California Free Press

Drugs -The Human Dilemma - Part 2

by John Lawrence

Part 1 can be found here.

Why Are Some People Always Happy and Others Not So Much?

One might ask is there a balanced way to live so that the chemicals released by the brain which produce feelings of well being and happiness can happen without addiction to drugs or exercise? For some people these endorphins seem to produce enough good feelings naturally without their having to do anything. For some the "happiness gene" seems to be turned on at all times regardless of what happens in the events of their lives. For others there is a deficiency that leads to a tendency for them to become alcoholics or drug addicts or junkies of other kinds. A person's natural energy level seems to have something to do with it. High energy people need to release that energy in non-sedentary pursuits or mitigate the effects of it like so-called ADHD with drugs.

From Psychology Today:

[There is] a cutting-edge theory among psychologists: that we are genetically coded for a "set point" of happiness from birth, maybe even during the embryonic stages. Various proteins, hormones and brain neurotransmitters are thought to form a biochemical predisposition that interacts with one's unfolding life.

Recent research has shown that no matter what the life event -- scoring in the stock market or losing your most precious loved one -- you will return to a certain level of well-being within six months to a year. Money, education, social class, marital status, race, gender and age seem to have little to do with it, these studies conclude.

[T]he set-point theory may help explain why some people just seem naturally cranky, even when life is full of good fortune -- and why others seem content despite constant hardship.

"I made a sort of smart-aleck remark in a research paper that trying to be happier is like trying to be taller," said David Lykken, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota and leading proponent of a happiness set point. "It got a lot of media play. Now I would like to recant the claim. Many personality traits will in fact develop from your unique human experiences, though it is all still elicited from your genetic makeup."

In a book to be published early next year, Lykken argues that although we have permanent hard wiring for happiness, we can adjust our level of contentment by knowing what keeps us happy and what brings us down. He suggests that simple pleasures such as gardening, reading novels and baking bread can stretch one's happiness potential. Taking pride in work is another highly effective strategy.

Ed Diener, a psychologist and researcher at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, is another pioneer of the happiness set point. He estimates that 50 percent of happiness is genetic and the other half is "modifiable within limits" by one's life situation.

Life Is Not Fair So What Else Is New?

If some people are naturally always happy due to their genetic inheritance, then this is just another indication that Life Is Not Fair. Where does this leave those who are naturally unhappy or grouchy? As potential drug users in order to reclaim a modicum of happiness? The phenomenon of tolerance has to do with the fact that there is only a finite supply of endorphins or other happiness producing chemicals in the body at one time. It's not the drug itself that produces the "high"; it's the drug's ability to release the endorphins already stored in the body. Once the drug (including exercise) releases the endorphins, then there is only a diminished supply left until the body builds them back up again. The addict thinks, "Wow, that felt good when I put that drug in my body and now the effects have worn off so I'll do it again."

However, it now takes more of the drug to induce the same effect because there are fewer endorphins left until the use of the drug is stopped so that the endorphins can build up again. So a sensible drug user would allow for this fact, but the junkie keeps trying to induce the same effect until there are no endorphins left. That's why hard core heroin addicts are just injecting the drug, not to get high, but to keep from getting lower or keep from getting sick. This is why a balanced use of any drug allows time for the body to build its supply of endorphins back up again before the drug of choice is again ingested. Such balanced use would probably allow any drug user to lead a normal, functional life, and many have.

The phenomenon of withdrawal takes place after a drug is used and the body is in the process of replenishing the endorphins. This is somewhat painful and balances with pain the pleasure already experienced from the drug high. Withdrawal provides an incentive for taking the drug again to overcome this pain, but the experience of taking the drug again only contributes to more pain further down the road and eventually to addiction. It seems that one must be willing to tolerate the pain associated with withdrawal in order for the body to recover and not slide downhill to addiction. This is what a hangover is all about.

Doctors are prescribing opioids as pain killers. Opioids are natural or synthetic chemicals that bind to receptors in your brain or body. Common opioids include heroin and prescription drugs such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, and fentanyl. When the prescription runs out, many people are turning to street drugs like heroin which accomplishes the same result and is actually cheaper. The United States is in the midst of a prescription opioid overdose epidemic. In 2014, more than 28,000 people died from opioid overdose, and at least half of those deaths involved a prescription opioid. Many more became addicted to prescription and illegal opioids. Heroin-related deaths have also increased sharply, more than tripling since 2010. In 2014, more than 10,500 people died from heroin.

