Welcome to a discussion about the upcoming 5th Revolution in the US, which I’ve titled the “Revenge Revolution.” For more about the Revenge Revolution and the author, click “About the Author” tab.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US Entry #476 was the most recent “sense check.”

BEGIN ENTRY #496: For about the last four (4) years, I have been part of a group of fellow MIT alumni working on practical solutions to climate change.  The criteria for solutions are: (i) technology must be currently available or likely to be commercially available in the next say 10 years, preferably less.  This requirement would eliminate fusion and other technologies with long development times and problematic outcomes; (ii) technology must have a meaningful impact on reducing global warming – e.g., direct carbon capture is a tech at the margin; (iii) likely adoption of the technology must be at a rate to positively reduce global warming. 

Interestingly, assessing and selecting the technologies has been relatively easy.  There is a reasonably long list of technology available today that could help significantly reduce global warming worldwide. 

The most difficult problem is getting people to adopt technology.  Convincing people to even consider adopting is often a problem.  An example is getting people in the US to consider cooking on an electric stove rather than using natural gas.  Why the change?  Natural gas, which is primarily methane, leaks at all stages from the wellhead to transmission in the pipeline to even a bit at the stove. 

“Unburned” methane is 50+ times worse for global warming than methane when burned, or CO₂.  Switching to all-electric burners on a stove would have a major positive impact on reducing global warming.  If you want an immediate and intense reaction, try discussing the idea of switching with a committed cook.  

There are numerous other examples of difficulty getting people to consider even a slight change in behavior.  People seem to understand global warming in the abstract but do not relate to daily behavior. 

One of the early projects of the MIT group was drafting a “roadmap” of practical solutions.  Because of my background, I was the lead author for transitioning transportation out of fossil fuels.  During the drafting I tried to think of every option possible to help accelerate the adoption of zero-carbon transportation. 

At the end of the 18 months, I came up with a single answer.  Since publishing the roadmap, I’ve continued to rack my brain about how to get people to understand the need to take meaningful action to address causes of global warming. 

At the Federal/state level, the only viable option appears to be widespread mandates.  Such actions are not unprecedented — rationing during WWII, e.g.   However, before mandates can be implemented there needs to be an event that solidifies support for potential action.  

Without such an event — Pearl Harbor, e.g., in WWII — the likelihood of persuading legislators, Federal or state, seems remote.  Stating the obvious, the House of Representatives, in fact the entire Republican Party, seems to be unable to commit to governing.  I thought that might change after Trump was defeated in 2020 but the lack of will to govern seems to have intensified.  

In addition, a number of companies seem to be quietly backing away from their public commitments to address global warming.  Among the largest companies are ExxonMobil, Chevron, Delta Airlines and everyone’s least favorite utility, Duke Energy.  

All that said, I am reminded of a quote from Evert Dircksen, former senator from Illinois and Majority Leader. “The mind is no match for the heart in persuasion.”  

With Dirksen in mind, who like LBJ was great at persuading people, maybe efforts to persuade the public to adopt changes that reduce global warming should first focus on the “heart,” then focus on the “science.”

People under age 30 will be most affected by climate change.  Maybe those involved with efforts to reduce global warming need to encourage tactics used in other eras to persuade the public and politicians.  While each situation is a bit different, tugging on the heart strings has been effective over time.  An oft-cited example is the series of protests outside the White House during the Vietnam War, “Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”  

In a way, the stimulus to protest for action on climate change and against war in Vietnam is the same — early death.  Ironically, “early death” was an underlying theme of the support for WWII.  Not an early death on the battlefield but an early death of freedom in the US if Germany or Japan won the war.  While the theme of “early death” from no action on climate change might be and a bit controversial, it just might wake up the public and especially the under-30 group to start demanding change.

What does denying climate change have to do with the 5th US Revolution?  Look back in history and view actions of people who were faced with a grim situation over which they had little or no control.  Many of these groups rebelled against the ruling class, even though those in charge had more resources and many of those rebelling faced certain death. 

