announced that he would re-evaluate the entire relationship with Saudi Arabia and expressed openness to retaliatory measures offered by congressional Democrats such as curbing arms sales or permitting legal action against the cartel.

“‘There’s going to be some consequences for what they’ve done with Russia,’ Mr. Biden told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview broadcast on Tuesday night.”

Weighing in for Democratic Senate leadership, Illinois Senator Dick Durban added on an October, 2022 CNN appearance:

“Let’s be very candid about this. It’s Putin and Saudi Arabia against the United States.”

The Saudis are well aware of the power of gas prices over US politics. Retired Saudi Oil Ministry Adviser Ibrahim Al-Muhanna wrote in his book Oil Leaders: An Insider’s Account of Four Decades of Saudi Arabia and OPEC’s Global Energy Policy:

“During the midterm election in 2018, President Trump pushed for lower oil prices—meaning gasoline—and he succeeded, but he used completely different methods. In the middle of June 2018, the oil price was about $75 and the gasoline price in the United States was more than $3.50 in some states. Trump was worried that the Republican Party might lose the majority in both houses of Congress. …

“The OPEC+ group, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, decided in June 2018 to increase their production by 1.2 MBD. Saudi Arabian production in November rose to more than 11.3 MBD, its highest ever.”

For reference, Saudi oil production right now is standing at around 9 million barrels a day, and they just announced a million-barrel-a-day production cut to kick in this summer/fall just in time for the presidential election.

So, what can President Biden do?

One step would be to nationalize the Port Arthur refinery, the “crown jewel” essential to US energy security that never should have been sold to a foreign nation. I’ve written extensively about the process of nationalization here and here, but it would require congressional approval and would probably take more time than Biden has before the November election.

Nonetheless, it would be a shot across the bow of Saudi Arabia and may get their attention sufficiently to stop their intended manipulation of US gas prices this fall. And it’s the right thing to do, even if it takes a year or more.

Another would be to take America back to the oil export policy that was put into place during the Nixon administration, prohibiting the export of any US crude petroleum products. US oil production is higher today than it’s ever been in history, and in 2019 America achieved technical energy independence, as noted by the US Energy Information Administration:

In 1973, at the height of the Arab Oil Embargo, President Nixon and Congress put into law legislation that banned the export of US crude. It stood until December, 2015, when Congress and President Obama, under pressure (bribes legalized by 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court) from the fossil fuel industry, repealed the ban.

American oil companies are currently exporting a bit over 4 million barrelsa day, while we’re only importing around 900,000 barrels a day from Saudi Arabia and 290,000 barrels a day from Russia (yes, it sounds wacky). Ending exports would cut the tie between US oil prices and Saudi and Russian production. (Which only leaves that Port Arthur, Texas refinery owned by the Saudis as the weak link MBS could use to manipulate US elections via gas prices.)

While it would be challenged in court, there are emergency powers the president has that may allow him to reinstate that ban, at least temporarily, by executive order. Both The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times have argued in editorials that banning exports and lifting such a ban are both within the president’s powers.

Finally, President Biden could get ahead of the Saudis and Putin by exposing what they’re up to. They increased production (lowering US gas prices) in 2018 to help Trump and the Republicans in that year’s midterm elections, and cut production (raising US gas prices) in 2022 to hurt Biden and the Democrats in those midterms. Arguably, they got a Republican-controlled House of Representatives out of that effort.

Most Americans are probably unaware of this, and letting them know how our system is being manipulated by these two malevolent foreign powers would take some of the political sting out of the high gas prices that we can expect to see this fall.

And even if Biden chooses not to engage in this kind of public and high-stakes brinkmanship with MBS and Putin, you and I can. Tell everybody you know what’s happening and how we can expect it to play out: it may well begin to bleed through to the mainstream media if enough of us raise hell.

Pass it along!

There’s always a lag in understanding the consequences

If you’re a bit mystified by all the talk about “PFAS,” fire-fighting foam, Fairchild Air Force Base, and Spokane International Airport you’re not alone. Why is it relevant to folks other than those with water wells on the West Plains? How does this story fit into the larger picture?

