California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

Hardening American Infrastructure

by John Lawrence

It's hard not to believe that, if power lines throughout the south had been undergrounded prior to Hurricane Helene, lights, heat, air conditioning and power would still be on. I believe that a massive infrastructure program should be undertaken to mitigate the effects of climate change. Certainly we have seen an increase of massive flash flooding not only from hurricanes but also from regular, everyday rain storms. Cell service could also be maintained if it were provided by satellites instead of ground networks the equivalent of telephone poles. This is even possible today with some cell phones which have an emergency provision that allows communication via satellite when out of cell phone range in emergencies. Well, climate change will bring one emergency after another. If power and communications were hardened, the effects of widespread devastation wrought by hurricanes such as Helene could be mitigated. Undergrounding the electricity grid would prevent the massive power outages that Helene caused.

On June 26, 2024 U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced $1.8 billion in awards from the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) discretionary grant program for 148 projects across the country. [This] announcement brings the total amount of Biden-Harris Administration RAISE grants to more than $7.2 billion for over 550 projects across the country. ... “After decades of underinvestment, the condition of America’s infrastructure is now finally getting better instead of worse – and today we proudly announce our support for 148 more projects in communities of every size across the country,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “Through President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we’re funding projects across the country to make roads safer, make it easier for people to move around their community, make transportation infrastructure more resilient to extreme weather, and improve supply chains to keep costs down for consumers.” This is a step in the right direction, but only a step. A much bigger effort is necessary to really harden America's infrastructure to mitigate climate change.

Problem is that many voters would resist an increase in their taxes that might be necessary to provide the money for all the work that needs to be done to underground utilities around the country. Americans would always prefer to have the money in their private pockets to spend as they choose rather than to provide the funds necessary for the government to improve infrastructure. That's why the US lags far behind other advanced countries in infrastructure such as high speed trains which are common in many other countries. Americans seem to be willing to rewire and repole electric lines after every storm rather than put the utilities underground so that that would no longer be necessary. Unfortunately, that procedure to "get the power back on" may be more trouble than its worth when the country is faced with massive storm after massive storm. A hardened electric and communications infrastructure would have facilitated relatives getting in touch with each other after Hurricane Helene rather than not knowing for days and even weeks whether or not their relatives were safe. Voters who will not vote to raise taxes to provide a safer and sounder and more advanced infrastructure are not doing themselves any favors in the long run, and the long run is almost here. In terms of climate change, it's already here.

Off the Top of My Head

It's a Once in 500 Year Flood Implies Things Are Going to Get Better When the Truth is Things Are Going to Get Worse.

by John Lawrence

Climate change and the changes in the weather that that implies are not going to ameliorate any time soon. Why? We are still dumping ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere with each succeeding year. What that means is that next year's hurricanes will be even worse than this year's hurricanes, not that "biblical" devastation this year will be followed by 500 years of relative peace and calm. Peoples' mindsets and calculations are severely off if they think that, if they can only see their way clear to rebuilding, they can look forward to an era of peace and prosperity. Just the opposite is true. We have made only paltry efforts at getting climate change under control by eliminating the need for fossil fuels. And also many areas struck by hurricanes this year haven't recovered from last year's hurricanes. People need to make rational decisions about where to live. In light of increased flooding and fires. it makes sense not to live in forested areas or near creeks and rivers. Too many towns, villages and cities are located right on creeks and rivers. These are places to get away from. Also get away from living right on the coasts. Coasts are eroding and houses are falling into the oceans. One needs to consider where to live based on climate change. Certain areas are more vulnerable than others, and it makes no sense to automatically rebuild in vulnerable areas as if that was some gauge of American ingenuity and resolve.

