Isn’t the Rio (Grand)e?

I have an issue with Democrats and their acceptance of the frame “border security”. Security implies and supports the conservative concept: “Americans good, Latinx bad”. Used as it is most often, security is a military term, as in: send troops there, establish and secure a perimeter. i.e. don’t let anyone in besides us and use force if necessary. Used as a social term security can mean someone who arbitrarily decides who can enter a nightclub or concert and who to remove from those venues, often by violence.

I prefer the term border protection. I hear it used as a descriptive or supportive phrase from all sides but only ancillary to the metaphor “Border Security”. As a primary metaphor “border protection” implies and supports the progressive idea that the border should be safe, protected from bad people who want to get in and hurt us but also safe for people whose home country was unsafe. Morally they deserve protection too.

It is known that advances in technology continue to make the border safer and the billions of dollars required for a wall is a waste of taxpayers money. That money can be better used for the numerous personnel needed to expeditiously process refugee claims and the modern technology used to interdict people and contraband coming in through our seaports and airports.

One might say that people aren’t consciously aware of any difference between those words but unconsciously they do and decisions about what words mean are made unconsciously, informed by experience and repetition. Just as in the difference between regulation and protection when used regarding government monitoring of business, protection is the word that speaks more to those without power while security and regulation are words about the use of power by those who have it. The difference is subtle but significant. How those words are defined by society can easily be influenced.

We have all heard that words have power. But what is it exactly that bestows them with this power? Words are like icons on a computer desktop. The icon contains no information of it’s own. It only points to and connects us to a file or folder in storage that contains the information the user associates with that icon. Words are icons that connect us to where the real information is stored in the brain.

Our brains have to process billions of bits of information daily. Because of this the brain needs to take shortcuts. One word can connect us to entire concepts. Consider the word baseball. Not only does it connect you to a small round object but to a stadium and bats and uniforms and umpires and balls and strikes and beer vendors etc.

But an icon will only connect us to one file or folder and a word will only connect us to one definition or one collection of related things. It cannot connect us to two unrelated files at the same time. When you hear the word baseball you will not see a hockey puck. When we want to use the information found on a particular file we recall the icon associated with the info, click it, and the information appears. No matter how many times you click the icon for rock and roll it will not take you to jazz.

Persuading folks that a word means something different than you think it means is as easy as getting your definition to the top of the Google search results. You repeat it over and over again. Eventually the Google brain decides that the other definition is correct and yours is wrong. Google doesn’t know right from wrong nor does it care. So the wrong answer easily becomes the answer you find when you ask..

This is why using words like security and regulation over and over again to describe refugees claiming asylum will connect people to using our power to keep everyone out with a wall and assault rifles instead of using our power to determine who can enter and who cannot. It won’t matter which idea is right. It only matters which one people say is right. In this scenario getting society to accept that our real job is to protect those involved will not be easy. It will be very difficult. Getting your information to the top of the Google search isn’t easy.

Words do have power and we must use that power to help all peoples, as our American moral values dictate.

Everybody gets their say and so do I.

Faced with what they perceived as the crisis of a failure to establish their ideology as dominant in American politics, the radical conservatives of the 1970’s took to a new strategy. Rather than appeal to the people directly, which wasn’t quite working, they chose to use their money to create a middle man who would influence the people in a more subtle, indirect way. They began to buy up media outlets and established think tanks that employed bright young minds with the sole task of creating strategies and policies, plus the language that would effectively promote their ideology through those same media outlets. A wise and effective plan.

Why do I bring this up at a time when there are plenty of things that are devastating our democracy to think about. It’s because there are so many things threatening to destroy our democracy we must do something about. We on the left need to do a similar thing as was done by the far right nearly 50 years ago. We need a new strategy. We need to create positions for bright young minds to concentrate solely on finding a synthesis of viable solutions to the myriad existential problems we face. We need to point ourselves to a better use of persuasive language. And we need to facilitate the infrastructure and resources needed to pull this off.

Now, unlike the conservatives of the Nixon era, we don’t have the financial resources to both do this and purchase those means of distributing our ideas to the public. Besides, the conservative owners of major media in America aren’t about to hand over their powerful tool of communication to any “Libtards”. So to establish a majority will of the nation to force government into embracing workable solutions we must find a more organic means of persuasion. This organism can only be formed by the people, who, as in many times past, will use their true, pure power to gently help enough people reconnect with the values that have AMAG (Always Made America Great).

The resources, both financial and human, have always been there. We just need to quit being whiny egoistic babies and agree that no one issue is greater than any other. We must accept that the many critical issues that face us, when looked at collectively as they must, can only be addressed by working on them synthetically, as parts of a whole, rather than analytically, as just parts.

I ask if the actual rather than imagined demise of life on the planet is worth, metaphorically, having 100 people speaking with one voice rather than 100 people speaking in a Babelesque hundred voices. Frankly, I have had it up to beyond here. As you know, I am not immune to this behavior. Far from it. I am one of it’s most virulent practioners. To succeed, what I need to do is sequester myself away with some coffee, Laphroaig, and pizza (and more Laphroaig) until I am able to take a course of action. (Action is a type of actually doing something instead of just talking about it for those of you unfamiliar with the concept).