The musician, Prince, died of an opioid overdose—specifically from fentanyl, a synthetic opioid often prescribed to people who have built up a tolerance to oral opioids. Fentanyl is more potent than powerful drugs like OxyContin and is most commonly administered via a patch. Prince suffered from debilitating hip and knee pain and got his drugs from his doctor, not a dealer. Some doctors are using alternative therapies and staying away from opioids. Doctors are trying alternative regimens that include nonnarcotic infusions and injections, ultrasound guided nerve blocks, laughing gas, even “energy healing” and a wandering harpist. Drug companies, however, are pushing doctors to continue prescribing their expensive drugs.

Learning to Live Without Drugs

In order to live without drugs, people need to learn to live a more natural life. This includes avoiding too much sedentariness. We are all physical animals. We need to be physically active more than we need to sit. The sitters compensate for their many ailments by taking drugs which allow them to tolerate a sedentary existence. Physical exercise not only strengthens the body; its strengthens the reservoirs of endorphins and other pleasure inducing chemicals in the brain. Therefore, when they need to be drawn upon to overcome pain and just for normally feeling good, they are there. Drug addicts overdraw these finite resources thinking that the source of their pleasure or relief from pain is the drug itself rather than the drug's ability to release the body's naturally occurring pleasure inducing chemicals.

The most important thing is moderation in all things as the Greek poet Hesiod said in 700 BC. The Roman comic dramatist Plautus (c.250–184 bc), also said ‘moderation in all things is the best policy.’ Voltaire said, "Let us tend our gardens." A few centuries later Professor Lykken quoted above said the same thing: "simple pleasures such as gardening, reading novels and baking bread can stretch one's happiness potential." We have to be willing to tolerate some bit of pain if necessary and not succumb to the temptation to use drugs under the false assumption that we can feel good at all times.

Voltaire wrote in Candide that one must "tend their own gardens" in order to avoid a life of either misery or boredom. The enlightened playwright and social critic Voltaire (1694-1778) concluded his satirical tale Candide (1759) with the observation that the violence and plunder of kings could not compare with the productive and peaceful life of those who minded their own business, "cultivated their own garden," and traded the surpluses with their neighbors:

Candide, as he was returning home, made profound reflections on the Turk’s discourse. “This good old man,” said he to Pangloss and Martin, “appears to me to have chosen for himself a lot much preferable to that of the six kings with whom we had the honor to sup.” … “Neither need you tell me,” said Candide, “that we must take care of our garden.” “You are in the right,” said Pangloss; “for when man was put into the garden of Eden, it was with an intent to dress it: and this proves that man was not born to be idle.” “Work then without disputing,” said Martin; “it is the only way to render life supportable.”

Can so-called negative addictions be replaced by positive ones? We seem to have cases that show that they can as well as cases that start out as positive addictions and end up being negative ones. Is everyone diagnosed with ADHD mentally ill? Only within the confines of a social situation they are not cut out for. Should everyone go to college and sit at a desk job all day? Thom Hartmann says no if you are a "hunter" rather than a "farmer." People need coaching with life situations including those who cannot afford a "life coach." This should be one of the services the public education system provides so that society does not end up with an overload of misfits, drug addicts and inmates. Those who are naturally high due to their genetic endowment are indeed among the most fortunate. Those not constructed in that way should know there are alternatives and strategies including the moderate use of drugs that can alleviate a lot of their pain and put them on a better course through life. But for most people pain is an inevitable part of life. Need I say it again - life is not fair.

Drugs - the Human Epidemic - Part 1

by John Lawrence from the San Diego Free Press

Americans are using drugs of various kinds at an increasing rate. Of course drugs have been around for a long time, since the beginning of time in fact. In 5000 BC the Sumerians used opium. The earliest record of alcohol production was in Egypt in 3500 BC. Tea in China was used in 3000 BC. Humans have used various substances to manipulate and alter their mood levels for millenia.

In the category of drugs I include any mood altering substance such caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, prescription drugs such as opiods and other pain killers, amphetamines etc. According to Wikipedia, a drug is any substance other than food that, when inhaled, injected, smoked, consumed, absorbed via a patch on the skin or dissolved under the tongue, causes a physiological change in the body. Addiction occurs when a person feels the need to continue using the drug on a regular basis and can't quit. This doesn't allow the body to recuperate whereas moderate use of any drug can produce more sustainable results because the body does get a chance to recuperate.