As of 2023, the average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is around 419.3 parts per million (ppm), marking a new record high, with a consistent upward trend observed throughout recent years; this data is based on measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, where modern carbon dioxide records began in 1958. Each year the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. In order to get climate change under control, this number should be coming down. According to recent data, approximately 36 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are entering the atmosphere annually, with this number continuing to rise year after year due to human activities like burning fossil fuels. We are clearly losing the battle, and in fact politicians in the US have given up trying to limit fossil fuel production and use. There will be no limit on how much energy is consumed because this would limit GDP growth, that all important measure that trumps climate change. And the fact is that renewable energy is not coming online faster than the increase in energy demand. Even if all cars were to be converted to all electric vehicles tomorrow, it would increase the demand for electrical energy which only could be supplied by fossil fuels.

Cars could be considered as just another electrical appliance. There are government incentives to convert to all electric appliances whether it be heat pumps or induction stoves. The electrification of appliances will increase the demand for energy. This energy can't be supplied by renewables because there is just not enough renewable capacity. This is the fundamental dilemma in regard to the reduction of the use of fossil duels and consequently the reduction of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. In addition to the technical obstacles limiting our response to climate change, there are the political obstacles. No politician is willing to say that we must do with less in order to fight climate change as we were willing to do, for instance, to fight the Second World War. Telling people to reduce their consumption is a formula for losing political elections. The obvious result is that worsening weather debacles will continue and get worse. Insurance companies will not continue to insure properties located in zones that are subject to weather disasters. FEMA is running out of money. It just does not make any sense to automatically assume that after a disaster, one has to rebuild, that it would be unAmerican not to, a concession of defeat. In many cases it might make more sense to relocate to safer areas. The government could do us all a favor by locating safer living zones and red lining those ares that are prone to climate disasters.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Is Trump Spewing Lies and Misinformation? Because It Works!

by John Lawrence

What does this say about the electorate? A portion of them are dumb as Hell. They don't want the truth. They want entertainment, and Trump gives it to them. Whether it's Haitians eating dogs and cats or whatever. The stupider and less true, the better. Why don't other Republicans speak up and point out the stupidity of Trump's assertions? Because, in their minds, it's a winning strategy. They don't care if they win by telling lies or telling the truth. They just want to win. They just want power. Truth be damned. Democracy cannot last if a large proportion of the voters are a bunch of stupid ninnies who will vote for the person who entertains them the most. Democracy is predicated on having an intelligent and educated electorate. It's no wonder that most Trump voters are not college educated and most Kamala voters are. That's the difference between those who have a brain in their head who mostly vote Democratic and those who don't who mostly vote Republican. Trump is the perfect candidate actually because he appeals to the large segment of the electorate who just want to be entertained and will go along with any bullshit he says without critically examining it to determine whether it's true or factual.

Critical thinking is something that supposedly is learned in college. Hence the split between non college educated voters who mostly vote for Trump and college educated voters who will mostly vote for Kamala. An uneducated electorate are like sheep being led to slaughter. They think the economy under Trump when he was President was better than it was under Biden. Really? Trump gave $7 trillion worth of tax cuts mostly to the rich and added that much to the national debt. Biden, in addition to bailing out people and businesses during the pandemic was responsible for the Inflation Reduction Act which was a huge investment in the American people in terms of jobs. Then there was the Chips and Science Act which not only created jobs, but kept critical infrastructure in the US rather than depending on foreign suppliers. I could go on ... $35 a month insulin for Medicare recipients and blah blah blah ... To boot inflation has returned to normal, and I believe Biden is still President, isn't he?

Then there is the border where illegal crossings are at the lowest level since Biden took office as President.. NPR reported: "President Biden issued executive actions severely restricting asylum claims at the border, and migrants who cross are more likely to be removed from the country expeditiously. ... Due to this rule and Mexico’s beefed-up enforcement, unauthorized crossings in June [2024] hit the lowest level since President Biden took office in 2021." Why isn't Kamala touting this? Inflation is down and illegal border crossings are down, and yet Trump is considered by many to be better for the economy and immigration. Really? It's not Trump but those members of the electorate who have their heads up their collective asses. Trump is just doing what he thinks is a smart, winning strategy. It doesn't have to do with the truth or anything else as long as he thinks he can trick the voters into voting for him. These Trump voters don't care about facts. They just want to be entertained, and Trump is doing a good job at that. Smart guy, that Trump. Let's give him his due. However, democracy is predicated on an educated electorate which is capable of actually knowing what is good for them and their fellow citizens and what's not. Trump voters, who may be responsible for choosing the next President, are neither educated, critical thinkers or capable of telling truth from fiction.