If I can’t be the point of the spear, for which I have never been hard enough, I will enter the crucible of surrender to truth, and temper myself into a functioning part of the strong shaft.

I owe it to you all out of respect for the divine gift of conscious occupation of this, my form that I lease from the universe.

None of us can afford to break the terms of our lease on life.

A Biased, and Limited History of Modern Progressivism

An article in The Nation gave me pause and inspired me to thought. It highlights FDR’s 1944 call for, to quote the magazine, “a second Bill of Rights-an Economic Bill of Rights-that would include the right to employment, housing, education, health care, and an economy free of unchecked corporate and monopoly power”.

A good and noble vision this, and as all too many good and noble things a casualty. Since that time, a neoliberal element rhas ridsen to power in the Democratic Party and chosen to make concessions to conservative economic notions. This was an unwise effort to maintain political power in the face of what was assumed to be a public trending toward accepting the consolidation of corporate power as normal and desirable. They were, of course, right about the move toward corporate monopoly but misjudged the means to counter it.

The neoliberals, or misnomered moderates, surrendered to conservative ideology and continuously moved to the right in a futile effort to appeal to center right voters. The goal posts kept moving to the right and eventually neoliberals turned the Democrats into Republican light. This in contrast to the conservatives who stuck to their guns, stayed the course, and as time moved the needle to the right eventually became mainstream. That progressives were unable to trust their morality and related policy was a very unfortunate circumstance.

As this crisis of trust continued Democratic support of progressive policy slowly started to fade. Amid challenges from the center right of Eisenhower, the hard right of Goldwater and the fiasco in Vietnam, progressive Democratic leadership was replaced by center-right, frightened, pseudo Libertarian Neoliberals. Lyndon Johnson’s somewhat reluctant creation of the Great Society, War on Poverty, Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts was the final straw. The swan song of liberal advancement was complete.

During Johnson’s second term alignment of party loyalties was permanently adjusted. Dixiecrats and moderate Republicans from the Northeast switched teams. The contentious and damaging power struggle of the 1968 nomination flipped the final switch and the Democrats internally rid themselves of the vestiges of New Deal and Great Society policies, while still espousing them publicly.

To my mind this schism had its origins at the 1944 Democratic convention. Roosevelt was dying and a group of conservative Democrats felt that his progressive, near Socialist politics would not do well in a post WWII world where Communism was the new boogeyman. They were especially concerned about Roosevelt’s Vice president, Henry Wallace, who was an avowed Socialist. They knew that he, if reelected, would acsend to the presidency and were frightened that his policies would align closer to the Soviets than they were comfortable with.

This led to the removal of Wallace from the ticket. It was done by any means, which means were quite vicious. Every chit was called in to keep the nomination from him. The problem was, there was no consensus on who to run against him at the convention. After much intense politicking, in that way of the smoke filled room, a little known senator from Missouri, Harry S. Truman, became the compromise standard bearer. He was nominally the anti communist’s man from then on. He became reliably tough on our ostensible Communist allies and, knowing little of its devstating power, was convinced to unleash the atomic bomb on Japan.

The schism in the party really took hold in 1948. The rank and file continued to work toward Roosevelt’s vision and passed the Marshall Plan of European Reconstruction. They included a call for universal healthcare in the party platform. At the convention Minneapolis mayor Hubert Humphrey made an impassioned plea for civil rights. Southern delegates walked out. Truman took a hard line with the Soviets in East Germany and started the Korean War.

Although Congress remained in Democratic hands virtually throughout the last half of the 20th Century the progressive and neoliberal wings continued their struggles for party dominance. Their last dance with real executive power was post Eisenhower but Vietnam and Southern backlash over the Great Society ended all but the memory of the New Deal.

After the serious damage the Democrats suffered in 1968 only biconceptual or right center Democrats have had any success in nationwide elections. In 2016, underlying White Supremacy, economic uncertainty, and frustrated nationalism was fanned into incendiary fervor and Donald Trump was elected president. As we begin 2019 a cloud of authoritarianism blankets the nation. Many are weary and disillusioned.

One encouraging and oddly unintended consequence of the Trump administration’s train wreck is the tiny but real opportunity for a progressive vision to be made clear and viable to the American public. To those who are fed up with being disrespected and used by the monied few. To citizens who cry out for equity and justice.

Instead of being reviled liberalism could be understood as the strong, responsible, protective, empathic and caring philosophy of life it is. In a major coup, years of conservative framing could be undone, but only if the left is wily and smart.

If the Democrats could quit the vicious politics practiced seemingly everywhere inside the beltway, and re-evolve into the diverse and coalescent party it can and should be, things may actually ricochet back toward a government that works for all people. Life seen from a progressive viewpoint could guide the way to true prosperity, a prosperity for all. Everyone in and no one out.

To do this people of good will must be courageous. They must overcome fear.

I’m not the best at that.

Frankly, I could be less a scribe and chronic complainer and more a positive actor and humble ally.

There is a window to be opened. Open and climb through it.

We haven’t much time.