In other entries, I’ve referenced lyrics from the song made famous by Janis Joplin, “Me and Bobby McGee.”  The lyrics that seem appropriate here are, “Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose…” 

If the Federal government does not take meaningful action to address causes of global warming, both in the US and worldwide, then those who will be the most negatively affected by climate change could begin to revolt and implement actions on their own.  The under-30 group has nothing to lose by rebelling and overthrowing the Federal government.  Doing nothing means a shortened lifespan.  Rebelling means a chance of surviving.  What would you do? More thoughts on this in future entries.  END ENTRY #496

Other Topics. Interested in more info about climate change, what’s required to electrify a fleet of cars/trucks, what it was like to work day-to-day with Lee Iacocca and an array of other topics? Visit another page of this website, https://usrevolution5.com/jrd-thought-comments/

Welcome to a discussion about the upcoming 5th Revolution in the US, which I’ve titled the “Revenge Revolution.” For more about the Revenge Revolution and the author, Entry #1.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US Entry #476 was the most recent “sense check.”

BEGIN ENTRY #492: What lesson(s) can the US learn from the invasion of Israel by Hamas? The answer is remarkably simple, yet I’ve heard little, if any, serious discussion about possible lessons.

Yes, I understand most of the news is focused on events of the here-and-now, as it probably should be. The news is also heavily weighted toward devastation in Israel and Gaza.  There’s also increasing coverage about the Catch 22 situation facing the Palestinians.  Israel has ordered an evacuation of the northern part of Gaza.  But Gaza is so densely populated, there is no place to flee other than Egypt and, as of now, that border remains closed.

Israel also faces a Catch 22 – how to eliminate leadership of Hamas in an environment where any serious military incursion will result in significant civilian casualties.

Why did Hamas invade southern Israel? The answer is multifaceted and covers numerous opportunities lost or squandered by both sides over many years.  Which side is to blame? It is easy to blame Hamas, and rightly so, for all the deaths of civilians, especially children.

Israel also shares some blame.  In a limited effort so far to eliminate Hamas leadership, Israel cut off food, water and medical supplies.  Combined with the shelling of buildings believed to house Hamas fighters, many Palestinians have been injured or killed. By the time Israel completes a sweep of Gaza, many more civilians are likely to die. The situation is a no-win for both Israel and the non-combatant Palestinians.

If one steps back from the current chaos and asks, “why all the destruction?”, the answer seems obvious, at least to me.  When a country or territory, such as Gaza, is run by religious zealots, decisions no longer are based on facts, or what is good for the general populace. Decisions become based on the dogma of the religious leaders.

Look at Iran prior to the 1979 Revolution. The Shah was no Mother Theresa, but the population was  highly educated, the economy reasonably strong. Since the 1979 Revolution Iran has been run by hard right religious zealots. What’s happened to innovation, creativity and the economy? Downhill.  Many really creative and ambitious people have left the country.

Same with Russia.  Under Putin, Russia has suffered a brain drain and more fled when Russia invaded Ukraine. A stark comparison of the effect of openness and dogma is Korea.  The South is robust and a major economic force.  The North borders on starvation.

What’s this have to do with Israel and Hamas?  Israel first.  In order to stay in power, and try to avoid jail time on corruption charges, Benjamin Netanyahu secured the most recent tenure as prime minister by cutting a deal with the hard right Ultra-orthodox.  (Sound familiar?  Mmm, maybe Trump taught Netanyahu or vice versa.) As a result of the deal, government policies and actions have become more religiously focused and less focused on Israel’s founding commitment to be a model democracy.

Hamas, like Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority, is an “organization.”  In the early 2000’s, Hamas was elected by the people in Gaza to help transition Gaza to self-administration. Over the last 15+ years, Hamas has shifted from being a “governing body” helping run Gaza to focusing on try to annihilate Israel.

There’s much more of the story, but the lesson, for the US is this –  When the hard-right religious groups begin to control or heavily influence government decisions, the outcome is never good for the people and the country.

Over the last 30+ years, the Republicans have continued to shift to the right and court groups previously considered on the unacceptable outer edge. As the Party shifted, centrist Republicans lost control.  A recent high-profile example is the inability by Republicans to elect a Speaker of the House who is capable of getting legislation passed that can also be passed by the Senate, then signed by the president.

For centrist Republicans, the lesson from Hamas – fire the hard-right Freedom Caucus, or if that doesn’t work, or if you’re afraid to try, then cut a deal with Democrats to elect a Speaker than can get needed legislation moving again.