Off the Top of My Head

Upgrading the UN Peacekeepers to UN Peacemakers

by John Lawrence

The problem with both ongoing wars is that there is no referee that can step in and separate the sides. President Biden appeals to Israel and Hamas to come to a cease fire, but neither side is listening to him. He leaves it up to them to come to a cease fire while having no means to actually force them to come to a cease fire. Of course he could stop supplying Israel with money and weapons, but by not doing so he leaves himself open to the accusation of being Netanyahu's patsy. When two children are caught fighting, a teacher steps in and separates the parties. In a prize fight, the referee steps in and separates the fighters when they are in a clinch. Rather than let two belligerents continue fighting until they can come to an agreement among themselves to stop fighting, a stronger power might step in militarily to separate the fighters. This is not something Biden or any other leader is willing to do. It is something that can only be done by a neutral party, not someone who is allied or aligned with one of the belligerents.

It would be best if the power that steps in to separate the belligerents had the sanction of the United Nations. United Nations Peacekeepers have fulfilled something like that role, but without the wherewithal to actually enforce the peace rather than keeping the peace, a somewhat different situation. This is from their website: "UN Peacekeeping helps countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace. We have unique strengths, including legitimacy, burden sharing, and an ability to deploy troops and police from around the world, integrating them with civilian peacekeepers to address a range of mandates set by the UN Security Council and General Assembly." One of the principals for engagement of UN Peacekeepers is "consent of the parties." This limits their effectiveness. It is unimaginable that Israel and Hamas would consent to having UN Peacekeepers intervene. There has to be third party intervention that has teeth in it to force the parties to quit hostilities.

The same thing is true in Ukraine. A strong referee needs to step in to stop the fighting and force the parties to the bargaining table. Peace plans abound. A diplomatic settlement or a peace treaty needs to be enforced or at least facilitated. There are many out there. For instance freezing the front line and putting a peace keeping force there to separate the two parties. Then taking into account at the peace talks some compromise between the maximal demands of both parties. However, a third party stepping in to stop the fighting and demanding that the parties proceed to the peace table would be the least that should be accomplished. Continuing the destruction of life and property on both sides is accomplishing nothing except for the fact that Ukraine will never be accepted as a member of NATO as long as a war of attrition is ongoing. Perhaps that should be the starting point: that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO in the foreseeable future. That's better than ongoing war.

In the war in Gaza there is no lack of officials calling for a two state solution. Problem is that neither Israel or Hamas is interested. Therefore, a two state solution must be imposed by a neutral power that has the wherewithal to do so. The UN Peacekeepers need to be upgraded to the UN Peacemakers with the authority and power to enforce a peace between belligerents and bring them to the bargaining table.

The Florida State Sunshine Bank: How a State-Owned Bank Can Protect Free Speech

Posted on September 14, 2024 by Ellen Brown

Fifteen years have passed since the Occupy Wall Street movement focused attention on the inequities and hazards of large Wall Street banks, particularly those risky banks with trillions of dollars in derivatives on their books. “Move your money” was the obvious response, but what could local governments do? Their bank accounts were too large for local banks to handle. 

Thus was the public banking movement born. The impressive potential of government-owned banks was demonstrated by the century-old Bank of North Dakota (BND), currently the nation’s only state-owned bank. In the last fifteen years, over 100 bills and resolutions for local U.S. government-owned banks have been filed based on the BND model. But while promising bills are still pending, so far the allure of saving money, stimulating the local economy, banking the underbanked and avoiding a derivative crisis has been insufficient to motivate local legislators to pass bills opposed by their Wall Street patrons. State legislators have acknowledged potential benefits, but they have generally not been ready to rock the boat when the situation did not appear to be urgent.   