The Border is no boundary

It is international law that compels the US to accept any and all persons claiming asylum and give them a fair hearing. It is US law that says asylum seekers must present themselves at an official port of entry. I agree that anyone breaking away from the group and crossing elsewhere can and should be treated as a lawbreaker and subject to our immigration laws, with the caveat that ICE not treat them like animals. But those presenting themselves legally to ask for asylum must be granted entry and be heard in a court of law to determine their status.

Rather than spending millions sending thousands of troops to the border who legally cannot engage with the asylum seekers anyway, we should spend the money sending more agents to process all the legitimate claims and find adequate housing and feed them. Our president says he will not “release” any of them, claiming they will not return for their hearings and disappear. That may be so for a few but it sounds like concentration camps to me. 

How we spend resources on this issue says a great deal about the morality of the current federal gov’t. Yes, of course there may be “mother rapers and father stabbers” hidden among these people. If so it should only take a basic investigation to reveal that fact in a hearing. We don’t just let people waltz into the country, even when they have legally asked for asylum. We vet them. But processing takes money and as I said, the gov’t is choosing to spend that money on mustering federal troops. Rather, they should be treating those seeking asylum in a respectful humanitarian way. They should be providing adequate human necessities and muster enough personnel to quickly and effectively process their claims.

The strategy the government is employing in this instance is called a strategic initiative. A strategic initiative is a single multipurpose action that meets several goals. This strategic initiative: 1. Created a crisis where there is none to arouse the base just before the midterm elections. 2. More of the aroused base would vote and increase the number of republican votes. 3. Continues to create an atmosphere of fear that seems real and threatening to American citizens, when their is none. 4. And most critical, this action was a test of just how many laws the gov’t can break and still have the public accept and normalize that behavior.

The 2018 midterm elections represented a pivotal and grave moment in our history. The leadup was tence and scary. Now, the results told us our democracy has not yet been intentionally dismantled and replaced by a tyrannical, authoritarian regime. But not by much. It proved what I have long realized; that there are a large number of Americans who have succumbed to being groomed into buying in to this nationalist, jingoist, isolationist universe of manufactured scarcity. They are out there, so angry, indignant and arrogant. We cannot be complacent and assume a House majority will fix everything. It won’t.

The oligarchy has directed this anger at the “other”. It is an anger funneled into a soothing blame, pointed at the scapegoat flavor of the day, the gays, the Muslims, the Mexicans, Al Qaeda, ISIS, East Africans, Feminists, Socialists, I could go on. It’s a distracting and deflecting blame of anyone who isn’t white, male (and their subservient wives), wealthy or connected, hetero, cisgender, believers in allegedly fair and balanced but actual ”fake news”, dominionist Christians, and conservative sycophants. Oh, and the throngs of American serfs who worship them for deigning to toss a few crumbs their way, along with the false promise of safety, sovereignty, good jobs, and “things”.

The last time we experienced such a profound internal existential crisis was one one and one half centuries ago. We were guided out of it by a willful and strong President. In this crisis we have a willful and weak President. The contrast is striking. That this internal threat mirrors a previous external existential threat is not unusual from a historical perspective. Despots often turn to ideas of dominance from past authoritarians, rarely having the insight to invent their own.

This president continues to conduct tests to see how far he can go, how much he can get away with in breaking both American and international law through executive fiat. He is testing the limits of his power to normalize evil through his extraordinary authority to defy the constitution and get the groomed public to accede to it. All this for rallying his base and making them feel good about themselves; to establish himself as a man of the people when he is merely a man for himself. He cares not for America. He only cares for his own power and glory.

The last time we experienced such a profound internal, existential crisis was one and one half centuries ago. We were guided out of it by a willful and strong President. In this crisis we have a willful and weak President. The contrast is striking. That this internal threat resembles a previous external existential threat is not unusual from a historical perspective. Despots often turn to ideas of dominance from past authoritarians, rarely having the insight to invent their own.

I often hear my liberal peers express a wild desire to invoke the 25th amendment, demanding the president be impeached for his obvious high crimes and misdemeanors. Although their is a solid legal basis for this I do not think it is necessarily a good idea. I would prefer to humiliate him through righteously repudiating everything he has done to harm our nation. I want to see his white nationalist, racist, neo-apartheid base shown the door, out of the halls of power, their imagined dominance destroyed, never to rise again.

We do not need to punish. Raw punishment is a kind of hate. I want to see America change and grow into a better society, a leader in becoming a better world and a people worthy of saving. I want to see the human race, we specks of dust in the vast universe, thrive by evolving and not euthanizing. I want us to always walk toward the light, as do we all, each of us slowly dying.. 

And in this dying, in this seeking of the light and conscious rejection of our dark selves, we who do not close but open our hearts will become more our true selves, living rich lives in accord with each other. It is the only path that assures coninued life on this planet.

I believe this light and this love will conquer.

A Case of Invisible Sexism

Recently an airline pilot was heroic in bringing in an airline’s broken plane that had struck one passenger with mortal injuries and threatened the entire crew and passengers with the same fate. This pilot’s ability to perform under extreme pressure, ultimately saving lives, was rightfully praised. Bravo to the ex-navy fighter pilot with “nerves of steel”.

