Collecting Signatures for Ami Bera

I was involved with the Ami Bera for Congress campaign a couple of years ago when he ran against Dan Lungren. Unfortunately, he lost but he didn't lose by much and since the 3rd congressional district was redrawn, it is now about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. I figured heck, why not help the guy out a second time. Can't hurt and it might be a good experience knocking on doors.

I left the house at around 8:45 AM. The meeting time was 10 AM at 5750 Grant Ave, Carmichael, CA. In other words, Carmichael Park. I really had 2 routes to choose from. Either go up Banister and then east on the north side of the river or follow the bike trail and cross over at William Pond Recreation area. I really didn't want to deal with exhaust pipes so I decided on the southern route. Actually, that route, although more scenic, is longer. And yes, I did have to put up with a few "on your left" call outs from the pro riders but it wasn't altogether that bad. The really unpleasant leg of the trip was having to ride up Fair Oaks Blvd heading east and north to Manzanita. There is practically no room for bicycles and cars zoom by at close to 50 mph.

After huffing and puffing for about an hour, I arrived at the park. A table was setup in the middle of the park behind the library with Ami Bera's name prominently displayed. I was apparently the second to arrive. The first was an older man who probably had Parkinsons because his whole body trembled as he spoke. About 6 others arrived after me and then the orientation started.

Zach was the representative from the campaign headquarters and he was in charge of giving us the orientation and handing out the clipboards with all the signature sheets, list of names and addresses and a couple of google maps. The task was pretty simple. Knock on doors and ask if they would sign a petition to get Ami Bera's name on the June 5th primary ballot.  There was also a list of codes to check off depending on the outcome, i.e. not home, refused, deceased, etc.

Zach handed me a clipboard with about 80 names and addresses clustered in a neighborhood about 5 minutes away. I thanked him, shoved the clipboard into my backpack and hopped on my bike for the quick ride over. I have to admit, this project was well thought out. Two google maps with all the addresses listed in numerical ascending order, a sample script and the petitions themselves.

I have never done this kind of work before so I wasn't sure what to expect. Looking at the names, I could see a definite pattern. This was an older crowd. Average age was probably around 55. Most weren't home or were home but decided to hide from the stranger knocking on their door. No way to know for sure. This was an older, established neighborhood. Many of the houses were at least 40 years old and looked worn out, as did quite a few of the people I met as well. For the most part they were friendly. A few seemed suspicious when I called out their name. Most of those that agreed to sign were more than happy to see Dan Lungren retired. The common refrain I heard was that he has been in there too long and it is time for him to go.

It took me almost 4 hours to go through all the names and when I was done, I was ready to eat a horse. Okay, not quite a horse but my stomach was growling loudly. There are some restaurants on Fair Oaks Blvd but nothing that really caught my eye and I could feel a Mexican urge coming on strong.

I decided to hold on a bit longer and try out Gina's Taqueria on Folsom Blvd in Rancho Cordova. That was at least a 1/2 hour ride but I was determined to eat there since I had passed by there a few times over the past couple of years.

From what I have read about this place, it is a little unique since one of the owners is from Mexico and the other is from El Salvador. The place was pretty empty but I expected that to be the case since I arrived there at around 2:30 PM. A young man about 18 or 19 took my order from the counter. I wanted to order a pupusa because a few Yelpers had given it high recommendations. Unfortunately, they were out. Crap. I looked at the menu again and decided for the next exotic sounding item which was a Salvadorenean  Tamal. I had no idea what that was but the description seemed tasty. I added a chicken torta and a jamaica to the order and figured that should fill me up for at least the next 6 hours, if not more. Total cost was around $11.00 for the whole meal.

I sat down with a Spanish newspaper and waited. The wait was a little long considering I was the only one ordering but I am not one to complain. As my eyes wandered around the room, I saw the friendly waitress I had met earlier carrying a large tub of fresh tortillas to the salsa bar. Oh yes, fresh tortilla chips.

I loaded up a basket with a pile of tortilla chips and scooped out some salsa into a plastic cup. By the time I arrived back at my table, I had completely forgotten about the long wait and was focused on fresh tortillas dipped in salsa.

Finally the waitress brought out the torta followed by the tamal. The torta was humongous. It was stuffed at least 2 inches high with a thick layer of chicken, lettuce, tomato and perhaps a dollop of bean paste somewhere hidden inside. The waitress also left a bowl of what looked like apple sauce but a little darker and a bowl of sliced cabbage. "Was that for the tamal or the torta?", I thought to myself. I looked at the torta. It looked pretty complete the way it was. The tamal, however was a round saucer shaped fried 3d tortilla that looked like it could use something on top. I tested some of the apple sauce. Hmm, this was interesting. It was definitely apple sauce but with a tinge of chili. The cabbage was really sour. It was drenched in vinegar. I spread some of the apple paste on the tamal and dug in. I could see and taste how well the two complemented each other. The cabbage, however, was just too sour to complement anything. A few bites later and the tamal was gone.

The torta and I looked at each other. Could I finish this monster? It was worth a try. I peeled back some foil and opened my mouth as wide as it could go without unhinging my jaw and took a bite. The chicken was grilled well, no fat or grease that I could detect and the lettuce and tomato happily joined in the celebration. Just for kicks I spread a little of the apple sauce on. Not too bad but still not as good as spoonful of salsa before each bite.