Now, however, Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis has come up with an urgent reason for a state to own its own bank – to avoid bank regulations designed to achieve social or political ends that state officials believe are inappropriate or go too far, including “debanking” vocal opponents of federal policy. The concerns are Constitutional, testing the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion, and the 10^th Amendment right of states and citizens to self-govern in matters not specifically delegated in the Constitution to central government oversight. 

Tennessee, Louisiana, West Virginia, Florida, Arizona, Kentucky and Mississippi have also introduced bills to curb debanking on political or religious grounds. This may appear to be divisive — the South is rising again, in a digital civil war — but it is actually a promising development for the public banking movement. Liberal Democratic legislators have not found the will to break free of their Wall Street masters, despite a litany of benefits demonstrated by the stellar BND model. In 1919, North Dakotans mustered the will to form their own state-owned bank because they were being exploited by very large out of state banks. Prominent Florida residents and corporations similarly feel they are being unfairly attacked through their Wall Street bank accounts. Whatever the motivation, if a bold state can show what can be done in the 21^th century with its own state-owned bank, others will have precedent to follow. 

Florida may run up against Federal Reserve and FDIC rules for obtaining a Fed master account, which is required for the Sunshine Bank to join the federal payment system. But the state has the resources to challenge the Fed in court, and now that “Chevron deference” is no more [see here], the state might actually be able to prevail before the Supreme Court.

The Weaponization of the Dollar

The digital dollar has increasingly become a political weapon. Internationally, it has been used to sanction Russia by confiscating the country’s reserves and blocking Russia’s use of the SWIFT payment system. The result has been the rise of the BRICS alternative trading bloc and its predictable pushback. Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) could have been a useful tool, but they too have become highly controversial due to their “programmability.” In October 2020, Bank of International Settlements General Manager Agustín Carstens explained that CBDCs would enable central banks to track and control every single transaction. At an International Monetary Fund conference entitled “Cross-Border Payments — A Vision for the Future,” Carstens said:

In cash, we don’t know for example who is using a $100 bill today, we don’t know who is using a 1,000 peso bill today. A key difference with the CBDC is that the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that. 

Visions arose of restrictions on travel, free speech, nutrition and personal autonomy. 

Even without CBDCs, banks have been used as political tools. In Canada in 2022, at least 76 bank accounts were frozen , totaling CA $3.2 million, linked to truckers protesting vaccine mandates. In the U.K. in 2023, a government investigation was initiated of British debanking practices following the abrupt closure of the account of British politician Nigel Farage. Banks in the U.K. were found to be closing nearly 1,000  accounts daily, with just over 343,000 closed in 2022 compared to about 45,000 in 2017. 

Debanking has also been an issue in Florida. In July 2023, Florida state CFO Jimmy Patronis sent a letter to JPMorgan Chase, questioning its decision to abruptly shut down the Florida-based business account of Natural Health Partners, LLC, which owns Mercola Market in Cape Coral. The company’s CEO, CFO and their family members also had their Chase accounts terminated without explanation. The company’s owner, Dr. Joseph Mercola, a critic of  COVID-19 vaccines and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, wrote The Truth About Covid 19, published in April 2021 with a foreword by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  

In response to the Patronis letter, Florida’s Voice reported in August 2023 that Chase had informed the news outlet that the accounts were closed due to the federal government’s “scrutiny” of the customer:

We chose to close these accounts because the customer has been the subject of regulatory scrutiny by the Federal government on multiple occasions … relating to the marketing and sale of consumer products and we have a legal obligation to prevent funds derived from these activities from flowing through our bank. 

A February 2021 letter from the FDA advised Mercola to take immediate action to ensure it was in compliance with FDA regulations.  However,  the FDA regulations themselves have been successfully challenged in court, e.g. with respect to the drug ivermectin. Science is never settled, and it is not properly enforced by the weaponization of banking.