Tammie Jo Schults was this cool, calm, collected pilot. I will admit media coverage wasn’t atrocious. Coverage of the near tragedy itself did not particularly single out Tammie’s gender. Journalists are making efforts to catch up with the curve

But when women do something outstanding there is still the strong urge to emphasize the fact. I am an aging middle-class white cisgender male. My limited understanding of the gender issues of today tells me that the eventual goal of those fighting for women’s equity, in all areas of society, is for coverage of events of this nature to be virtually the same. The only changes between the woman hero and the man in the article or broadcast would be the names.

It seems modern journalists can’t seem to avoid overcompensation. In the midst of good treatment of the fact that the protagonist of the story identifies as female, they are compelled to find something somewhere to go on and on about.

I have read numerous accounts of this striking news story and a large number of them went off on the fact that the modest pilot didn’t want her name out in public and they had to go to passengers and relatives to find out who she was.

They also made a big deal of how she was among the first female fighter pilots in the Navy and how she had tried to get into an Air Force program but was rejected because she was a woman. They went on and on. This portion of the articles was usually made the main focus and took up more column inches than the description of the incident itself.

I’m not saying that a male pilot’s background would not be appropriate for inclusion in this sort of article. Far from it. The back story is an important part of any human interest story.

I am simply contending that if this had been a male pilot the segment on his background would have been one or two paragraphs, a simple exposition of facts. It would not have been a major part of the article.

As we move into a new phase of understanding a more subtle and invisible sexism people will have to continue digging deeper inside themselves. Even women won’t escape the uncomfortable awareness of truths that are buried in the subconscious. We will all have to listen carefully to the women who have liberated these truths and dedicate themselves to educating an evolving world.

This is hard work. You meet a part of yourself you don’t want to know. And it’s not the only work you are called to do. We have to manage somehow to live together with many who think these efforts are a bunch of BS. We have to search inside and find our racism, our religious prejudices, our unique and shameful treatment of natives, our support of the inequities of economic hierarchies, our faith in a flawed original constitution. and more.

I am always careful to include disclaimers in my works. My posts are my observations and visions and are not intended to be a claim of authority. They are my relative truths and never designed to be the absolute truth.

I am certain I have a mountain of things to learn about this topic. Please get in touch with me if I have totally screwed up somewhere. My opinion is mine alone. But the truth that serves everyone must be shared.

Knowledge is power.

Carbon: Boon and Bane

This is a (very) long essay written in 2009 about carbon, what it is, why it makes for such a usable and abundant energy source, and what that means for the health of the planet. It was originally intended as a chapter in a long-abandoned book. Frankly, it is a bit scattered but I don’t have the time or patience to make it flow better. Bad, bad, Will.

Some editing was done to repair the ravages of my poor writing skills, and to fix numerous mistakes in spelling, syntax, and grammar, not that it did any good.  I have lots of this sort of essay in my quiver. Since I rarely have useful new ideas I suspect I will be going to the well of my previous prolificity more often, as I attempt to make this blog more relevant. Here we go.


Carbon is element number 6 on the periodic table of elements. It has an atomic weight of 12. This means that it consists of a nucleus consisting of 6 protons and 6 neutrons.  So that it is chemically and electrically stable it is surrounded by 6 electrons, which balance the electric charge of the 6 protons. These electrons are configured in two levels, the first with 2 electrons and the second with 4 electrons. Most of us are aware, from high school chemistry, that the first electron level has room for 2 electrons and the second electron level has room for 8 electrons. Therefore, because carbon has four electrons in the second level it is considered tetravalent, which means it has four spaces on the second electron level that can be filled by electrons from other elements when combining to form the molecules of a compound.

Carbon is the smallest atom which is tetravalent. This is significant when we consider that any tetravalent atom, such as carbon, with it’s four available spaces on the second electron level, is likely to form any number of diverse, yet very stable compounds. Reality shows us that this is true, as the millions of carbon compounds that exist on earth form a large number of the compounds known to science. These compounds are diverse because the available spaces for electrons allow for a great number of possible atomic combinations. They are stable electrically because on the second electron level there are an equal number of electrons from carbon as there are from the other atoms. This factor creates a very stable electron field in the outermost electron layers of any carbon compound, where most of the fluctuations and recombining take place.

Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. It is a vital component of the carbon-nitrogen cycle, which is the means stars use to convert hydrogen into helium. This cycle is the most basic and largest source of energy in the universe. So we can see that carbon and energy production are involved together at the most basic level. Carbon has perhaps the widest diversity of physical properties of any element. In its pure state, it exists both as graphite, one of the softest and most opaque substances and diamond, one of the hardest and most transparent of substances.

Carbon is one of the most essential elements required for life as we know it. All entities we know of as living contain carbon. It is the second most abundant element in the human body next to oxygen. It has the highest melting point of any element and its compounds are so stable that it requires very high temperatures for them to react with oxygen.