I gorged and gorged some more while listening to some banda musica on the tv overhead. When I finished, I could swear I felt at least a few pounds heavier. So all in all, this was a good choice.

Letter to Dan Lungren

Dear Congressman Lungren:

Thank you so much for your response to my recent inquiry regarding how to deal with climate change. However, I did not outline my proposal as I would have preferred to speak to you directly. I understand you are very busy campaigning and perhaps do not have a time slot in your schedule to meet with me. Therefore, I will outline my proposal to you here in this email and hopefully you will have a chance to consider this and offer your response.I left off my previous correspondence by pointing out that the science regarding global warming is very settled. I provided you with the phone number of the most respected scientist in this field, Dr. James Hansen over at Nasa. Dr. Hansen has recommended a carbon tax as the most effective and quickest means to begin moving our economy to a post fossil fuel era. To clarify the definition of this tax, it is not a cap and trade system. Dr. Hansen and many others in the environmental movement do NOT support cap and trade and neither do I. A cap and trade system would create a huge and difficult to bureaucracy and the resources needed to monitor such a system would exceed the desired benefits. So, coming from another angle, I agree with you completely that cap and trade is not the way to go.

A carbon tax, however is elegant in its simplicity. The amount of Co2 produced by the burning of oil, coal and natural gas is known precisely by scientists. A tax would be assessed at the point of extraction or port of entry based on the resource being extracted or imported. Such a system would be simple to implement - there are only a few oil, coal and gas companies in the U.S. so monitoring would be far more simpler than a cap and trade system.The most intriguing aspect of such a tax is that the entire amount would be refunded back to the American people in the form of dividend checks. People who purchase products that are not directly tied to fossil fuels will actually earn money. Such a system will shift resources towards cleaner energy alternatives through shifting public demand. This will stimulate the collective talent and resources of private industry to a new post industrial clean energy revolution.Such a tax would be implemented gradually so that industry has time to adjust but I am very confident that American ingenuity will be up to the task. In short, we can and must begin this transition for our childrens’ sake. Please consider what I have said and not dismiss this flat out before speaking to others about it. Once again, I urge you to speak to Dr. Hansen to understand this solution before you pass judgment.

Best Regards,
David Brotman

Attempt to Reach Dan Lungren

This may become a moot point if Ami Bera wins the 3rd Congressional seat next Tuesday but I do not assume anything. In fact, I would present the same argument to Mr. Bera as I am presenting to Congressman Lungren. I am doing this to go on the record as trying my damnedest to convince my representative in the U.S. Congress that something must be done about global warming. I have been told by others that my efforts are like a salmon swimming upstream considering the forces aligned against taking action but I cannot throw my arms up and give up when Serena’s future is at stake. In some respects I am covering my ass so that when Serena gets older, she cannot accuse me of not doing anything about this issue. This blog is my record and proof that I did try and will continue to try. So here is the detail on my attempt today:

1) Contacted Congressman Lungren at his Gold River office this morning at approximately 11:00 AM. I spoke to a woman named Katie who asked me what I wanted to discuss. I told her that it was climate change. She told me to contact Sandra Weissman at Lungren’s Washington D.C. office as she is the one in charge of energy policy for Mr. Lungren.

2) Spoke to Sandra Weissman at the D.C. office and explained my purpose. I briefly mentioned the current science regarding global warming and that it is an urgent matter. Her response was that Mr. Lungren agrees it is a problem but I am not sure that it is a problem. I insisted that it was important to speak with Mr. Lungren and she agreed to allow me to speak with Lungren’s scheduler, Debra Jones.

3) Sandra Weissman transferred me to Debra Jones and Debra asked me the purpose of the meeting. I reiterated my reasons for requesting a meeting and she suggested I email her a brief statement explaining the issue and she would get back to me. This conversation took place today at approximately 11:30 AM. I emailed her at debra.jones@mail.house.gov and the full text of that email is located in the previous 2 blog posts I just made.On a kind of funny note. Serena is sitting next to me right now writing out math problems as I type this up.