Conservative states including Florida have also challenged the debanking of Christian organizations by JPMorgan Chase. In May 2023, Attorney General Daniel Cameron of Kentucky led a coalition of 19 Republican states including Florida in a letter to Chase CEO Jamie Dimon claiming that Chase had “persistently discriminated against certain customers due to their religious or political affiliation.” Debanking is an issue of free speech, which like freedom of religion is constitutionally protected.  By the fall of 2023, Chase changed its position and said it would provide “financial services for individuals and industries across geographies — regardless of political, social, or religious viewpoints.”

Off the Top of My Head

Why Kamala Flip-Flopped on Fracking

by John Lawrence

Unfortunately, the increase in renewable energy is outpaced by the demand for energy so that under present conditions renewables will never be sufficient to replace fossil fuels. In fact production of fossil fuels will only increase as long as we, as a world, are committed to meeting the demand for energy. Therefore, Kamala, as well as Biden before her, realized that, unless they were going to preach austerity, fossil fuel production needed to be increased not decreased. Fracking produces natural gas which is considered a "cleaner" fossil fuel than coal. The problem is that the continued use of fossil fuels is devastating the environment. It is accelerating climate change. It is accelerating the devastating 1000 year floods which are occurring far more often than 1000 years. It is increasing shore line erosion. It is resulting in year around fire seasons. It is melting glaciers and increasing droughts.

So is there any way out of this dilemma? I think nuclear energy is the only possible way to meet the increasing needs for energy which the people of the earth seems to need and require. Bill Gates has invested in nuclear energy plants. He has broken ground on a novel nuclear power plant in Wyoming. The pilot Natrium nuclear power plant in Kemmerer will be the first of what TerraPower officials hope will be a worldwide fleet of new nuclear energy facilities.

“This reactor exists inside a virtual model, and it’s been working really well inside the computer,” Gates said light-heartedly, eliciting some laughter. “It’s a little bit harder to make it work out there. But that’s what we’re starting on today. This is a big step towards safe, abundant, zero-carbon energy.”

Technically, Gates and others marked the groundbreaking of a liquid sodium testing facility — a critical component of TerraPower’s Natrium nuclear power plant slated to begin operating here in 2030. The event marked what developers, which includes the U.S. Department of Energy, say is the “first advanced nuclear project in the Western Hemisphere to move from design to construction.”

Gates-backed TerraPower touts the Natrium design as part of the industry’s “next generation” strategy to deploy nuclear power throughout the nation and across the globe — a low-carbon alternative for stable electrical generation and a means to address planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions while meeting growing demand for electricity, according to the company.

Rather than the industry’s existing standard of massive nuclear power plants that consume a lot of water, Natrium is much smaller and will use liquid sodium to cool the reactor, which is designed to generate a consistent 345 megawatts of power — enough energy to power about 250,000 homes — with a capability of ramping up to 500 megawatts for short periods, according to the Bellevue, Washington-based TerraPower.

So what's the drawback? It takes money and time to build these nuclear plants. So far even one has barely got off the ground. It won't be operational till 2030!! It would take a massive commitment on a national, even a world wide, level to go this route to provide the energy needs of an increasingly demanding world. As the changing climate is already wreaking havoc all around the world, time is not on the side of human civilization.

Off the Top of My Head

The Hype Over AI

by John Lawrence

There is much hand wringing over whether or not AI will be used for good purposes or bad. The proprietors of AI are mostly concerned about making money, not about how to use their products for good. That's the capitalistic system. And one can rest assured that one of the most interested parties in AI is the defense establishment. They are always interested in using the most advanced technology in order to create even more sophisticated and destructive weapons in accordance with the theory that, if they don't create them, their enemies will create them first, and then they will be in a less advantageous position. Of course this is always premised on the consideration that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. Our supposed enemies use the same rationale with the result that the world becomes ever more dangerous as both sides develop more and more destructive weapons. AI is just the latest chapter of this merry-go-round.The problem is that the tech companies creating AI are just in it for the money, and the military-industrial complex, in addition to just being in it for the money, is in it for the rationale that we better use AI to create advance weapons first so that our "enemies" don't get them first.