PFAS stands for Per- and polyFluoro Alkyl Substances, a class of chemicals invented in the 1940s that previously did not occur in nature. Heralded by the chemical industry for their impressive slipperiness and water-repellant qualities, PFAS in all their variations came into widespread use over the next half century for everything from making stain-resistant carpets (Scotchgard) and clothing (Gore-Tex) to effective suppressants for fuel fires at airports. Along with those useful qualities of PFAS come two other less recognized properties: PFAS tend to bio-accumulate, that is, animals and plants concentrate these chemicals in their tissues and, since the carbon-fluorine bond is one of the most durable bonds in chemistry, PFAS are incredibly persistent in the environment and in biologic systems. (Hence, PFAS is what’s meant when you hear about “Forever Chemicals.”)

To understand how the world became aware of the health and environmental concerns around PFAS, I strongly recommend you spend a couple of hours (and $4) streaming the movie Dark Waters (2019) on YouTube. (And/or read the reporting on which the movie is based: see next paragraph for a link.) Either way, understand that the PFAS chemicals they focus on in the “Dark Waters” story are the same predominant chemicals that are seeping through the ground water on the West Plains. Those main PFAS chemicals are PFOA and PFOS.  PFOA (aka “C8” for its eight carbon atom backbone) which was used for decades in the manufacture of Teflon and Gore-Tex. It was an essential ingredient in the Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFFs) used in fire-fighting at airports like Fairchild and SIA. PFOS was also used in AFFFs and was once the primary ingredient in Scotchgard. 

“Dark Waters” is based on the excellent 2016 New York Times Magazine investigative article “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare.” Click the following link to read the story (It is a “gift article”, i.e. there should be no paywall.):

An important point from this whole story is that the funding (and the spur) for a key scientific study that clearly demonstrated the health risks of PFAS ingestion resulted only from this high profile lawsuit documented in the NYT article and the movie. Discovery and production of thousands (if not millions) of tons of PFAS—and the dissemination of PFAS based products—pre-dated the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. PFAS production and use was therefore “grandfathered” in. 

PFOA and PFOS are now banned and/or phased out of production in much of the world, but we are left with the residual chemical contamination seeping into the groundwater from a multitude of sites, including many airports.

Judging by his actions, Spokane County Commissioner Al French that would rather that the extent of PFAS contamination on the West Plains remain under-investigated, swept under the rug, and the health risks faced by constituents drinking contaminated well water remain hidden from view. French’s associate, Larry Krauter, CEO of Spokane International Airport, would rather lobby to change the regulations than to acknowledge the risk and make efforts to mitigate it. There must be some deeply-seated belief among these people that those living on the West Plains are somehow expendable in the pursuit of industrial development and monetary value of the property around the airport. Officials that fail to put the health of their constituents first don’t deserve to remain in office.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. For a glimpse of the science behind quantifying the health risks of PFOA (=C8) in humans check out this website: C8 Science Panel. Much of this research (perhaps all of it) came about as a result of the lawsuit detailed in “Dark Waters.” (Note that PFOA is only one of the PFAS. This is just the tip of the research iceberg investigating the adverse health associations of these “forever chemicals.”) The overall conclusion: “For six disease categories, the Science Panel concluded that there was a Probable Link to C8 exposure: diagnosed high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, and pregnancy-induced hypertension.”

P.P.S. THE LARGER PATTERN: The PFAS story is another example of a repeating pattern. A product, tobacco, for example, is packaged in a new way (cigarettes) or invented in a lab (PFAS). The product or chemical is found enjoyable or useful in some way. The product’s advantages are marketed to the public. (In the tobacco example the marketing included the infamous physician endorsements of smoking.) Thanks to marketing and peer pressure the product becomes embedded in our lives. (Smoking becomes ubiquitous; Teflon-lined pots and pans were found in most kitchens; Scotchgard becomes a household name.) The people and companies making the product happily make profits—and are generally and genuinely convinced that they are doing something good for consumers. Everybody’s happy. 

Then someone notices that people exposed to high doses of the product sometimes exhibit health problems that might be related to that exposure. (Lung cancer in heavy smokers, kidney cancer in DuPont chemical workers exposed to PFOS.) Researchers, spurred by such observations, expose animals in the laboratory to relatively high doses of the product and observe a higher incidence of a health effect in the exposed animals when compared to unexposed control groups (where the exposure or non-exposure is the only variable). Of course, unlike humans, the experimental animals are relatively genetically homogeneous and, since they have naturally shorter life spans than human, the effects of exposure appear on a shorter time scale.