Food, sex, and exercise addiction are not considered to be included in drug addiction although they work in a similar way to release chemicals in the brain that then flood the body and produce pleasurable sensations. Food addiction can have the most undesirable consequences including obesity. Addiction to work, workaholism, on the other hand, can have very desirable consequences including increased financial well being although it may wreak a toll on human relationships. Sex addiction can have the negative consequences of promiscuity, adultery, excessive masturbation and porn addiction. Exercise addiction such as runner's high is considered to be positive addiction since the major effects are increased good health. But even with exercise, the addiction can be taken too far producing enervation and fatigue.

Obviously, some drugs are considered basically harmless at least in terms of their negative social consequences. People drink coffee regularly throughout their whole lives without negative consequences. People smoke cigarettes over their whole lives without negative consequences except that their lives are probably shortened by lung cancer, emphysema and other diseases. This makes for not a pretty end of life picture. Alcohol use if excessive can lead to drunken driving, lowered inhibitions of anger leading to violence and eventual health consequences such as cirrhosis of the liver. Moderate alcohol use seems to have beneficial effects.

Addiction to powerful drugs can lead to job loss, criminality such as robbery and theft to support the drug habit and other social malaise. Not all drugs are bad, not all addiction is bad. Moderation or the lack thereof is the key to determining if drug use is bad. Some people function extremely well with moderate use of drugs including even so-called "hard" drugs. Caffeine perks up the mind and can be beneficial for long distance truck drivers or students studying for final exams. One of the keys to understanding drug use is understanding whether the drug use is a consequence of the user's social situation such as poverty and hopelessness or mental health issues or is it a part of an otherwise productive and functional life?

Positive Addiction Can Be a Good Thing, But...

Exercise addiction led to participation in three Olympics by middle distance runner Suzy Favor Hamilton. In her autobiography, Fast Girl, she details how she started running as a child and noted the pleasurable sensations running produced after she stopped. To boot she found that she was also good at it. So she got into competitive athletics as a runner. This had both good and bad consequences. The good was that in addition to the "runner's high" running produced, she got acclaim and fame when she won races. Her Olympic career ended at her third Olympics when the expectation that she would win produced so much pressure that she performed poorly and would have ended in last place if she had not deliberately fallen in order to avoid that shame.

After her running career ended, the adjustment to life without running produced another crisis: what to do with all the energy she had expended while running? As it turned out, that energy went into sex including excessive masturbation and eventually a career as a prostitute in Las Vegas where she became the second highest paid escort in town earning more than $600 for an hour's work which was also extremely pleasurable for her. Amazingly, her husband stood by her throughout her career as a high class call girl. She would fly to Vegas from Wisconsin a couple times a month, enjoy her avocation and come home with big bucks. Eventually she was "outed" by a client and her career as a call girl was over.

Suzy sought medical help for her addiction and was prescribed psychotropic drugs. It's interesting that what had originally been a positive addiction became something that eventually had to be treated with an ingested chemical drug. The book ended with the drug treatment having finally quieted her mind and stabilized her situation. What's happened to Suzy since then we don't know. According to the book, she's teaching yoga, doing public speaking, seeing her psychiatrist who diagnosed her with bipolar disorder and running, but not competitively.

Michael Phelps was also diagnosed with ADHD as a child. He couldn't concentrate in class and was given Ritalin for several years. His mother was told he would never amount to anything. Then he found swimming. Now he is the most decorated Olympic athlete of all time. Is it that some people were never cut out to sit still in class? That doesn't mean, however, that they can't excel in other endeavors. The problem now for Michael, as it was for Suzy, is what does he do with his energy once his Olympic career is over. My prescription would be to go on swimming, but not competitively.

The 1940s and 50s singer and movie star, Betty Hutton, tells in her book, Backstage, You Can Have, how she was effectively addicted to performing. She was known for the prodigious amount of energy she expended when on stage. She was unable to retire and just be a mother and housewife. She eventually became addicted to pills including amphetamines which enabled her to keep going and do her explosive act. After having made 19 films and $10 million in the Hollywood film industry, probably the equivalent of $100 million today, she eventually became homeless not even being able to afford a weekly motel bill. Homelessness can happen to anyone even Hollywood movie stars. She was befriended by a Catholic priest, Father Maguire, for 12 years until he died.  She lived out her years in Palm Springs with the help of two gay guys who looked after her and fought with her over her pill addiction.  She is buried in Desert Memorial Cemetery in Cathedral City next door to Palm Springs where many other movie stars and celebrities including Frank Sinatra and Sonny Bono are buried.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) always seemed to me to be a misnomer. Some people have high energy and can just not sit still in a classroom or at a desk job. Human beings, especially males, evolved to be physically active and shouldn't be sitting all day; many should be involved in some physical activity instead. Naturally, if a person can't sit still, they have an attention deficit because they can't pay attention until they can can release their pent up energy and relax. Then they can pay attention, but our society values people who can sit at a desk all day whether in school or at a job. Those people usually end up with health problems due to their sedentariness. People who do manual labor and whose jobs involve physical movement usually live longer and have fewer health problems, but our society does not value their work as much. There is even a stigma associated with lack of a college education and associated desk job. It's the blue collar vs white collar syndrome.