Carbon does a dance with hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen in a cycle of life on earth. All life forms on earth are made up of these same elements that dominate the earth and its atmosphere. Both plant and animal life are involved in complex chemical cycles that are essential to life on earth, but the most telling part of these cycles is that organic life on earth, in both life and death, contains tremendous amounts of carbon. 

I have mentioned these properties of carbon, and it’s vital intertwining with life on earth, to reveal the reasons why carbon compounds are perfectly suited to be used as fuels. They point to why the use of carbon fuels is so prevalent on our planet. All chemical reactions involve the application of energy, which is often manifest in the form of heat. Most chemical reactions are exothermic, which means they give off more energy, in the form of heat, than they use up. We have seen, through thermonuclear reactions, which, breaking up the word, is thermo, or heat, and nuclear, concerning the nucleus, that there is a tremendous amount of energy involved in the combining relationships between atoms, elements, molecules, and compounds. This huge amount of energy liberates equally huge amounts of heat.

Because carbon is tetravalent its compounds tend to be very stable. This means that the bonds created by the chemical reactions that create these compounds are held together by tremendous energy. Although it takes great energy to get carbon compounds to burn or react with oxygen, the act of burning breaks down those powerful bonds, releasing the incredible amount of energy that holds them together, in exothermic reactions. Exothermic reactions are accompanied by the release of heat. These properties reveal carbon compounds to be ideally suited to use as fuels.

Hydrocarbons, as the name suggests, are compounds containing hydrogen and carbon. The simplest hydrocarbon is methane, consisting of four hydrogen atoms to one carbon. In this compound the four hydrogen electrons bond with the four available electrons on the carbon atom. The chemical symbol for methane is therefore CH4. 

Oxidation is the combining of any element, molecule or compound, with oxygen. There is slow oxidation, such as the formation of rust on iron, and rapid oxidation, which we call burning. Oxidation is slow when a substance is exposed to oxygen over time. It does not require the application of external energy and the resulting oxidation is slow. Rapid oxidation requires the application of external energy. We know that carbon requires a large amount of energy to rapidly oxidize, i.e. burn. We also know that the burning of carbon releases large amounts of heat. As long as there is oxygen present the heat generated by the burning will burn more of the carbon until there is no longer any carbon or oxygen present. This cycle of burning not only consumes the available carbon but it liberates great amounts of heat.

We can more simply understand this process by thinking of a campfire. We gather an amount of wood, which is made of carbon, and we apply fire to it until it also begins to burn. Once it is burning it keeps burning until we stop putting wood on the fire and all the carbon in the remaining wood is oxidized. The heat liberated by burning the wood warms our nose and toes and will even cook the marshmallows we hold over it.

But back to methane. Because methane is the simplest hydrocarbon, burning methane is the simplest and cleanest method of obtaining energy from carbon. The burning of one methane molecule results in one molecule of carbon dioxide, two water molecules, and released energy. In this rapid oxidation process, under the application of heat,  the two oxygen molecules, consisting of four oxygen atoms, pull the hydrogen atoms away from the carbon atom, combining to form two water molecules, released as steam, one carbon dioxide molecule, and additional heat.

The equation for this reaction is CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O + 802 megajoules of energy per mole of methane. A mole is a compound’s atomic weight expressed in grams. A mole of methane is 16 grams, 12 for the carbon and one for each of the four hydrogens. From this equation, we can determine the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O) and energy released by burning any amount of methane. 

Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of the burning of all hydrocarbons, even methane, the simplest of hydrocarbon molecules. The burning of methane, which makes up well over 90% of what we call natural gas, creates the highest percentage of heat energy in relation to carbon dioxide formation of any hydrocarbon. More CO2 is created when larger hydrocarbon molecules are burned, in relation to the amount of heat energy liberated. This is why natural gas, which easily transported and burns purely, is the most used heat source in the average home environment. Unfortunately, there is not enough methane available for all our energy needs.

We have been aware that burning carbon-based sources liberated heat for a very long time. Thousands of years ago, primitive man used dry wood and coal stone to make fires that warmed them on cold nights and cooked their food. This energy helped them survive and hydrocarbon energy sources were widely sought out for use as fuels by the most primitive of humans. We continue to depend on carbon-based substances for fuel to this day almost exclusively, even with the development of modern, noncarbon-based energy sources.

Because there is so much carbon in the bodies of living creatures, much of it in the form of proteins, sugars and fats, many of the worlds available hydrocarbons come from organic sources. These organic compounds are made up primarily of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. As the bodies of living organisms break down and decompose after death the resulting compounds contain many hydrocarbons. After many years plant decomposition generally leads to the formation of coal deposits,  and animal decomposition can lead to the creation of oil.   

Methane comes from any number of carbon sources, both organic and inorganic, and is found in numerous places on earth, from our oceans and lakes to the permafrost of the Arctic and most places in between. Methane, in its form of natural gas, plus the coal and oil created from thousands of years of the decomposition of living organisms, are the 3 hydrocarbons most used as fuels in modern society. 

All of these hydrocarbons, when burned, release large amounts of energy, plus CO2 and water vapor into the ecosystem. It is this release of carbon dioxide which accompanies the release of energy that concerns those who care about the overall ecological health of the planet and it’s future survival.