Usually by this time the corporations making profits from producing and selling the product shift into high gear pumping out propaganda questioning the validity of the laboratory studies. (An unrealistically high dose was administered, lab rats aren’t humans, the results are only suggestive, grandma smoked all her life and lived to be a hundred, etc., etc.)

Testing in humans to gather evidence of health effects is where things get complicated—and expensive. It is unethical to intentionally expose one group of human subjects to a chemical, drug, or product suspected of having health effects while monitoring a carefully matched, unexposed control group and compare the difference in outcomes. Consequently, scientists, including epidemiologists and statisticians, work to understand the risk of exposure by comparing a group of people exposed to the chemical, drug, or product to an unexposed group. The quality of such studies in humans depends on a multitude of factors including the extent of the exposure (which varies, of course) and the matching of the two groups for age, gender, race, other exposures, etc. The best studies have large numbers of well matched participants in which the two groups are followed for a period of time and the outcomes compared (a “prospective study”). The conclusions of any study are enhanced by extensive “peer review” in which other scientists examine the details of the study for biases that might affect the result.

It is no wonder, then, that concluding that a low level exposure to a chemical, drug, or product has nasty health effects over the remainder of a human life always requires years, often decades, to come to light. The original glow of the discovery and popularization of the product starts to dim. This is a pattern we’ve seen many times. Examples include cigarette smoking, DDT, trans-fats, chlorofluorocarbons, thalidomide, asbestos, and the burning of carbon-based fuels (see the History section at any of those links for details). Even after a risk is well understood and documented by a majority of the scientific community it still takes years before a clear message is received by the general populace. That is sometimes due to the ongoing efforts of folks with a vested interest in the chemical, drug, or product, folks who are suspicious of science, and people who simply do not wish to hear. 

And one final note: Of course there are examples in which one or a few studies claim to demonstrate a risk or benefit that is later thoroughly debunked, but the controversy lingers. A classic example of this is the debunked link between vaccines and autism (Robert F. Kennedy’s favorite topic). More recently, the supposed link between modest amounts of red wine consumption and health benefits was debunked—but I expect it will take decades for that message to penetrate. See “How Red Wine Lost Its Health Halo.” Here’s the link to what should be a free read: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/well/eat/red-wine-heart-health.html?unlocked_article_code=1.aU0.bcG0.t3BkJ1GWLc11&smid=url-share

Al French concerned for the poor??

On February 21 an article appeared in the Washington Post titled, “How the housing industry is working to stop energy efficient homes.” This was the subtitle: “Home builders have used their political muscle to prevent states and cities from adopting the latest code, which would lower the climate impact of new houses.” The subtitle reminded me of local rhetoric.

Striving for energy efficiency has always made economic sense to me—even before most of us were aware of global heating resulting from the burning carbon fuels. Building a snug home (or retrofitting an older one) with insulation and efficient heating and cooling systems will cost something extra up front, but the investment will always pay for itself over a period of years thanks to lower energy bills—and after that the annual savings is a dividend.

Furthermore, it is usually cheaper to build an energy efficient home than it is to retrofit an old one. 

At the end of a recent county legislative meeting Spokane County Commissioner Al French (District 5-West Plains & South) offered up from the dais (to no one in particular) that changes in the state building codes requiring more energy efficiency would “hurt the poor.” French’s statement seemed broad and counterintuitive—a gratuitous soundbite.

Al French sits on the State Building Code Council where he has staunchly opposes updated energy efficiency standards. Predictably, in her periodic Spokesman opinion column Sue Lani Madsen has spilled a lot of electrons and ink decrying the extra costs entailed by the new code. (See here, here, here, and here.) Both she and French strictly avoid mentioning the energy savings that would result from the new code—and both of them cite between $25,000 and $50,000 additional cost for the average home to comply, quoting numbers from various builders associations. In addition, neither Madsen nor French consider that with code-mandated anti-fire upgrades the new homes are likely to draw lesser increases in home insurance premiums—as well as helping to keep home insurable at all.