Has anybody considered that some entity, whether it be government or private enterprise, should adopt the position that AI or any other technology should be used not only for good but for the purpose of creating peace in the world? No, no entity is concerned about that. If government was concerned, they would be using some of the trillion dollar military-industrial complex budget to develop peaceful enterprises in the world. Instead while a trillion dollars yearly is spent on defense/offense, a paltry $400 million is spent on the Peace Corps. So that's where our values are. We value a strong defense, not strong efforts to make the world a more peaceful place, and we value financial competition to make as much money as we can off of any new technology. Those are the imperatives. Peace is thought to be the absence of war rather than building enterprises that would prevent war in the first place. The interstices between wars should be used to prevent the next war, but instead the only prevention is thought to be to have such a strong military apparatus that no one would think about stepping out of line with the line being defined by us or whoever is the most powerful empire at any point in time. Empires come and go over the long term, but the mental imperative of using all resources to create the most powerful military establishment never changes.

The result is that war is inevitable as it has been for millennia. In fact for thousands of years war has been a way of life. Empires have been created because someone came along who was in a position to create them whether that was Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Catherine the Great or Napoleon. No one ever called Jesus "the Great" because he didn't create an empire. He just preached peace as the foremost value. Too bad no one in a position of power ever took him seriously. That was not realpolitik. Instead, religion was used to placate and sublimate the masses while the war machines of the various empires ground on until thy eventually were subdued or wore themselves out or went bankrupt. AI does not presage a new millennium. It's just more of the same. It will be used beneficially in medicine and a few other enterprises. But its main development will be in the art of war wherein battlefields are populated not by humans but by robots. The destruction however will remain the same or worse. Not the military but innocent civilians will bear the cost of death and destruction as already has been taking place in modern warfare. Not military assets but civilian real estate will be destroyed. Such a shame that technological advances have been deployed more in the service of war than in the service of peace.

Off the Top of My Head

Trump Doesn't Know the Difference Between Capitalism and Communism

by John Lawrence

The Trump campaign is saying that they will bring grocery and housing prices down. To address high prices, Trump said he would sign an executive order on his first day sworn in as president “directing every cabinet secretary and agency head to use every power we have to drive prices down, but we’re going to drive them down in a capitalist way, not in a communist way,” he said. Really? In a capitalist economic system, which the US certainly is, prices are set by the market, not by the government. Now Trump proposes to use government to interfere with the market to bring prices down. That's anti-capitalistic. So exactly how do you bring prices down in a capitalist way without interfering with the market? You can't. If you're a capitalist, you let the market set prices, whatever they turn out to be. So Trump, a purported capitalist, accuses Kamala for being a communist or a socialist while he turns out to be one himself. Kamala has proposed a Federal ban on price gouging. Exactly how that would work is unclear. So both Trump and Kamala are proposing to use government to interfere in the market to bring prices down.

So what could be done to bring prices down? Bringing down prices is not really the problem. Making sure that every American can afford groceries and housing is. There is precedent for government supported housing also know as public housing for people that can't afford a house in the market economy. Kamala's proposal to grant first time buyers $25,000 for a down payment is also a good idea. That doesn't interfere with the price setting mechanism of the capitalist economy. Government has also supplied food for poor people whether it be food stamps or SNAP. So the market still sets the price of housing and groceries for those who can afford to buy these things in the market economy. This amounts to socialism for the poor, capitalism for the rich in contrast to the situation that now exists which is socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Trump's $7 trillion tax cut amounted to socialism for the rich.

The US has a mixed economy. It is partly capitalist and partly socialist as are most eonomies of advanced industrial nations. If Trump were a pure capitalist he would say that the market should set prices for housing and groceries, and that he as President would have nothing to do with that. But since he like most Republicans are hypocrites who will say anything to gain political power, he is all concerned about prices. Kamala by contrast does not claim to be a pure capitalist so she sincerely wants to help people at the low end of the economic spectrum to be able to afford adequate housing and nutrition. Exactly what programs she wants to implement do not have to be spelled out at this point in the campaign. The point is that she sincerely wants to help people at the lower part of the economic spectrum. Trump could care less about them. He only wants to help his rich billionaire friends.