Why Dems and Repubs can rarely find common ground

The main reason as I see it is because Repubs look at the world differently. Whereas Dems tend to see the world as it is in all its complexity, messiness and shades of gray, Repubs see the world as they would like it to be, a nostalgic dream of an era gone by. Many of them long for the world of yesteryear when European whites held all the reins of power and everybody fit in their rightful place. People of color weren’t so uppity and fortunately not many of them voted. Gays stayed in the closet and you could go out for the evening and forget to leave your door unlocked. Yes, those were the days. Now the world has become scary and the people you see in public are many different shades of yellow and brown. A intelligent person of color has made it to the White House, an impossible thought not more than 10 years ago. This rapidly changing demographic profile that makes up the U.S. is a frightening world to many older, white Americans. This fear morphed into anger and expressed itself through the tea party. "Taxed enough already" became their rallying cry in 2009 as the health care bill was being debated but a more accurate slogan would be "Too much change already."  But the demographic changes are here to stay and will likely accelerate as the Baby Boomers begin to die off in 20-30 years. Yet many whites cling to the hope they can somehow reverse this trend and eagerly embrace the messages of fear being promoted from within their ranks. Whether it is Mexicans, gays, Blacks, liberals or socialism, fear is the uniting theme. Though the pages of the playbook are worn and frayed, the strategy is consistently effective. Unable to reinvent itself as a big tent party and sell its bankrupt supply side economic theory, Repubs are forced to use the tactic of divide and conquer. Using social hot button issues such as gay marriage, abortion rights or illegal immigration, Repubs effectively force voters to take sides. If you vote along the party line, you are being patriotic. If you vote the other way, you are a traitor to your country. For many people busy with their daily lives, it is just plain easier to see the world in black and white and let others define right and wrong for them. Adhering to a rigid ideology eliminates the need to think and ponder the world in all its complexity and shades of gray. Some issues can be molded to fit into the guidelines of the ideology such as gay marriage or abortion. Other issues that do not fit the mold or expose the shortcomings of free market economic theory such as climate change need to be vigorously challenged or denied. This irrational approach to everyday problems conflicts with the more complex, scientific problem solving approach favored by Dems. In this environment, little can get accomplished since the mechanism by which problems get solved is different. There can be no common ground between the two parties unless the problem solving mechanism is the same. This would mean either Dems give up science as the reliable way of understanding the world or Repubs must discard their non-linear way thinking.

Letter to Dan Lungren

Dear Debra:

Per your instructions, I will outline my purpose for meeting with Congressman Lungren.First of all, I had the good fortune of bumping into Congressman Lungren in front of the Bel Air Market a couple of weeks ago. We talked a little bit about clean energy but under those circumstances, it was difficult to have a meaningful discussion. I would like to meet with Congressman Lungren to discuss 2 issues of critical importance: the impacts of climate change, our reliance on fossil fuels and what should be done about it.I do
not know whether or not Congressman Lungren accepts the theory that the climate is changing and humans are the primary cause of these changes. There is an accumulating body of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was created by the World Meteorological Organization has stated unequivocally in its most recent assessment that Human activities ... "are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." The statements by the IPCC are supported by every major scientific organization in the U.S., including the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). All have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.In short, there is no longer any meaningful debate occurring among scientists about whether
climate change is happening and whether humans are the cause. That issue has been settled. A small group of skeptics remain who have offered other theories such as water vapor, natural variation, sunspots,etc. None of the competing theories have withstood scientific scrutiny.

Most of these other explanations tend to focus on one aspect of the climate change model or
extract limited pieces of data, also known as cherry-picking to bolster their arguments. If Congressman Lungren is interested in learning more about the scientific basis behind climate change theory, I urge him to contact Dr. James Hansen of the Nasa Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Dr. Hansen is the leading climatologist on global warming and has been researching this problem for over 20 years. I am sure he would be delighted to discuss the issue with Congressman Lungren. Dr. Hansen can be reached at (212) 678-5500.
The impacts of climate change are already evident on a global scale. Mountain glaciers are receding and the polar ice caps are melting. A massive ice sheet 100 square miles and 600 feet thick in size recently broke off of the coast of Greenland. 2010 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record. Coral reefs around the world are under stress due to the acidification of the ocean from increasing Co2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Unusually hot weather gripped Russia this year, drying out acres of farmland and raising wheat prices around the world.

There is no secret as to what is causing the increase in Co2 in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution have released millions of tons of Co2 and much of the Co2 that was burned at the beginning of the 20th century is still in the air today. Dr. Hansen has identified a list of what he refers to as positive feed backs, which are observable consequences of Co2 increases that are responsible for accelerating the warming of the planet. According to Dr. Hansen, the earth’s climate is approaching a critical tipping point, where it may be too late to do anything. Once again, I urge Congressman Lungren to speak directly to Dr. Hansen so he can understand this problem in more depth.

To summarize:

1. The earth is getting warmer due to the increase in Co2 in the atmosphere.
2. Humans are responsible for the increase in Co2 due to the burning of fossil fuels.
3. The consequences of a warmer earth are now observable and accelerating.

The only question left is what to do about it. Clearly, we cannot extract and consume every last bit of fossil fuel left underground before we seek out alternatives. The consequences of burning additional fossil fuels, especially coal would be disastrous from both an economic and environmental perspective. I completely understand the concerns of many in Congress and perhaps Congressman Lungren who fear that any attempt to begin a transition to a clean energy economy would cost thousands of jobs. However, those costs must be weighed against the cost of not doing anything. On July 27, 2010 a panel of experts and officials from the Dept of Defense gathered to discuss the issue of clean energy. The Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus stated that it is a matter of national security to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels and his statements were echoed by other officials at the meeting including Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman at theDept of Energy. According to Deputy Secretary Poneman, the status quo is unsustainable. He goes on to say that, "The security and prosperity of the United States are directly tied to energy." A May, 2009 report from the Center for Naval Analysis called our national energy posture a serious and urgent threat to national security.

From everything that I have presented above, the only logical solution is to phase out fossil fuel use in this country and build an alternative clean energy infrastructure. The purpose of my meeting with Congressman Lungren is to give him a blueprint for accomplishing this goal. I promise not to take up too much of his time. I only ask that he hear me out on this.