Both French and Madsen try to focus the reader’s attention on the plight of those seeking to rebuild following the wildfires of last summer, while Mr. French, in particular, works to oppose the code changes overall 

The Washington Post article cited in the first paragraph concentrated on Republican efforts to freeze building code updates. It cited North Carolina as an example of the building industry’s nationwide efforts to oppose energy efficiency standards. This quote stood out for me:

A federal study found that North Carolina’s proposed code update would have added at most about $6,500 to the price of a newly built home, not $20,400. According to the analysis, these changes would have paid for themselves through lower power bills and, during the first year alone, reduced carbon dioxide emissions by the equivalent of taking 29,000 cars off the road.

Granted that eastern Washington is not North Carolina, but there’s that builder’s lobby quote of upwards of $20,000 again. It makes you wonder how that quote was generated and whom it is meant to serve. Once put out there and repeated all over the nation such numbers take on a life of their own. 

But, leaving the number aside, one wonders if the real issue for Madsen and French (and others) is this [the bold is mine]:

Tim Minton, executive vice president of the North Carolina Home Builders Association, also cited spiraling home prices in his group’s push to freeze residential energy standards. “I’m not going to get into a debate about climate change, what I’m going to get into a debate about is affordability,” he said in an interview.

To me that Tim Minton quote makes Al French’s sudden concern for “the poor” into perspective. If one denies the science of climate change based on burning carbon fuels, then, from a builder/developer’s viewpoint any additional cost expended to comply with code in building a home simply cuts into the profit to be made. The energy savings from the upgrades accrue to the homeowner, not the builder/developer. The builder/developer moves on to the next project even as the consequences in global heating from building energy inefficient homes lives on for decades.

Neither Sue Lani Madsen nor Commissioner French—or, for that matter, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, is likely to come out and say the quiet part out loud. That would be to declare global warming a “hoax” like the leader of their Party has done. Mr. French, like McMorris Rodgers, is far too politically savvy for that—but their arguments give them away.

Pick your candidates carefully this August and November. Deduce from their arguments where they stand on global heating and vote accordingly. We cannot afford to get this wrong any longer—nationally or locally.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

The red flag of the word “natural”

“Freedom” for the Fundamentalist Christians and Christian Nationalists who dominate the modern Republican Party means “Freedom to impose my narrow religious view of the world on everyone else.” Freedom means the freedom to intrude on the most important and personal decisions in everyone’s life not just from cradle to the grave but from conception to the grave. As detailed in last Wednesday’s post, rulings based on “life begins at conception” not only make the method by which 2% of babies in the U.S. are currently conceived (in vitro fertilization [IVF]), expensive, untenable, and legally dangerous, but future rulings based on that religious dogma threaten several forms of birth control and the very position of women in society. 

If that weren’t enough to make a voter suspicious of anyone willing to run under the banner of “Republican,” now there is evidence these religious zealots want to dictate how we approach the other end of life as well. 

Judd Legum in his widely read Substack “Popular Information” posted on February 29th:

Former president Trump has endorsed Michael Whatley, a corporate lobbyist and chair of the North Carolina Republican Party, as the next chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC).

(For clarity, Lara Trump, Donald’s loyal daughter-in-law, is endorsed to be “co-chair”of the RNC along with Mr. Whatley.) Whatley is a lesser known, but devoted, election denier and, apparently, a religious zealot. Under Mr. Whatley’s leadership [the italics are mine]:

The most recent version of the North Carolina Republican Party Platform, approved in 2022, states that “[u]nborn children have constitutional rights to life and liberty and, the government must respect and protect all innocent human life from conception to natural death.”

“From conception to natural death.” Of course, no one should be surprised. These religious zealots have worked against Death With Dignity laws, laws that offer a personal choice in how one gets to exit this life, for decades. Based on the medically-chilling, wide-ranging effect of “life begins at conception” one must assume that “natural” in this application means something like, “however God’s wills it,” that is, with no medical assistance. 

I am a physician. I am well aware of the agony that one may face at the end of life in the process of dying. For me the prospect of death itself is not frightening, but the prospect of religious zealots telling me that I must exit this life only by their concept of “naturally” makes me profoundly angry. By what right do they propose that some of us must suffer indescribable pain at the end of life?