Why are we concerned about the chemical properties of burning hydrocarbons and why did we spend all of this chapter so far on a high school chemistry lesson? It is because the burning of hydrocarbons was largely responsible for the creation of the machines that ushered in the Industrial Age in the mid to late 18th Century CE.

The use of hydrocarbon burning machines and machines that depend on them has grown exponentially since that time until the burning of hydrocarbons has become the basis for the entire industrial output of the world. This has come about largely because the alternatives to the use of carbon fuels to create energy have either been shown to be as or more dangerous to the environment as carbon or have proven to be more costly at their current level of development. The unique combination of the large amount of power produced per volume of fuel and the cost-effectiveness of their use has made the burning of hydrocarbons the primary method of obtaining energy on the planet.

It has only been recently that alternatives such as wind and solar energy to drive turbines, tapping geothermal energy to heat and cool buildings and the use of other chemical reactions to generate power have become viable as alternatives to the use of hydrocarbons as fuel. However, as the level of investment of energy producers in methods and machines using hydrocarbons is so great, they are very reluctant to take the necessary steps to convert their facilities to technologies that have yet to be proven to deliver the same amount of energy for the same or less cost. New and emerging alternative energy businesses have difficulty finding the resources to build production plants, either from political obfuscation “fueled” by corporate lobbying or the lack of venture capital for “unproven” profit sources.

So the use of carbon-based fuels continues, even in the face of science that tells us that the carbon dioxide byproduct of the combustion of these fuels is definitively damaging the Earth and its atmosphere, possibly irreversibly. Most of the so-called science that refutes this position has been directly commissioned by the very energy producers that have such a vested interest in the continued use of hydrocarbons as fuel. They spend a great deal of money trying to convince us that we are causing no serious damage to our world by our continued use of carbon fuels. They even try to tell us there are miracle carbon fuels out there, such as clean coal, when in fact there are none.

When the industrial revolution began, steam was the motive force used to drive the engines, dynamos, and turbines that created the energy necessary to power the large metal objects that did industrial work, and to move them from place to place. The energy needed to create steam through the boiling of water was supplied by carbon-based fuels, first wood then later the more efficient coal. Later, as the internal combustion engine was developed and perfected, smaller machines that burned liquid hydrocarbons such as kerosene and the gasoline that was refined from the newly significant fuel of oil made many tasks much easier. These small machines liberated both industry and the public from work that previously took large numbers of men and animals to accomplish. They were seen as great technological advancements that would relieve mankind from the type of laborious, backbreaking work that had been the norm. They were miracles that changed life as we know it forever.

These small machines liberated both industry and the public from work that previously took large numbers of men and animals to accomplish. They were seen as great technological advancements that would relieve mankind from the type of laborious, backbreaking work that had been the norm. They were miracles that changed life as we know it forever.

Concurrently, as electrical devices grew in number and sophistication, overall electrical needs skyrocketed. Turning dynamos was how electricity was generated and the energy needed to turn those dynamos was required in greater and greater quantities. Dynamos require some type of kinetic energy to work. The rushing currents of our nation’s rivers seemed a likely source of this kinetic energy. Large dams were built to harness the power of the rushing waters, turning dynamos to generate electricity. Electricity became more plentiful causing an even greater demand for power as rural electrification became a reality and even more electrical devices were made and put into use. Hydroelectric power seemed to be the answer to America’s ever-expanding energy needs. However, it soon became apparent that the damage done to the ecosystems of our rivers by the construction of so many dams was counterproductive. It wasn’t long before it was widely accepted that further development of hydroelectric power was not possible without extensive damage to large areas of arable and otherwise useful land.

The splitting of the atom was the next source of power thought to be the answer to our energy needs. The otherworldly power of the atom could, if the reactions were controlled, provide all the power we would ever need. As scientists harnessed the means to create atomic power scores of atomic reactor power stations were built. Once again the flush of excitement over this new energy source turned to doubt and fear as our understanding of the deleterious effects of radiation on human health matured. Atomic energy had a radioactive byproduct and this waste had to be kept somewhere. Originally it was thought that these wastes could be safely sequestered away from populated areas, but research began to show that these wastes, with their extremely long life of radioactivity, posed a great threat to life wherever they were hidden. America stopped building nuclear reactors for power.

In the face of the potential damage caused by further development of hydroelectric and atomic power and in answer to ever-increasing demand America turned to coal, a fuel that was both plentiful and seemingly much more innocuous than those other energy sources. Over the last 50 years, coal has increased as a source of energy around the world. Approximately 70% of China’s energy comes from the burning of coal. Even as the world supply of easily accessible oil is diminishing there remain vast supplies of coal and natural gas. 

This coal and gas was previously to costly to obtain. But new, if more damaging, methods of extraction have made them profitable for the energy companies to invest in. America, especially, has great amounts of these newly available energy sources. They have made the USA a total energy exporter rather than importer, changing our energy policy and solidifying the continued use of carbon-based energy sources.  

As we have moved into the 21st century, coal and other hydrocarbons account for a predominance of the world’s energy consumption. Many still see hydrocarbons as the most cost-efficient source of energy production moving well into the future.