Sincerely,
David Brotman

Ami Bera/Dan Lungren Cosmic Collision

I have always been involved with politics. I guess it runs in my family. I am not going to go into detail about how politics have influenced my family in negative ways. Instead I am only going to mention that I never have and never will vote Republican, at least not in this lifetime. The Republican agenda runs counter to pretty much everything I stand for. Given the poor state of the economy, one might think that jobs are at the top of my list of priorities. And although getting more business is important to me, equally important are the accelerating effects of global warming. The science is unambiguous and definitive that humans are the cause of global warming and that the effects will be catastrophic if nothing is done very quickly to move away from fossil fuels. With an anemic economy and illegal immigration dominating the news, convincing people that global warming is not only real but is beginning to affect us in the form of higher food prices, loss of fresh water, rising sea levels, ocean acidification and dying coral reefs, to name a few, is a hard sell. The scary part is that some scientists are beginning to mention the possibility that we are close to reaching a tipping point, or in layman’s terms, the point of no return where nothing we do will be able to overcome the positive feed backs that are accelerating rising temperatures across the globe.


In fact, I feel so strongly about this issue, that I gave up my car on 8/11/09. It has been a challenge doing without a car but now that I have adjusted my lifestyle, I have never felt better. Yes, we still have a car but I rarely drive it unless I need to buy 5 gallon bottles of water or something else that just won’t fit in a backpack. And this brings me to why I am writing about Ami Bera and Dan Lungren. Dan Lungren represents the 3rd district which includes Gold River. He is a very conservative Republican and it puzzles me why the Sacramento Bee is endorsing him for reelection. A couple of months ago, I got a call from someone working for Ami Bera. Who is Ami Bera? He is the latest Democratic challenger to try and unseat Lungren in this year’s midterm election. I decided to help out with the limited time I have available to try and get Ami Bera elected. A couple of weeks ago, I did some phone bank work at the Ami Bera’s headquarters in Carmichael and just this past Friday, I did some more limited phone bank work remotely from home. Yesterday, which was Saturday, Eric drove up from Sherman Oaks to join us in attending a celebration of David Waldman’s life. They arrived in the late afternoon and we didn’t feel like going out so I offered to head over to Bel Air Market to pick up some Chinese food from the deli. I threw my backpack on and jumped on my bike for the 5 minute ride over. The service at the deli was quick. 1 quart of fried rice, 1 quart of chow mein and 12 potstickers seemed like just enough for dinner. I carried the food back to my bike and loaded everything in my backpack. After unlocking the bike from the pole it was tethered to, I looked up and noticed a tall, curly haired man wearing a t-shirt and shorts who looked a little disheveled. I stared at him as he pulled a couple of shopping bags out of a shopping cart. "He looks very familiar," I thought to myself. Could it be? Is that who I think it is? He looked exactly like Dan Lungren. That’s impossible. Wait a sec. I remember reading someplace that he actually lives in Gold River but spends most of his time in Washington, D.C. So it must be him. Although I agree with nothing he supports, I do write to him from time to time, doing my best to try and convince him that something needs to be done about global warming. I decided to take a chance. "Dan Lungren, is that you?", I asked tentatively. He wheeled around, smiled and nodded. I walked over and introduced myself and told him that I was the one who has been sending him emails about clean energy. How would he react to that? "I do get a lot of emails but my staff goes through every one", he replied. He started talking about some company in Rancho Cordova named Clean Energy Systems that is involved in extracting more oil from the old oilfields in Bakersfield and sequestering carbon at the same time. Boy, if that is his idea of clean energy, I have a much bigger challenge ahead of me than I thought. In any case, it seems strange and somewhat coincidental that the day after I do some phone banking for Ami Bera, I run into Dan Lungren, the incumbent who Ami Bera is running against.