I am facing what, absent an alternative legal exit plan, could be a miserable, painful, struggling death with metastatic cancer. As recorded in the platform of his North Carolina Republican Party the prospective new co-chair of the National Republican Party wants to impose his narrow belief system on my and other’s most personal life choices. The Republican Party is driven by those who believe it to be well and proper that their particular narrow interpretation of Christianity should dominate the lives of everyone. Of course, anyone who carries the Republican label who challenges these ideas is not long for the party. Consequently, there is now no level of government for which I would be comfortable casting a ballot for a candidate with an “R” behind their name.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. “Medical Aid in Dying” (MAID), aka “assisted suicide,” is now legal (and regulated) in ten states and the District of Columbia. Getting to this patchwork in support of personal choice has not been easy. (See the wikipedia article for a detailed discussion.) Oregon was first, passing Measure 16, the Death with Dignity Act, with 51.3% of the vote in 1994. In 1997 Oregon voters 60% of Oregon voters cast votes to keep it available when a repeal initiative was floated. The Washington State “Death with Dignity” initiative was passed by 58% of state voters in 2008. The North Carolina Republican Party platform discussed above with its “protect all innocent human life from conception to natural death” clause strongly suggests a Republican drive toward preventing legalization of MAID in states where it is not now legal, repealing it where it is legal, and, if necessary, establishing a federal ban. If that seems doubtful, consider that, although the Dobbs decision expressed the idea that abortion was a matter for states to decide, 125 U.S. House Republicans went right ahead and signed on in support of a bill that would outlaw all abortion by federal law, “The Life at Conception Act.” Apparently, the argument for “states’ rights” is only a matter of convenience.

Two Weeks From Tomorrow!

Tom Foley ably represented eastern Washington in the U.S. House of Representatives for thirty years (1965-1995), serving as the Speaker of the House for the last five and a half of those years. By a tiny margin Foley lost his seat in the House in the November election of 1994 during what has come to be known as the “Gingrich Revolution.” For the last thirty years what was Foley’s seat has been occupied by George Nethercutt and then by his chosen successor, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, . McMorris Rodgers just announced her retirement—and the seat will be hotly contested. It is time for the Democrats to take it back. 

Two weeks and one day from today the Spokane County Democrats will hold their annual Tom Foley Legacy Dinner (all the details below). The Dinner is a major fundraiser for the Party. Click here to purchase tickets.

Personal Note: When I decided, thanks to the Trump election in 2016, that I had better learn how local politics works, I imagined our local political parties as well-oiled, monied machines operating mostly in secret out of “smoke-filled rooms.” That was totally wrong, a twisted holdover from legends that used to swirl around Chicago politics. (I grew up in Wisconsin.) In the Spokane Democrats I’ve found a gathering of unpaid volunteers working toward realizing values I share and a community in which I feel comfortable. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Tom Foley Legacy Dinner, “Rising to the Challenge of 2024.”

Date: Saturday, March 16, 2024

Time: Doors open at 5:00 PM, Dinner starts at 6:00 PM

Venue: Mirabeau Park Hotel, 1100 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA

Tickets: Individual $125, Table Sponsorship $1250

Doors will open at 5:00 pm for the ballroom. The first 50 People will get a free drink ticket. Dinner and the program will start at 6:00pm. We wanted to open early so people can visit and enjoy the company of fellow Democrats.

Our Speakers are:

Senator Maria Cantwell: Senator Cantwell’s insights on federal policies and their impact on local communities and Democrats would be highly relevant and important for the audience.

Ken Martin: As the Chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party and President of the Association of State Democratic Committees, Ken Martin’s leadership roles within the Democratic Party at both state and national levels make his contributions significant.

Shasti Conrad: Shasti Conrad, as the Chair of the Washington State Democrats,  will share insights on driving progressive change and advancing shared values within the party and the state.

April Sims: April Sims, as the President of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, can offer valuable perspectives on labor movement wins and future progress we can help be a part of.

Mike Pellicciotti: Finally, Mike Pellicciotti, running for reelection as Washington State Treasurer, can round out the speaker lineup with his insights on fiscal responsibility and the importance of his role in state governance.

Kenton Bird: As Tom Foley’s biographer and a professor, Kenton Bird brings a unique perspective and deep insight into the life and legacy of Tom Foley. His presence can serve as an excellent introduction to the event, providing context and setting the tone for the discussions that follow.

We will also be doing the,” Donkey Dessert Dash” again this year. Some Flambés will be involved.

We are going bigger with room for 500 people.

After the Donkey Dessert Dash the ballroom will be opened for people to mingle till 9pm. It should be quite the energizing night.