We have accepted the burning of newly abundant hydrocarbons as the primary means of providing power to the entire planet, both on a macro scale in our power plants and on a micro scale in our cars, trains, planes, boats, lawnmowers, snowmobiles and other small engine products. As we increase our use of hydrocarbons we increase the emissions the burning of these fuels release into the atmosphere.

Our atmosphere is largely responsible for the ability of our earth to sustain life as we know it. The delicate balance of all the factors that go into this sustenance is difficult for us mere mortals to understand. The earth is so big and the atmosphere so vast that it is hard to get our heads around just how delicately the juxtaposition of forces that can dramatically affect life are aligned. The atmosphere supports life in many ways. 

First, it contains almost exactly the right proportion of gases to keep us alive. Our atmosphere contains approximately 21% oxygen. Humans require an atmosphere of at least 18% oxygen to survive. Complex interactions between plants and animals, plus atmospheric interactions of gases maintain this level of oxygen. As more oxygen is bound up in carbon dioxide from the burning of hydrocarbons and the destruction of massive areas of plant life in the Amazon jungle, our greatest source of oxygen, increases, the percentage of available oxygen in our air could decrease enough to make life uncomfortable, if not untenable, in a relatively short time.

Second, the layering of various levels of our atmosphere and their composition keep toxic atmospheric gases away from the surface. More importantly, they filter out and shield us from the more damaging frequencies of the sun’s energy emissions and guards us against the life-threatening effects of “cosmic rays”, emissions from deep space. Both of these forms of energy can radically alter human DNA, cause many cancers, and could burn us alive were we to be subjected to them over long periods of time.

Third and perhaps most important, the atmosphere keeps the surface temperature on the earth at a level that can support human life. Humans have a relatively small window of temperature in which they can thrive. Our atmosphere accomplishes maintaining this slim margin of acceptable surface heat through a complex and extremely delicate process whereby certain gases at certain levels in the atmosphere hold a certain amount of heat on the surface and allow a certain amount to escape. Through this process, the earth does not get too hot during warm periods nor too cold during cool periods. As the earth is tilted on an axis it moves closer and farther away from the sun as it revolves around it, causing the change in seasons. Without the atmosphere to temper the effects of heat and cold, life on earth would not exist. Dramatic changes to the composition of our atmosphere can affect the balance required to maintain the temperature within acceptable limits. The process is so delicate that though we see the atmosphere as vast, even small changes can have large effects.

As the earth is tilted on an axis it moves closer and farther away from the sun as it revolves around it, causing the change in seasons. Without the atmosphere to temper the effects of heat and cold, life on earth would not exist. Dramatic changes to the composition of our atmosphere can affect the balance required to maintain the temperature within acceptable limits. The process is so delicate that though we see the atmosphere as vast, even small changes can have large effects.

Even the most basic burning of hydrocarbons releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We have been burning hydrocarbons for fuel ever since the first wood fires. All living things contain carbon. Plant life has formed coal and animal life has formed oil. These are the two main forms of hydrocarbons used in energy creation today. In essence, man has been cannibalizing the lives of plants and animals, over millions of years, in just the last hundred years or so of the industrial age. Anyone with a soul can see we can’t go on like this. We must seek out other natural sources of energy such as the activity of the sun and the motion of the energy it creates, such as wind, ocean waves and biological processes, to further fuel our great need for energy. If not we will go the way of those who came before us to provide the coal and fuel we now use and life as we know it will cease to exist.

Anyone with a soul can see we can’t go on like this. We must seek out other natural sources of energy such as the activity of the sun and the motion of the energy it creates, such as wind, ocean waves and biological processes, to further fuel our great need for energy. If not we will go the way of those who came before us to provide the coal and fuel we now use and life as we know it will cease to exist.

Now you don’t. Now you see it.

We always knew it was a good album. We had worked hard, rehearsing and playing a few gigs at popular venues. We had a small but loyal following. It was unfortunate, but as many artists, we were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not so much a place to live, we all loved it here. But the wrong place and time to ply our trade. We were a power pop group complete with almost Brill Building like songs, three-part harmonies, a clean, 80’s white boy look and no niche in the area scene.

Our city was in the national spotlight. There was a funk and beyond superstar here and several loud sloppy nationally influential pre-grunge rock bands with great songwriters and au courant images. Pretty much all the local groups affected one of these styles or the other. That was allegedly what the big left coast labels were looking for, the next this or that, and several coattail groups did see the national stage.

We didn’t begrudge these guys their success. (Back then performing musicians were over 95% male.) Lots of them were our friends and it was great to see acts from our flyover hometown getting some props. Sure we wanted to be successful. We weren’t so driven as needing to play arenas to consider ourselves successful. But it would have been nice to tour and play mid-sized venues and have a few people know the words.

We recorded what we knew to be a really good album of its genre. And we got some airplay here and there. Nothing went viral. (They didn’t use that word back then.) The album was released on vinyl, barely ahead of the CD revolution. Folks everywhere were putting their turntables in mothballs, captivated by the convenience of the smaller software and quantum leap in dBs of signal to noise ratio. Not that many people even knew what a dB was, but the change was noticeable. Vinyl quickly fell out of favor.