Off the Top of My Head

An Academy of Peace: What a Novel Idea

by John Lawrence

We have several academies of war - the US Naval Academy, West Point, the US Coast Guard Academy, the US Air Force Academy. Is there a US academy of peace? We spend a trillion dollars a year on the military. How much do we spend on the peace industry? Congress has completed its work on a budget for fiscal year 2022, passing a $1.5 trillion spending package. ... Unfortunately, for a seventh consecutive year, instead of providing new resources to better meet the needs of a changed world, it keeps Peace Corps' baseline funding flat at $410.5 million. We spend a pittance on peace, a fortune on war. As the world's leading super power, we spend our money on what we value most - war. Do the big wigs in the American government even have an idea of what it would take to create a peaceful world? What would be the steps that should be taken to prevent war before it starts. One thing is to work toward eliminating poverty and disease in the world. We should have a world in which everyone has at least the basics for a decent life. That means adequate sanitation, adequate clean water supply, adequate shelter, adequate nutrition, adequate health care.

Fact: Over 1.5 billion people still do not have basic sanitation services, such as private toilets or latrines. Of these, 419 million still defecate in the open, for example in street gutters, behind bushes or into open bodies of water. There is much work to be done here. Does the US have anything in its budget to upgrade the sanitation level for the rest of the world? No, they are too much concerned with fighting the next war, spending billions on the most advanced military systems. Such a simple thing as improving sanitation in the world is something the US as a country is not really concerned about. Yet there is a connection between personal well being and peace. People that are at least basically well off are not inclined to go to war. War seems like a good alternative if the alternative is poverty. Throughout history the war making class has always been more prosperous than the peasantry. It's stlll true today.

So do our leaders have the faintest ideas about how to create peace ... or only how to win wars. There is never enough money to do the things that might result in a more peaceful world, but there is plenty of money for fighting wars. What would be some good ideas for creating a more peaceful world? Maybe citizen to citizen interchanges with countries who are deemed to be out "enemies." Maybe spending more money on creating diplomats and diplomacy. Maybe not characterizing any country as an "enemy"? Maybe creating the conditions for peace. Maybe two years of required national service in the Peace Corps as an alternative to the military with the same benefits? There's a song, "I'm not going to study war no more." Maybe creating more peace workers than soldiers, sailors and airmen. I think more results could be realized by spending less money on war. Peace should not really cost that much. What is costly is war. More money has been spent on it over the years than any other thing. It's the main thing that tax money has been spent on for millennia. It's what bankrupted France in the reign of Louis XIV. And after all the wars, France's boundaries remained the same as they were at the beginning of Louis' reign.

Off the Top of My Head

Kamala: Just Ignore the Insults and Keep Smiling

by John Lawrence

Trump's MO is to say outrageous things, and then get pundits to mull them over and candidates to defend themselves. Instead, just ignore them, and they will fall with a thud. Don't get involved with Trump's lies and insults. Just don't respond. Same thing for Tim Walz. Ignore anything that's said about his teaching, coaching, military service etc. The comments by JD Vance and Trump aren't worth responding to. Just ignore them and power on. Put forth your hopes, your vision and your agenda. Better not to get down in the mud and wrestle. Just keep on keeping on. It's not worth engaging with the likes of Trump. You don't really have to.

All Kamala needs to do is what she thinks is most propitious to getting more people to vote for her. She doesn't have to do what the pundits want her to do. She doesn't have to do what Trump wants her to do. She just needs to do whatever she thinks will get her elected. Obviously, Kamala's constituency is different from Trump's constituency. She appeals to women more so than men. Men, especially white men, are Trump's constituency. This election is about a gender divide as well as a black white divide. So probably it is about whose constituency is more excited and more committed to actually voting. Will voters study the issues and then make an intelligent, informed decision? I doubt it for the most part. This election is about how many people on Kamala's share of the divide will actually get out and vote for her as compared with how many on Trump's share of the divide will get out and vote for him.