Here is the link to purchase tickets. https://secure.actblue.com/donate/tom-foley-legacy-dinner

There is a VIP Cocktail hour (tickets are separate from the dinner) from 4:00 pm – 5:30 with all our speakers except Maria Cantwell. April Sims and Shasti Conrad will speak to the group. Only 40 tickets are available.  $250 each.

P.S. The SpokaneGOP holds a fundraising dinner dubbed the “Lincoln Day Dinner.” Abraham Lincoln would roll over in his grave if he could see what the Republican Party has become. Lincoln would weep at welcoming into his party white supremacists like those at Charlottesville and folks like those waving Confederate battle flags inside the Capitol on January 6, 2021. In contrast, the local Democrats honor the memory of Tom Foley, a man who would be proud of the local party.

Where “Life Begins at Conception” wants to go

For decades Republicans declared “life begins at conception,” while voters didn’t feel they needed to contemplate the implications. After all, a woman’s right to make choices about her own body was protected nationwide in 1973 under the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. The Republican-engineered extremist U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (June 2022) suddenly made Republican orthodoxy painfully pertinent. Dobbs not only removed a woman’s right choose to terminate a pregnancy, but it opened the door to all the potential legal consequences of “life begins at conception.” 

Last week the Alabama State Supreme Court stepped through that open door by declaring that a human embryo has the legal rights as a human being. Thanks to Dobbs we can see the breath-taking legal consequences of “life begins at conception,” everything from effectively banning in vitro fertilization to potentially criminalizing many forms of contraception.

If we were to think this issue is something that Republicans mean to leave each individual state to decide for itself—and that we in Washington State are immune, then we ought to think again. Shortly after the current U.S. Congress was seated in January 2023, Republican Representatives introduced House Bill (H.R.) 431 – the “Life at Conception Act.” One hundred and twenty-four Representatives (all of them Republicans) signed up as co-sponsors (click for a list). Not to be outdone in religious zeal, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-CD5, eastern Washington) was among the first Republicans who signed up as co-sponsors the day the bill was filed. Had this bill become federal law it would have shut down IVF clinics and women’s health services throughout the nation. Notice the timing. The Dobbs decision came down seven months before these congressional Republicans signed on to H.R.431. With there signatures these co-sponsorships were fully intending to impose on the entire nation exactly what the Alabama State Supreme Court just did in Alabama. 

The record of every Republican candidate for elected office this fall ought to be scrutinized for opinions previously expressed about “life begins at conception.” After Dobbs blew off the protective cover offered by Roe v. Wade, we cannot risk what they might do in office.

Doug Porter, who writes the Substack Woods and Deeds, does a great job of showing the reader where we’re headed in this country if we elect or re-elect Republicans to office. Much of the Words and Deeds post on this topic is presented below. Click the link to visit the whole post.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Doug Porter:

If you thought overturning Roe v Wade was bad, wait until you see what’s in store for Americans if MAGA takes control

An Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos were the same as live babies in wrongful death lawsuits sent shock waves through the nation.  Now, in the Heart of Dixie,  women can be forced to have babies they don’t want and can’t have babies that they do.

Chief Justice Tom Parker declared that the people of Alabama have adopted the “theologically based view” that “life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.”

In Vitro Fertilization has been established as a method for making babies as increasing infertility has prevented people from having families. Right now, it’s a way for people with access to money to increase the probabilities of having children. About 2% of U.S. births are a product of IVF. 

During IVF, couples often produce several embryos in hopes that at least one will mature into cooing, chubby babies. Some embryos, however, are not found to be viable, and are never transferred.

Requiring all IVF embryos to be used would mean forcing women to endure multiple pregnancies likely to result in miscarriages.

The largest healthcare system in Alabama and others have announced they’re halting IVF programs out of fear of prosecution. 

And if you think this court ruling won’t go beyond state lines, think again. Other lawsuits will cite the Alabama decision as good law that should be adopted in their states. Alabama has often been a proving ground for the conservative legal agenda, breaking new ground with measures that made it more difficult for people to vote or for immigrants to obtain medical care, schooling, and access to services in the state.

The forced birth movement is ready to jump into action.