Ami Bera Phone Bank

Today was my first experience doing phone banking. Calling up strangers and asking them to vote is not my forte but life is about doing things that are uncomfortable. Otherwise, we stagnate. I checked the bike route to Carmichael and it said 5.9 miles which seemed impossible but I decided to follow the instructions in the route given. Left home at 9:20 AM, went under the Sunrise bridge and crossed over to the north side of the American River. The instructions said right on Bannister. I had no idea where Bannister was and when I crossed over there appeared to be only one street exit from the river access point. Hmm, okay I might as well go up this one, I decided. It was steep but fortunately no cars. There was no street sign to confirm whether I was on the right street until I got to the top of the hill and by then there was no way I was turning around. It ended up being Pennsylvania Ave, exiting to Fair Oaks Blvd near Bob’s Cycles. I was not about to head down Fair Oaks Blvd despite there being a bike lane. No way, not with cars going 50 mph. I found a street I think was called New York Ave. and decided to give it a go, hoping it would not be a dead end. I was pleasantly surprised to be riding through a well paved, bucolic neighborhood with rolling hills, empty fields and lots of trees. This was nice. Stop sign brought me to Winding Way. Not much traffic here so I decided to go east on Winding Way. That turned out to be a good decision. Winding Way has a nice wide bike lane and there aren’t many cars to contend with. I turned right on San Juan and then left on Winding Way again. This was great. Hardly any cars. A little roughly maintained - a few trees poking out into the street but that was easy to navigate through. I thought Manzanita was much farther away than it was because in less than 10 minutes, I had arrived. The address was 4132 Manzanita, Carmichael and I was at 4701. Not knowing which way the numbers were going, I turned right, passing by some jardineros struggling to remove a tree from in front of a gas station. This area has some historical significance because there is a mongolian bbq place across the street which was the very first restaurant we ever ate at after arriving in Sacramento. And it is still there! Okay, wrong direction because the numbers were increasing. I reversed direction and headed down Manzanita. The old Crestview bowling alley, now boarded up and abandoned had a sign that read "We will miss you." A few more blocks and I arrived at my destination which was the Sacramento headquarters of Ami Bera For Congress, tucked away in a small strip mall. Dripping with sweat as usual, I opened the door and was greeted by a young woman who asked me to sign in. Her name was Sarah and she got me setup at one of the computers. Good thing I brought my cell phone because I was going to need it. She explained the procedure - all I had to do was read from a script on the screen, enter the disposition and move on to the next name. The purpose here was to call people to remind them to fill out their vote by mail application and then to vote for Ami Bera who is running against Dan Lungren in my district. The first few calls were a little awkward as I got used to reading the script but after a while it started to come easy. I wasn’t phased by people hanging up on me and no one was rude though a few reminded me that they had already been contacted 3 or 4 times. I am sure I would not have been happy to receive this type of call if it was the 3rd or 4th time for me. I got a rhythm going and made it to around 50 calls. By that time, it was 12 and time to go. I bid farewell and they begged me to come back next week. I didn’t commit but told them I would check my calendar. Next stop was either Dollar Tree or 99 Cent store. Fortunately, there was a Dollar Tree nearby and I loaded up on soap, toothpaste and some other miscellaneous items. I continued down Fair Oaks because Manzanita turns into Fair Oaks and was pleasantly surprised to see a Big Lots store. This was cool because I have been looking for one and the one on Folsom closed. Bought some socks and maple syrup and a mouse pad for 80 cents.My backpack was now around 20 pounds so I decided time to go home. The ride back was enjoyable. Fair Oaks and Carmichael are beautiful areas. I passed by some horse pastures, large estates where I couldn’t even see the houses, they were so well hidden. No traffic and lots of trees. Heading back I found Bannister Ave which was where I was supposed to turn. It said river access so I gladly turned off of Fair Oaks Blvd just before it turned into a roller coaster. Trail led me back to where I originally went up and then I made it home. Total adventure time was 4 hours.

We Love Oil!

President Obama, don’t you understand? We Americans don’t want clean energy. We want dirty energy! We demand our right to breathe unburned hydrocarbons on a cool winter day. We proudly proclaim our support for the freedom to inhale diesel particulate matter deep into our lungs.

Yes, we stand here and salute the red, the white, the blue and the brown  haze that hangs over our cities like a warm, soothing bowl of pea soup.  Our children deserve all the best we have to give them, like asthma, cardiac disease and lung cancer. Oil is our lifeblood even if it eventually becomes our deathblood. Let us show the world that we are proud Americans, proud to go in reverse and experience the joys of living in an oil based economy for generations and generations thereafter. Let freedom ring and oil gush. Amen!

What is a Teabagger

Teabaggers are misinformed, right-wing corporate media consumers who often fail to understand that BOTH major parties represent a corrupt plutocracy that steals from the middle class by taxing labor and profiting from corporate tax subsidies.

A teabagger also often fails to acknowledge that George W. Bush and his neo-conservative minions perpetrated one of the boldest and most  egregious executive power grabs in the history of the United States. Furthermore, teabaggers mistakenly continue to blame a newly elected President Obama for all that ails the United States of America, based on  a grossly flawed perception of reality (including latent racial prejudice) and despite the fact the U.S. economy collapsed on the previous administration’s watch.

Teabaggers are also known to base their misguided, right-wing-media -inspired beliefs about President Obama on stupid conspiracy theories about totalitarian takeovers, FEMA camps, etc., despite the fact these very same theories have been circulating around on the Internet for years, and were originally ascribed to neo-conservative capitalists at a time when Barack Obama had not even entered national politics. Teabaggers also are known to be particularly paranoid, xenophobic and intolerant, especially with regard to immigrants and anyone who isn’t white.

Additionally, teabaggers generally echo stupid myths about entitlement spending (it actually only accounts for about 1% of federal budget spending), have no idea that most poor people
in America are not lazy, actually do work and don’t want to be on welfare, and have no idea  what socialism actually means or that socialist reform in this country is actually what allowed a middle class to flourish and ultimately make the U.S. one of the most prosperous nations in human history.

Furthermore, teabaggers incorrectly equate socialism with Stalinism, think a system that rewards greed (capitalism) is the divine preference (despite Gospel evidence to the contrary), and are shameless champions of a misguided belief in American exceptionalism. Teabaggers also fail to recognize the inherently unpatriotic nature of their failed  every-man-for-himself ideology that ultimately vilifies anyone who supports public policy aimed at reaching out to fellow Americans in need. They celebrate an exploitative corporatocracy (holy creator of jobs, blah blah blah) while denigrating the little guy for being "weak."