Students like Michael Phelps who are diagnosed with ADHD are sometimes given a drug like Ritalin to calm them down. Again a drug is administered when a more healthy prescription might be exercise. Overloading the body with drugs to solve every problem is what is making the pharmaceutical companies rich while leading everyone to believe that the solution to every problem is a drug. Luckily, Michael Phelps figured this one out for himself and became a swimmer instead of a drug user.

Some Are Hunters; Some Are Farmers

Thom Hartmann proposed the hunter vs. farmer theory to explain ADHD and AADD (Adult Attention Deficit Disorder). He theorized that human beings evolved to be hunter-gatherers and as such ADHD was a useful strategy. Then later when societies became agricultural, farming involved more sedentary activity. His thesis involves the consideration of farmers vs hunters as an explanation why some people can tolerate sedentariness better than others, but he always assumes that ADHD is a natural phenomenon that shouldn't be looked at as something deviate which should be treated with drugs. Thom has a point, but anyone who has ever been around farmers knows that a farmer's life is anything but sedentary.

Why is it that ADHD and AADD have only recently become a problem? This is the question Hartmann, former psychotherapist, asked. He then drew a logical conclusion, that ADD and ADHD are a result of natural adaptive behavior:

Like some other alternative ADHD theories, this originated from a child getting the ADHD diagnosis and the parent thinking, “My child does not have a disorder.” Thom Hartmann’s son was diagnosed and that got him to look at the ADHD controversy seriously. His conclusion was, “It's not hard science, and was never intended to be.” ADHD is only a list of symptoms, with no criteria directly connected to any cause or disorder.

According to this theory, humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers for thousands of years, but as people started farming and living settled lives other personality traits, more suitable to a sedentary life, developed. The ADHD person is then someone who has retained some of the older hunter-gatherer characteristics. So-called “normal” people are the “farmers.”

This theory has been validated by a number of studies of people living traditional tribal and nomadic lifestyles. Those tribes’ people who continued their traditional lifestyles had no problems with their ADD and ADHD, but members of the same tribe living in towns had ADHD problems like those in western society.

The people that are covered by this theory have an ADD or ADHD personality. They do not have a disorder, but need to find their niche in our modern western society. A part of this adaptation is finding a career that suits their personalities and not, as is so often the case, fit themselves into a career considered a “good career” for the average individual.

...

The hunter has to be aware of signs of their prey, dangers, and make quick decisions. This is a stimulating experience, where impulsivity and hyperactivity, two symptoms of ADHD, are beneficial. For such a child, sitting in a classroom and forced to do some boring or repetitive work, will heighten every distraction from the classroom and even from outside. This is the reason for their distractibility.

...

The errors many leading ADHD researchers make is to assume that only one way of thinking or learning is “normal” and a child thinking or learning another way is a “disorder.” There are many learning styles, which are personality traits. These academics have arbitrarily defined “normal” behavior as behavior most suitable in the conventional classroom.

The average school classroom environment is not a natural environment for a young child. Children are not designed to sit still for hours doing tasks that may be perceived as boring. This is not normal, and the reactions of ADD and ADHD children through various hyperactive or daydreaming behaviors are their coping strategies.

Many Olympic athletes struggle with everyday life after their Olympic careers are over. A recent article in the Washington Post, Olympians struggle to adjust to life beyond the rings, says the following:

Each of the 11,000 athletes who competed at the Rio de Janeiro Olympics over the past two weeks endured some measure of meticulous preparation, all building to a single competition when the world’s focus is most intense. Just beyond their medals and the post-Olympic exhibition tours and commemorative cereal boxes looms a hurdle they don’t see coming: everyday life.

There is now, though, a heightened awareness about what awaits Olympians when they return home. Many athletes here said they have discussed potential pitfalls with teammates. Swimmer Allison Schmitt won three gold medals, a silver and a bronze at the 2012 London Olympics, but she fell into such a deep depression over the ensuing two years that she and her coaches believed it was unlikely she would compete at such a level again.