From Popular Information:

• Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit that works to “advanc[e] religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the family through strategic litigation,” is attempting to leverage the Alabama ruling to attempt to stop a ballot initiative in Florida that, if passed, would enshrine reproductive rights into the Florida constitution. “Liberty Counsel is using this precedent to argue that Florida’s proposed deceptive and misleading abortion amendment violates Florida’s own laws that routinely recognize that an ‘unborn child’ has the legally protected rights of a person. Unborn life must be protected at every stage,” Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said in a statement…
• …Another anti-abortion group celebrating the Alabama ruling is the Christian law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Senior Counsel with the ADF Denise Burke stated the Alabama decision was “a tremendous victory for life.” Burke told Bloomberg Law that “ADF hopes that this ruling encourages voters, lawmakers, and courts to recognize that life is a human right, no matter the circumstances.” The Southern Poverty Law Center writes that ADF was highly influential during the Trump administration. ADF was “consulted” by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions “ahead of issuing controversial guidance… about how to interpret federal religious liberty protections,” according to ABC News. 
• The anti-abortion group Americans United for Life also celebrated the Alabama ruling, with Policy Counsel Danielle Pimentel calling it “a step in the right direction toward ensuring that all preborn children are equally protected under the law.” In 2019, the group said that Trump “may be the most pro-life president in American history.” In 2017, Trump appointed Charmaine Yoest, the former president of Americans United for Life, to be assistant secretary of public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

***

The war on birth control has already begun. Republican organizations, judges, and legislatures are showing interest in restricting access to birth control. Missouri and Louisiana both introduced legislation that would outlaw birth control, like IUDs. An Iowa-based anti-abortion group that is advocating against the over-the-counter contraception bill states on its website that “contraception kills babies.” 

Over at the Heritage Foundation they’re saying the quiet part out loud:

Mark Sumner at Daily Kos:

• The goal of the Heritage Foundation, the Republican politicians it empowers, and the judges it selects is to end the option of sex for any purpose other than reproduction. They’re not hiding this. They are proud of it. And if that means women surrender every ounce of agency in their lives … well, that’s the goal, after all.
• The Supreme Court is about to rule on a drug that has been helping women since 2000.
• Republicans are taking away an option used by would-be parents since 1981.
• They’ve taken away rights that existed since 1973.
• Now they want to roll things back to before 1960.
• Even that’s not the true end. Because the end is somewhere back in the Bronze Age and in fantasies of what it means for women to “submit” to the control of men.

GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson is also out in the open:

The man behind the demonization of inclusive history being taught is all in:

***

Jessica Valenti has the latest on a GOP scheme to try and distract voters away from the horror show that women’s reproductive healthcare is becoming.

• The anti-abortion movement has known for years what the fallout would be after overturning Roe. They knew it would kill women, they knew it would drive up maternal and infant death rates, and they knew it would mean dangerous pregnancies would going untreated. They have polled and messaged every possible nightmare scenario—these bills are a product of all that work.
• That’s why we can expect to see more ‘Med Ed’ bills in the coming months; and they won’t just be directives to doctors. I suspect anti-choice groups will start pushing for more ‘informed consent’ policiesunder this umbrella, as well. These are the laws that claim to give women with nonviable pregnancies medical information, when in fact they’re just lying and pressuring them to carry doomed pregnancies to term.
• I’ll be keeping a close eye out for more bills like this one, but remember that all of these policies are connected—whether it’s informed consent, ‘Med Ed’, or bad data about mifepristone. Conservatives are well aware that when it comes to abortion, the science and medicine is not on their side. So they’re making up their own.

***

Other signposts along the road to repression:

• The Conservative Political Action Conference is in progress and various leaders are trying one up each other before audiences seeking blood. On Thursday, Trump spokesman Michael Knowles told attendees that when the MAGA administration takes power, eliminating marriage inequality will be a priority.
• Notorious Congresscritter Marjory Taylor Green is apparently distressedby all the tight dresses worn at Mar-a-Lago soirees 

• In a social media post Thursday, Greene criticized conservative Christian women she believes are “selling themselves short and not being good role models by conforming to the world’s sexualization of women,” noting that her statement may be an unpopular opinion.
• “If you are conservative and a Christian you know you don’t have to express yourself in sexual ways and you know you are attractive by dressing nice and feminine, and you can be beautiful and modest at the same time,” Greene wrote to X, formerly Twitter.