Interestingly, teabaggers uphold an immoral, morbidly obese, twice  divorced, draft-dodging, college dropout and known drug addict as their  de facto leader, and are even known to advocate burning books. Of course, teabaggers fail to recognize the blatant hypocrisy within the GOP and tend to oversimplify all political debate and social issues, much like their pseudo-intellectual, fat-@#$% leader.

Finally, incredibly, teabaggers fail to recognize the hysterical double entendre associated with their proudly adopted teabag moniker.

Every village has its idiots, of course, but it’s sad when citizens of any nation allow themselves to be whipped into a frenzy enmasse by a state-run propaganda machine masquerading as a legitimate, fair, balanced and independent news organization.

Teabaggers are RIGHT to believe the future of the U.S.A. is in jeopardy, but sadly they have not yet correctly identified the real enemy. Perhaps when teabaggers finally grow up and mature into thinking adults, they will see the right-leaning power establishment for the oppressive and cunning beast that it is.

Teabagger: We don’t care that George Bush tripled the deficit, lied us into a war, and increased the government by 25%. The new administration only cut taxes for 90% of the population... fascists. Let’s go throw some Lipton tea bags into a fountain.

Letter to Dan Lungren

Dear Congressman Lungren:
I hope you can keep an open mind as I discuss with you the importance and benefits of a carbon tax. I know you may be ideologically opposed to this concept, but please hear me out on this. Fossil fuels, especially oil were instrumental in building the United States into a superpower. We have a lot to thank for the discovery of petroleum and the enormous positive changes brought to our civilization by the industrial revolution. During the middle of the twentieth century as our infrastructure was being built around oil, only a small group of scientists were aware of the toxicity of oil. As our collective knowledge of the effects of burning fossil fuels has grown over the past 60 years, the costs have grown as well. The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and ongoing oil accidents occurring around the world, most recently in Dalian, China illustrate the risks involved in the extraction, refining, delivery and combustion of oil. There is no credible argument that can refute the reality that damage to the environment during the production, delivery and burning of oil represents a cost. Whether we are talking about smog alerts in Los Angeles, increased asthma cases in large cities, ocean dead zones, acid rain, fallout from global climate change, or increased lung cancer rates, we have been paying a price for our decision over a hundred years ago to exploit this resource. Because these costs are so difficult to quantify, we have allowed ourselves to wait until incidents occur before we commit to paying for these costs. In most cases, the general public has footed the tab for these large, spread out environmental damage consequences. If you can see the environment as a cost of production like any other cost such as labor, capital and material, what entity besides the company involved in the production of its product should be responsible for these costs? The obvious answer of course, is that a company operating in a free market economy, should not depend on anyone else for its costs of production. Yet, that is what has been happening on a very large scale for the last 100 years. The fossil fuel industry has, without any fanfare, transferred most of these costs onto the general public, violating some of the most important principles of free enterprise systems - depending on the public to subsidize your business and not maintaining a level playing field for all the market players. Picking up the tab for all of these costs represents a massive subsidy of the fossil fuel industry and has kept the price of oil artificially low relative to its true cost. Is that fair? Yes, I agree these costs are extremely difficult to quantify. But to leave them out is an affront to our free market economy. The purpose of implementing a carbon tax is to finally begin to quantify the cost of environmental damage as a legitimate cost of production, fully integrating these costs into the Profit and Loss statements of fossil fuel companies and leveling the playing field for other energy producers. The other related issue to a carbon tax is jobs. There is a common perception that any type of clean energy legislation would adversely affect our economy and prevent job growth. I beg to differ and I will explain to you why. Our dependence on foreign sources for oil is an issue of national security.
Unfortunately, due to our consumption patterns, there is not enough oil reserves in the U.S., even fully exploited to quench our appetite. In an atmosphere of rapidly rising world demand, oil producing countries cannot keep up with this demand. If you read the Wall Street Journal the other day, a milestone was reached when it was announced that China has now surpassed the United States as the largest consumer of energy. The cost of securing oil from countries that are sometimes openly hostile to our way of life and the risk that some of our money going overseas for oil is finding its ways into the waiting pockets of terrorists is unsettling at the very least. I propose to you that our dependence on oil is the root cause of our precarious economy. Unless we begin to transform our infrastructure and wean ourselves away from oil, the risks will only increase. The United States oil production peaked in 1970 and there are scientists predicting peak oil within the next 10 years. The economic consequences of terminal decline are potentially disastrous. Should we sit this out and wait to see what happens or purchase an insurance policy in the form of clean energy technology to inoculate ourselves from this inevitable result?

Sincerely,
David Brotman

Passing Meaningful Climate Change Legislation

In a recent editorial, Thomas Friedman asked the question: Are there 7 Republicans who can put  their country first and vote for meaningful climate change legislation?

The answer is a qualified no. The only sliver of hope Democrats have in  implementing a carbon tax is to frame the issue as a model of free enterprise. In a market economy, players operate on a level playing field. No one player has an unfair advantage coming into the market. The damage to the environment and our health resulting from the production or use of a fossil fuel represents a cost. Unlike hard costs such as rent, office supplies and labor,  environmental costs are difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the industrial revolution up through today, the general public has been picking up the tab for these costs. This shifting of cost to the public represents a massive subsidy to the oil, coal and gas industry which explains why fossil fuels remain relatively cheap in comparison to renewable energy. A carbon tax represents the first attempt in a hundred  years to quantify the environmental costs of fossil fuel production. It  finally integrates a cost that has been conspicuously missing from the P and L statements of companies that have profited enormously from its absence. A carbon tax will finally level the playing field in the market, inoculate our economy from volatile price swings as we approach peak oil and affirm our commitment to our children.