With help, Schmitt overcame her problems. She came to Rio with the goal of not only helping the Americans to a medal — which she did, gold in the 4x200-meter freestyle relay — but to, as she said, “de-stigmatize the negativity around mental health.” Schmitt said before she left Rio that she plans to travel, that she knows she must keep busy. But she also knows that understanding her past experiences doesn’t mean she is better prepared to deal with what’s to come.

“I’m more aware of it,” she said. “I don’t know exactly how much more prepared I am for it. I would like to say I am.”

Stay tuned for Part 2 in next week's San Diego Free Press.

Why Does Homelessness Persist in America's Finest City?

by John Lawrence from the San Diego Free Press

Housing is Not a Human Right in US

Why does homelessness persist in the world's richest nation? The simple answer is that having a roof over one's head is not a human right in this society. Fortunate people, those with a home and a car and other assets will not vote to give others what they possess even on the most basic level. Article 25 of the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

However, the United States of America does not agree with or abide by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It is not a right here to have housing and necessary social services. There is a policy called Housing First which attempts to provide housing without qualifications or conditions and a social worker to deal with follow-up problems of substance abuse, job search and mental health. But Housing First is not a right. It's subject to the same funding problems or lack thereof that every other government program is subject to. If it were a right, then it would be society's top priority and would come before new sports stadia, military expenditures on weapons of war, tax subsidies to the likes of Exxon Mobil and GE and tax breaks for "carried interest" which only benefits hedge fund managers. Boeing made $26 billion in U.S. profits over a five-year period and received a U.S. federal tax refund of $401 million over the same time.

Obviously, housing, affordable and otherwise, is not a human right or even close to it in the USA. It would take a new Constitution to make it a right. The US Constitution provides the right to own a gun, the right to free speech, assembly etc. Anything having to do with real human needs is not a right as far as the US Constitution is concerned. Not education, not medical care, not social security, not unemployment insurance. That's why all of these things are political footballs, tossed back and forth between Republicans who want to get rid of any safety net, and Democrats who seek to provide one. If the Repubs had their way, they would even get rid of Social Security and Medicare. The only program they support is more money for US militarism. Lobbyists for Defense Contractors obtain hundreds of billions of dollars each year for the US military-industrial complex. To the extent that the middle class is supported at all, it is supported by the likes of Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop Grumman which hire Middle Americans to do their dirty work.

Rents Continue to Rise in the Low End Market

Many think it's antithetical to US values to provide free housing for people who can't provide it for themselves. They would just as soon people who can't pay rent go without just as they would have to go without if they weren't able to pay for any other consumer item. Since the market prevails, US values are tilted in favor of not interfering with the market even if people are priced out of the market by high rents. It's no wonder that people can't afford to pay rent as rents continue to soar thus pricing more people out of a roof over their head. For government to provide a floor on housing prices or rents would be interfering with the market according to Republicans so we can't do that. Nothing can interfere with the market no matter how much misery it causes. The market is sancrosanct.

There was an article in the August 11, 2016 edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune: County Rent Rose Quicker at Low End. Builders are building high end rentals because that's where the most profits can be made. They aren't building low end rentals so there is a housing shortage for the low end with the result that there is only a 1% vacancy rate. This makes it possible to raise rents at the low end faster than at the high end where there is a larger vacancy rate. Talk about the perversions of the capitalist system! The people who need it the most get shafted the most while the people who are well off continue to get preferential treatment. The Market sees to that.

The "low end" is defined as rents below $1950. Rents for low end apartments have gone up 21.7% in San Diego just in the last year. People in this category are spending 69% of their income on rent according to the Union-Tribune. At the same time, the article points out, money for subsidized housing has decreased at the federal and state levels. What this means is that we can expect to see more homeless people soon as rents soar out of reach for most low income people.

American priorities are not with those who live in poverty and need help with just the basics of life in order to survive. Survival of the fittest ethics, which the US espouses simply by benign neglect, dictate that those on the bottom rung of the social ladder can just fall off and get no sympathy from government authorities or the civilian population. US government priorities are militarism and rugged individualism which say that everyone has to fend for themselves and devil take the hindermost. This has led to a society where the upper few per cent own most of the assets and make most of the income. The 400 richest Americans now have more wealth than the bottom 61 percent of the population.