We had some face cards stacked against us. But I for one was proud to have three songs, of my composition, recorded and released on a real, albeit smallish record label. It had been a goal of mine for many years and it was satisfying to have accomplished it. I wasn’t too concerned about it making a big splash. Our style of music was not only a little out of phase with our local scene. It was considered mostly the turf of British groups and few American bands sounded like that. I didn’t expect much.

Now, as usual, my lengthy explanation of things has left me hopelessly far away from what I really want to say. And it will undoubtedly take even longer to get there. One is supposed to reveal their main topic in the first paragraph, often repeating it as many as several times in different ways. Gotta grab those readers by the ____.


To make a short story long the owner of our ancient but nascent record label, thinking of new and unique ways to make a little money off his catalog, began shopping the label’s music to brokers, who placed music in films and television shows.

After a time several of the songs were given slots in shows. Our band had a song placed in an episode of a middling, streaming service series. No big deal but we all thought it was pretty cool and the songwriter splashed down some of his royalty money on wings and beer for the band. We hadn’t all been in the same place for a while. A good time was had by all.

Time marched on and the fun was pretty much forgotten when I got an email from the label owner stating that we had a song placed in a series called Stranger Things. I nearly fell out of my chair. Although no one else involved knew anything about the Netflix production, I, as a sci-fi fan, was very aware, I knew that it was one of the most anticipated series releases of the fall and had a huge, fanatical following.

I told the rest of the guys, who seemed to be underwhelmed but intrigued. I am subject to hyperbole and everyone knows it. I wasn’t swift to tell the world, although I knew this was very cool. These things can be, as Mike, the songwriter said, the equivalent of an audio walk-on.  I knew about this, having once spent 8 hours on a movie set in full costume and make-up only to be onscreen for 5 seconds with several hundred other aspiring actors. I didn’t expect much.

Yes, I was excited. No, I wasn’t looking for anything substantial. I’m Bi-Polar and as such need to stay away from manic highs. I tried to keep an even keel. Eventually, as the release of the second season grew nearer and promotion ramped up I decided I had to tell people. I was proud of my past work, and it seemed kind of miraculous that this was happening. I posted on social media and got quite a response. My daughter lost it and told everyone she knew. It was fulfilling to hear her say she was proud of me.

Lest my friends and family, and even a few people I didn’t know, would be disappointed I made certain that people knew our song might only be on for a few seconds. But Stranger Things has a reputation for featuring a who’s who of 80s music and there are nearly as many aficionados of the series music as there are of the series itself. I hadn’t really considered that fact, all the while expecting a very short appearance on the show.

Of course, I was right about the song. It was onscreen for less than ten seconds, in the background under dialogue. I apologized to my posse. (It isn’t really a posse, more of a curious few.) I received some encouragement. “It was still pretty cool” etc.. I felt kind of foolish at building up folk’s expectations. But the horse was out of the barn and obviously, I couldn’t change things.

Well, I hadn’t considered the music mania. More than a few websites published all the music from every episode, regardless of how long it was onscreen. There were links to all of the songs and often blurbs about the performers. We were always called an obscure unknown band. I didn’t mind. One blurb I particularly liked was from a British magazine which said we hadn’t bothered to visit the UK charts. But the song itself got a lot of praise. I was amazed. I mean come on, we were on a Spotify playlist with Motley Crüe, Duran Duran, and Ted Nugent.

Counting various streaming services, Youtube channels and a cool public access video shot in 1986 we’ve had over 125,000 streams and counting. We were featured on local network news, the largest local newspaper, and the top local alt radio station. We are featured on more than a few private Youtube playlists. We have been added to regular rotation on both internet and broadcast rock radio stations, some with international audiences of over a million listeners.

Are you kidding me? It’s kind of surreal. Really though, it doesn’t make me feel all that special. I mean everyone has something they do very very well. Would that they were widely recognized for it. Unfortunately, the world doesn’t work that way. But it brings me to the thing that I have been reminded of by this whole crazy experience, the thing I hope to leave you with if you have read this far.

All art is a real expression of someone’s soul. And all art is beautiful, even art most people consider ugly. There is always someone somewhere who appreciates it.  There is also very beautiful art and exceptionally beautiful art. Some of this art is recognized as exceptional in its time. Some is not seen as remarkable until after its time. And some is never recognized as great.

Yet, art is created beautiful and remains beautiful. It retains its beauty regardless of any other factor. And for the creator of the art, it is enough to know their art is beautiful, even if appears not to be.

Perhaps they depend on their art to make a living and can be disappointed it isn’t selling well enough to support themselves. They can become despondent that their art is not appreciated. They can abandon their art for whatever reason.

But I am certain that on their deathbed, should they be cogent, they look back lovingly on their creative process, their joy in giving something unique to the world. Something that is beautiful in their eyes and in their soul. Something that will always be beautiful.

It is their legacy and they are proud of pouring their being into it.

It is enough.

And we must remember.

It is something that is always available, to be revered.