Meeting with Elizabeth Kim at Alyson Huber's Office

Today I rode my bike to Rancho Cordova City Hall to meet with Elizabeth Kim, a member of Alyson Huber’s staff. Alysson Huber is the assemblywoman representing the 10th assembly district of California. The purpose of our meeting was to discuss the benefits of a carbon tax. The meeting went really well and I strongly believe that Elizabeth got the concept which is fairly straightforward. When a company produces a product, it is concerned about revenues and expenses. Only measurable costs are included in a P and L statement. Up until now, energy companies such as oil, coal and gas have been able to make enormous profits off of their energy products because they have been able to shift a significant portion of those costs onto the general public. What does this mean? Let’s take a look at coal for example. In strip mining, entire mountains are blown up and removed and heavy machinery is moved in to extract the coal. Once the coal is processed it is used to power utilities and other industries. When the coal is burned, Co2 is released into the air. When the Co2 reacts with H2o, carbonic acid is produced which is more commonly referred to as acid rain. When lakes and rivers become acidic, the fish and other life in the lake die off as oxygen becomes depleted. In addition, Co2 traps heat from the sun which in turn warms the atmosphere, aka global warming. Other chemicals are also released into the air during the burning of coal and find their way into our lungs.Each of these damaging effects either on the environment or our health represent a significant cost. The problem is that quantifying these costs is very difficult. In the absence of easily measurable costs, the fossil fuel industry can profit handsomely by avoiding responsibility and effectively shifting all of these costs onto the general public. This shifting of costs represents a massive subsidy of the fossil fuel industry. In effect, we are paying for part of the production costs of these energy sources. The central premise of my argument for a carbon tax is this: The environment represents a cost of doing business just like any other cost. If you rent a storage space, you have to pay for it. If you rent labor, you have to pay for it. And if you damage the environment during the production of your product, you alone should be responsible for it, not the public. That is what free enterprise is about. A carbon tax is the most effective way of quantifying the cost of "damaging" the environment. It is easy to implement, easy to monitor and encourages a shift away from fossil fuels without compromising jobs. In any case, Elizabeth was so impressed with my ideas, she invited me to meet with Assemblywoman Huber at the state capitol sometime in the future. We agreed that I would call her next week to find out Huber’s reaction to my ideas.

Meeting with Elizabeth Kim at Alyson Huber's Office

Today I rode my bike to Rancho Cordova City Hall to meet with Elizabeth Kim, a member of Alyson Huber’s staff. Alysson Huber is the assemblywoman representing the 10th assembly district of California. The purpose of our meeting was to discuss the benefits of a carbon tax. The meeting went really well and I strongly believe that Elizabeth got the concept which is fairly straightforward. When a company produces a product, it is concerned about revenues and expenses. Only measurable costs are included in a P and L statement. Up until now, energy companies such as oil, coal and gas have been able to make enormous profits off of their energy products because they have been able to shift a significant portion of those costs onto the general public. What does this mean? Let’s take a look at coal for example. In strip mining, entire mountains are blown up and removed and heavy machinery is moved in to extract the coal. Once the coal is processed it is used to power utilities and other industries. When the coal is burned, Co2 is released into the air. When the Co2 reacts with H2o, carbonic acid is produced which is more commonly referred to as acid rain. When lakes and rivers become acidic, the fish and other life in the lake die off as oxygen becomes depleted. In addition, Co2 traps heat from the sun which in turn warms the atmosphere, aka global warming. Other chemicals are also released into the air during the burning of coal and find their way into our lungs.Each of these damaging effects either on the environment or our health represent a significant cost. The problem is that quantifying these costs is very difficult. In the absence of easily measurable costs, the fossil fuel industry can profit handsomely by avoiding responsibility and effectively shifting all of these costs onto the general public. This shifting of costs represents a massive subsidy of the fossil fuel industry. In effect, we are paying for part of the production costs of these energy sources. The central premise of my argument for a carbon tax is this: The environment represents a cost of doing business just like any other cost. If you rent a storage space, you have to pay for it. If you rent labor, you have to pay for it. And if you damage the environment during the production of your product, you alone should be responsible for it, not the public. That is what free enterprise is about. A carbon tax is the most effective way of quantifying the cost of "damaging" the environment. It is easy to implement, easy to monitor and encourages a shift away from fossil fuels without compromising jobs. In any case, Elizabeth was so impressed with my ideas, she invited me to meet with Assemblywoman Huber at the state capitol sometime in the future. We agreed that I would call her next week to find out Huber’s reaction to my ideas.