San Diego authorities think it's perfectly OK for all the tourists they are trying to attract to come here and observe the squalor represented by a thousand or more people living on the street, taking care of basic human needs there and discarding tons of trash. Imagine how much pleasanter it would be if tourists could walk down any street and not have to step over the homeless or step in their feces. But the authorities think that this is a small price to pay for San Diego's wonderful weather and amenities. Homelessness, side by side with tourist attractions, is not a problem for those who can put their blinders on and focus on their own pleasure. There is no money in providing housing for the homeless, and besides it would interfere with the market. It would actually put a damper on rising rents and home prices which would be a good thing except for those builders who are striving to maximize profits. They will continue to build high end apartments because that's where the money is.

Housing for Homeless Needs Dedicated Funding Source

Here is what's needed: an increase in the sales tax with the increased funds earmarked for building housing and providing services for the homeless. So far there has been no dedicated funding source for the homeless. It needs to happen now as the City of Los Angeles is proposing. Furthermore, if the City of San Diego can contemplate a $1.8 billion bond measure for a new sports stadium for the Chargers, it can contemplate a $1.8 billion bond measure to build housing and provide services for the homeless. It's the right thing to do as I heard a politician say once. Until such time as dedicated and increased funding sources are available, homelessness will continue to be a thorn in San Diego's side, a canker that continues to fester.

Other funding sources are also available like the money the City of San Diego is hoarding in various funds like the LMIHAF. There’s $28.7 million in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund. There’s also $259 million in long-term assets that can be leveraged by using it as collateral and issuing bonds for much more. See the 4-part series by Kathryn Rhodes and myself: Is Affordable Housing in the City of San Diego an Oxymoron?

In past versions of US society there were actually prominent politicians who wanted to eliminate poverty. Remember the War on Poverty? FDR had programs that put people back to work in the Works Projects Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. Today, however, workers are expendable. Robots and automation can provide everything that consumers can pay for. In a consumer economy, the homeless have little to offer. If people cared, they would vote to use their tax dollars to help the homeless. It wouldn't be the function of charity to provide for them. It would be a priority of government to see that everyone was well housed, well fed and well educated. Instead we have a society that is well armed and well entertained by the spectacle of violence every night on the evening news.

If You Don't Want American Fascism, You Must Vote Democratic

by John Lawrence from the San Diego Free Press

Democrats Need To Be Elected "Up and Down the Ticket"

In a great speech at the Democratic convention President Obama made his case about why we need to elect Hillary Clinton the next President and that we should also elect Democrats "up and down the ticket." That is very important because Obama himself only got his agenda implemented when there was a Democratic filibuster-proof Congress. Do you remember the high drama surrounding the supermajority that the Democrats supposedly had in 2008 after Obama was elected? Senator Ted Kennedy was ill with brain cancer. His vote was the much needed 60th vote for filibuster-proofness. But he was too sick to vote. San Diego Free Press writer Andy Cohen laid out the high drama here. Eventually Republican Scott Brown was elected to Kennedy's seat, and Democratic control of Congress ceased because from then on, the Republicans filibustered literally everything. Obama was left to spin his wheels trying to get them to play nice and compromise. It didn't work, and Obama wasted his time.

From Day 1 the Republicans had a pact going, the intent of which was to doom Obama's Presidency to failure by any means necessary. Does anyone believe they won't do the same thing to Hillary if she's elected? And if Trump is elected it will be downhill all the way for the Republican agenda of lower taxes for the wealthy, repeal of Obamacare, denial of global warming, getting rid of Social Security and Medicare and eliminating the minimum wage. Why are establishment Republicans not too concerned about Trump even though they can't stand him? Because they know that they hold the real power in Washington and not the President, and they can force Trump to go along with their agenda not his. They know the ropes; he doesn't. Plus they'll give him a few fillips that won't benefit the American people and won't hurt the Repub agenda.

Voters Are Divided Into Two Tribes

The anti-establishment has manifested itself in both parties. Bernie voters and Trump voters all seem to want the same things: money out of politics, good middle class jobs. It's just that there are two tribes here - the Republican tribe and the Democratic tribe. Each tribe will only vote for their own party as if they were two different religions both wanting the same thing but only identifying with the leader of their own tribe and a pox on the other.

 Robert Reich has said it well:

Most basically, the anti-establishment wants big money out of politics. This was the premise of Bernie Sanders’s campaign. It’s also been central to Donald (“I’m so rich I can’t be bought off”) Trump’s appeal, although he’s now trolling for big money.

A recent YouGov/Economist poll found that 80 percent of GOP primary voters who preferred Donald Trump as the nominee listed money in politics as an important issue, and a Bloomberg Politics poll shows a similar percentage of Republicans opposed to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision.