I have a feeling that Kamala's committed voters outnumber Trump's committed voters because women outnumber men, and women are more likely to actually vote than men. Also Kamala has a huge war chest - hundreds of millions of dollars. If she uses it wisely, she will have an advantage from that perspective. Trump is grasping at straws by bringing RFK Jr on board. That could actually dilute Trump's support.Trump is seemingly doubling down on the crazy. Kamala just needs to hold steady and affirm that she is the adult in the room. Her policy agenda so far is excellent. It's simple: a middle class tax break and affordable housing. Tax breaks are the only thing Trump has going for him but his are mainly for the rich. Kamala has successfully co-opted Trump's "no taxes on tips' pledge. She's out foxed him on taxes. What's left? Oh, the border. She has a good point about how Trump nixed a bipartisan border deal. However, she needs to be more forceful. Resources have to be spent on the border both in human and financial terms so that the border is impregnable and so that the only possible crossings are legal crossings. How about this as a slogan: reduce illegal crossings to zero while enhancing legal crossings so that the US gets the immigrant workers it needs. Those entering legally should be those that enhance the US' position in the world in terms of the economy and in terms of sheer humanity. Amnesty should be requested from the home country or a third country. Even if granted, it does not mean that they will wind up in the US. International law does not guarantee exactly which country a person granted amnesty will end up in. The important thing is that Kamala should co-opt Trump's position on the border while doing it in a humane way.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Isn't This Election About Climate Change?

by John Lawrence

Climate change is the overwhelming existential issue. Why is it hardly mentioned by Kamala or Trump. Not only does Trump not mention it, he denies it. Kamala like most Democrats takes it seriously, but her campaign hardly mentions it. Why? The American people care more about their individual economic situations than they do about the fate of the planet. There is no other explanation. We should have been doing ten times as much ten years ago to mitigate climate change. At this point the earth is facing a catastrophe in the very near future even though significant efforts are being made to mitigate it at the present time. However, it's not nearly enough. Furthermore, the American people are not even that interested in doing anything about it. If they were, Kamala, at least, would be talking about it and making it part of her campaign. Instead, she hardly mentions it. One can only conclude that, despite local catastrophes for relatively small numbers of people who have lost their homes in fires or floods, the great masses of Americans who have not really suffered have figured that climate change is no big deal as long as some catastrophe has not happened to them personally. This seems to me to be utter selfishnss, ignorance and lack of concern about the commons which is the earth itself. The prevailing attitude seems to be, as long as it doesn't happen to me, I'm not concerned about it. Instead, I will vote strictly on my own individual economic interests.

It is complete foolishness to place individual concerns above the fate of the planet. The implication is that selfish interests of those alive today trump the interests of the next generation and future generations. Americans have been taught to pursue their individual economic interests rather than to be concerned about the economic interest of the commons. We have been taught and it is part of American ideology that individual pursuits are more important than commpn pursuits. In fact common pursuits have been denigrated as socialism or communism. However, the earth and its systems are something that we all depend on. We depend on the fact that temperatures won't rise to 130 degrees F. If they do, individual pursuits will not matter any more except for those whose only interest is to profit off of others' misery. When every rain storm floods out towns and villages, will those not affected just continue to pursue personal profit? When large areas of the world become uninhabitable, will that simply drive up real estate values in the remaining regions? It's happening already. Insurance companies are raising rates in areas that are subject to flooding or fires. The handwriting is on the wall except the American people have blinders on. Some go as far as to insist on gas powered vehicles and complain bitterly if their right to own one were to be taken away.

American voters don't even list climate change as one of their main concerns. Does it even make the top ten? Not according to a Pew survey which rated climate change 18^th!! So are the American people not only completely selfish but also catastrophically ignorant? It would appear so. "There's no excuse for fiddling while the planet burns." So said Tom Steyer, an investor who has devoted his life to fighting climate change,. His book, Cheaper, Faster, Better is out now. What it boils down to is that, although catastrophic climate change is already baked in, we should do everything possible to electrify the planet so that at least some life survives at some level. That's better than throwing up our hands and saying, "Why bother? It's all over anyway."