Town Hall Meeting

I decided to go to a town hall meeting hosted by Alyson Huber, Assemblymember of the 10th district. It was held at the Rio Americano High School from 5:30 PM - 6:30 PM. The weather was kind of warm that day but in keeping with my desire to maintain a low carbon footprint, I decided to go there by bike. One way distance is about 9 miles with easy access from the bike trail since the high school overlooks the American River. I was kind of in a hurry so by the time I got there, I was drenched in sweat. I walked into the event at the school library and quite a few heads turned to stare at the spectacle of a man drenched in sweat. After signing in without dripping on the sign-in sheet, I made my way over to a seat about 4 rows back and took in the crowd assembled. A lot of gray hair and bald heads dominated the audience with a few younger people scattered throughout. The meeting started promptly at 5:30 with Assemblymember Huber introducing herself and describing her focus at the state capital. My purpose in attending was to follow up on emails left on her website and messages left on her voice mail asking about the oil severance tax. California is the only oil producing state that does not have a severance tax and a modest 6% tax could pull in close to 900 million dollars a year. After being forced to sit through cranky old conservatives railing about pensions that state workers don’t deserve, I finally got a chance to speak up. My question was whether Ms. Huber thought that the state budget deficit could be solved without looking at any revenue generation and whether she supported the oil severance tax. I was a little disappointed to hear an ambiguous answer from her with her thinking out loud whether gas prices would go up. (The short answer to that question is no, they won’t go up because oil is a world commodity. How come people have so much trouble with this concept?). She did mention that a severance tax is included in the assembly version of the budget but not in the senate version. I appreciated how much time she spent with my question but I don’t get the sense that she is particularly enthusiastic about it. When the meeting ended, there was no time for chit chat since there was another town hall meeting across town she had to go to. I did get a chance to speak to one of her staff members and she told me to call anytime.

Technology and Living Beyond our Means

As much as it is tempting to want to lash out at Obama, BP, the MMS or Bush or whoever is a convenient enough target, we are all collectively responsible for this mess. Our failure to demand a transition away from fossil fuels over the last 50+ years is rooted in a culture that encourages a self-indulgent lifestyle. Encouraged by the media, we consume resources far more than any other country in the world. In our society, bigger is always better. More horsepower, more towing capacity,  bigger engines, faster acceleration always take precedent over any annoying reminders that there is somehow a connection between our consumer behavior and the predicament we find ourselves in.  The thought of living within our means instead of beyond our means is anathema to the American spirit of individual liberty and freedom of choice. Feeling  helpless to change this dynamic, we angrily attempt to fix the blame anywhere we can to avoid the awful reality that the spill in the Gulf is  nothing more than a symptom of this lifestyle we have chosen.

Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President:

Jobs, jobs, jobs. How come you didn’t see the writing on the wall? You came into office on the campaign promise that you were going to fight for the little guy. What happened? Instead, you surrounded yourself with cabinet members aligned with Wall Street and the first thing you did was bail out the banks followed by the bailout of our failing auto industry. The little guy like me got scraps. People like myself are still struggling with trying to get loan modifications and wondering how to make ends meet when no one is hiring. My wife works for the state of California and she has to put up with lost wages from being furloughed. Sure, I voted for you because like you I strongly believe that protecting the environment, slowing global warming and making health care affordable are worthy and noble causes. I also believe that transitioning to a fossil free economy is the best way to stimulate the ingenuity and creativity of our collective intelligence. One of the problems that I am sure you are aware of is that the American people #1: Have a short memory; and #2: Have limited patience. Yes, there is no mistaking that you inherited a horrendous mess from that village idiot but your window of opportunity was much shorter than perhaps Rahm Emanuel led you to believe. The first signal that you were heading in the wrong direction was the angry tea party demonstrations and acrimonious townhall meetings (By the way, I attended one held by Dan Lungren but never made it inside). That should have driven home the message to you that people were not ready for health care reform. Who wants health care reform when people are desperate for a job? But instead of confronting the anger and hostility, your administration along with the Democrats in Congress played down the significance of this anger and essentially brushed it off as the rantings of right wing nutcases.Now you are confronted with a second signal. The loss of a key Senate seat in one of the most liberal states in the country threatens to derail your entire agenda, not just health care reform. You think the Republicans are going to go along with anything you propose now that they smell blood? All your political capital has been exhausted on this ill-timed strategy and Republicans are in no mood to compromise on any part of your agenda. You even have to deal with holding the blue dog Democrats together, let alone trying to throw olive branches over to the other side of the aisle. So here is my suggestion. Focus on the little guy. Focus on small businesses because small businesses hold the key to hiring people again, not the big lumbering auto industry. Instead of a trillion dollar health care reform bill, invest heavily in upgrading our country’s infrastructure. Give generous tax breaks to small businesses that invest in green technology. Make education a top priority since that is where you are going to get the biggest bang for every dollar spent. First, improve public schools by holding schools accountable for their students’ academic results. Higher education also needs a complete overhaul. Universities and Colleges are simply too expensive for a majority of Americans. Most students end up being saddled with mountains of debt when they graduate. Universities must be forced to offer low cost higher degree programs to all who are motivated through online web-based learning programs. By turning higher education from a privilege available only to the few that can afford it to an opportunity for many, a more educated workforce will drive our economy forward in the next few decades.Your staff also needs a shakeup. I would like to see Paul Krugman in a prominent position in your cabinet. I am sure he would be honored to serve your administration.So there you have it. Good luck and please do not forget who got you into office.