Getting big money out of politics is of growing importance to voters in both major parties. A June New York Times/CBS News poll showed that 84 percent of Democrats and 81 percent of Republicans want to fundamentally change or completely rebuild our campaign finance system.

Last January, a DeMoines Register poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers found 91 percent of Republicans and 94 percent of Democrats unsatisfied or “mad as hell” about money in politics. 

Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to move toward the “middle.” In fact, such a move could hurt her if it’s perceived to be compromising the stances she took in the primaries in order to be more acceptable to Democratic movers and shakers.

She needs to move instead toward the anti-establishment – forcefully committing herself to getting big money out of politics, and making the system work for the many rather than a privileged few.

In addition to being demonized for the last 25 years by Republicans, Fox News and hate talk radio, Hillary represents the establishment in a lot of people's minds. That's why her negatives are so high. But at this stage of the game, folks, she's all we've got if we don't want the nation and the world to descend into chaos in a Trump Presidency, a right wing Supreme Court and a Republican Congress. The Republican Congress will "compromise" with Trump giving him everything he wants as long as it's what they want, humoring him with things that he wants as long as it doesn't interfere with their agenda and the result will be an America in which the rich will rule, inequality will get much worse and the American middle class will be escorted into the dustbin of history.

Hillary Needs to Champion the Anti-Establishment

I do believe that Hillary "gets it." She's a smart cookie. I think she realizes finally that the Bernie and Trump voters who are sick of politics as usual are not going anywhere. If she can marshal their energy and be their representative in Washington, she can bring about great change in this country.

In her acceptance speech Hillary said:

“I want to thank Bernie Sanders,” she said. “Bernie, your campaign inspired millions of Americans, particularly the young people who threw their hearts and souls into our primary. You've put economic and social justice issues front and center, where they belong.”

“And to all of your supporters here and around the country: I want you to know, I've heard you,” she continued. “Your cause is our cause. Our country needs your ideas, energy, and passion. That's the only way we can turn our progressive platform into real change for America. We wrote it together—now let's go out there and make it happen together.”

So what would a Hillary Presidency look like? A lot like the Obama Presidency: a lot of frustration trying to work across the aisle when on the other side of the aisle there is nothing except intransigency. She won't be able to do much without a Democratic filibuster-proof Senate, and that she's not likely to get. Even if she does get that, Paul Ryan's House will put an end to any legislation that might cross Hillary's desk.

The Republican establishment is wedded to their perks as a result of big time corporate money flowing indirectly into their personal coffers. It's all about Republican Congress men and women getting rich by one means or another without actually breaking any laws. Any laws that stand in the way of this can be changed. For instance, it's not illegal for Congressmen to act on insider information when accessing the stock market whereas, if you and I did it, we'd be put in jail. And there's jobs aplenty for ex Congressmen and women once their "public service" is over. We have effectively government by lobbyists. They even write the laws. Congresspersons are too busy dialing for dollars to do that!

Robert Reich is an astute observer of the political scene. His observations should be taken seriously. Hillary needs to get the anti-establishment behind her or else her potential Presidency will have not only Republicans against her, it will have Bernie supporters against her. Bernie needs to remain active in Hillary's camp all through the campaign and even after the election. There needs to be tangible results for young people drowning in student loan debt especially. But the Repubs will do everything they can to defeat any such debt relief or anything else that would benefit the average American not in the 1%. And they have on their side the Republican "tribe" mainly in the South who will vote time and again against their own interests. That and Republican "safe seat" gerrymandering is a formidable obstacle to overcome.

Democrats need to band together which, fortunately, is something they seem to be doing if there is any chance, any hope of saving the US from becoming a political oligarchy and economic plutocracy totally ruled by the upper 1% and their lackeys. A Trump Presidency will doom America's image and reality in the rest of the world and make a mockery out of the American Dream. Young Bernie supporters need to know that a Hillary Presidency is not the end of their movement. In fact Hillary needs them behind her if she's to get anything at all done that they want. They need to keep pushing for a Democratic Congress if not in 2016 then in 2020 for Hillary's potential second term. The 2020 date holds the possibility that the new census will produce the result of ungerrymandering the Republican "safe seats" in Congress. Now that's something Bernie supporters should really get behind.

 

Extreme Weather Watch: Devastating Heat and the Rise in Earth's Temperature

by John Lawrence

Hottest Temps Ever Recorded

Two Middle Eastern locations hit 129 degrees F, the hottest temperatures ever recorded in earth's history. The temperature in Mitribah, Kuwait, surged Thursday, July 21 to a blistering 129.2 degrees (54 Celsius). And on Friday in Basra, Iraq, the mercury soared to 129.0 degrees (53.9 Celsius).  At the same time a heat dome in the US sent temperatures soaring to over 100º in much of the country. A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change last October cautioned that by the end of the century temperatures may become too hot for human survival due to climate change.

Last year was the hottest year ever globally — or it was until 2016 got off to a sweltering start. NASA announced that the first six months of this year have been the hottest since 1880, which is when people started keeping reliable records. In June 2016 the average earth temperature was 1.62 degrees hotter than the average June temperature for the 20th century.

The Arctic has seen sky high temperatures this year with the result of record low sea ice levels. The Alaskan town of Deadhorse just 50 miles from the Arctic coast set a record temperature of 85º F.

Farmers Losing Their Farms Due to Heat

Excessive heat is contributing to more heat related deaths as well as farmers losing their farms. One year after India experienced the fifth-deadliest heat wave ever recorded, temperatures were again soaring to deadly extremes. Local governments are scrambling to address rising death tolls and dwindling water supplies.

The drought and blistering heat, some 20 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, have made it impossible for farmers to tend their crops. Towns on India’s eastern side have been hit with record-setting temperatures — 119.3 degrees in the town of Titlagarh, Orissa, which is the highest temperature ever recorded in that state during April.

India’s subsistence farmers are incredibly vulnerable to the heat. They’re faced with a dire choice: stay inside and let the crops go to waste or work the land and risk heat stroke. Abandoning the choice altogether, thousands of farmers have migrated to cities in search of jobs often leaving elderly and young relatives behind in parched villages.

Here at home the Santa Clarita Sand fire filled the skies of Los Angeles with smoke and ash, destroyed at least 18 structures and consumed an area equal to 10,000 football fields a day. It forced the evacuation of 20,000 people and sent nearly 770 animals to shelters.

A separate fire in the Big Sur area, on the central coast, had spread to nearly 15,000 acres by Monday, July 26. Up to 1,650 structures were threatened.

2016 Will Be Hottest Year on Record

2016 is on track to becoming the hottest year on record surpassing even 2015 which has been the hottest recorded so far. The record temperatures are mostly the result of the excessive heat that has built up in the earth's atmosphere due to accumulating greenhouse gasses. That heat is raising sea levels and causing more extreme weather events.

Every month this year has set a record for high temperatures. According to both NASA and NOAA, several months this year have already recorded temperatures 1º C above average. All six months of the year so far have exceeded that benchmark when compared to preindustrial temperatures. There have been an unprecedented record breaking 14 record hot consecutive months.

The year-to-date record temperatures are 1.89º F or 1.06º C above the 20th century average according to NOAA. According to NASA, they are 1.96º F or 1.09º C above the 1951-1980 average. Of the 15 warmest years on record, 14 of them have occurred in the 21st century.

At the Paris summit on climate change held in December 2015, it was agreed upon by the nations of earth that they would set a goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. It was also decided that the parties would also "pursue efforts to" limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.  According to NASA and NOAA average earth temperatures are already at 2.4º F (1.34º C) above average. And this only seven months after the COP21 conference!

It was estimated by some scientists that the 1.5°C goal would require zero emissions sometime between 2030 and 2050. We are already practically at the 1.5º C limit and are nowhere near zero emissions. The 2030 time limit to achieve zero emissions is still 14 years away! Meanwhile, we will probably surge past the 1.5º C goal in a year or two. The nations have hardly gotten started on their efforts to limit climate change and we will probably blast through the 2º C goal in a few years.

COP 21 Conference Could Turn Out to be Exercise in Futility

The nations of the earth can agree all they want to limit greenhouse gasses. If they were to reach their goals, all burning of fossil fuels would have to be terminated immediately. That will never happen so the COP21 conference will turn out to be an exercise in futility, and earth's temperatures will continue to rise which will lead to more record temperatures well above 127º F.

Deadly heat is forecast in the Persian Gulf by 2100 according to a study in the journal, Nature Climate Change. Areas of the Persian Gulf could be hit by waves of heat and humidity so severe that simply being outside for several hours could threaten human life. Because of climate change, some population centers in the Middle East are likely to experience temperature levels that are intolerable to humans.

The monthly numbers from NASA and NOAA put the planet on track to surpass 2015 as the hottest year on record. "2016 has really blown that out of the water," Gavin Schmidt, director of Goddard's Institute for Space Studies, said.