The lesson for US citizens  – keep in mind the US is not immune to what happened in Iran, Russia, North Korea, et al.  The US is not immune to conflicts like the one initiated by Hamas in Israel.  While the conflict might not be an invasion from Canada or Mexico, it could be another insurrection by the hard-right zealots – i.e., US Revolution V.  (Recall what happened in 1861?) END ENTRY #492:

Other Topics. Interested in more info about climate change, what’s required to electrify a fleet of cars/trucks, what it was like to work day-to-day with Lee Iacocca and an array of other topics? Visit another page of this website, https://usrevolution5.com/jrd-thought-comments/

Welcome to a discussion about the upcoming 5th Revolution in the US, which I’ve titled the “Revenge Revolution.” For more about the Revenge Revolution and the author, Entry #1.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US Entry #476 was the most recent “sense check.”

BEGIN ENTRY #483:: Some key decisions at the end of the 2022–23 term for SCOTUS were less surprising than the rationale justifying the decision. Three key decisions in particular seem to be laying the groundwork for the next opportunity to address the race issue.

Overturning affirmative action in college admissions was expected by a court that overturned Roe. The decision that negated President Biden’s Executive Order to waive a portion of student debt was another example of the Roberts’ Court stripping the authority of the executive branch that had been granted by Congress.  Another decision was allowing religious beliefs to justify being able to discriminate against another individual or group. 

Lots of ink this week and likely more next week about the impact of the affirmative action decision on college admissions, efforts by companies to diversify the workforce, etc. 

While the SCOTUS ruling effectively banned affirmative action, there was one notable exemption. Without any justification, the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts excluded the military academies from the decision, allowing the academies to use race in selecting candidates for admission.

Why are military academies so different from Harvard, University of North Carolina, and other academic institutions? No explanation offered. But, maybe, just maybe, the service academies want the officer corps to reflect the composition of enlisted personnel. Like many claims made by conservative Republicans, no supporting data or explanation was offered.

Where do these decisions lead? In 2010, the Roberts’ Court gave corporations more rights than individual citizens in the Citizens United case. In 2013, the Roberts’ Court ruling in the Shelby Country case gutted key provision of the Voting Rights Act, allowing states to essentially restrict voting rights, especially for people of color. In 2022 to the Roberts’ Court stripped women of any rights over their bodies in overturning Roe.

See a pattern here? There are more examples of the Roberts’ Court taking away rights rather than granting rights. 

What’s the next target for the Roberts’ Court?  My bet is overturning the 1954 case of Brown v Board of Education. Overturning Brown would allow SCOTUS to reinstate Plessy v Ferguson, which established justification for having “separate but equal” facilities in transportation, education et al.

Think overturning Brown is unrealistic?  Read the language of opinions by Roberts and Thomas in the affirmative action cases.  Frequent reference to the “equal protection” clause in the 14^th Amendment claiming that the clause prevents one segment of society from being favored over another. Since Republican appointees to SCOTUS often claim to be originalists, maybe they should consider why the 14^th Amendment was written. 

The 14^th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1866 and ratified in 1868.  I guess Roberts and the originalist gang failed history in high school or conveniently forgot the 14^th Amendment was passed to protect blacks following the Civil War.  Was Roberts thinking, “Never mind history.  I need to make this decision seem rational, no matter how illogical.”

By the standards of the Roberts’ gang,  Brown effectively favors blacks by forcing the busing of children to white schools.  Brown also discriminates against whites by being bussed to what often are or were predominately black schools.  Brown discriminates against both groups by taking away rights to attend neighborhood schools.

Thus, Brown is effectively an affirmative action program for blacks, which SCOTUS ruled as unfair.  Therefore, to ensure there is no discrimination against any citizen, the only solution is to reinstate Plessy.  Reinstating a “separate-but-equal“ school system is a fair and equitable solution that allows children to attend neighborhood schools.

Reinstating Plessy seems far-fetched? No, I’ll bet the far right is preparing to file, if not having already done so, a challenge to Broun. The challenge likely will be filed in the 5^th Circuit, which includes Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, and is packed with far-right judges. These judges then will allow the case to go forward to the Supreme Court.

What is the cumulative effect of the last decade of SCOTUS decisions?  Will the decisions affect the likelihood of a more intense 5^th US Revolution, the Revenge Revolution? Constantly taking away individual rights – women’s right to choose, voting rights of non-white groups, equal protection of LBGTQ community, etc. – creates frustration and anger.  Women are angry about overturning Roe. While the affirmative action decision is less controversial than Roe, for those affected, the frustration may be comparable.

SCOTUS decisions that seem heavily weighted toward favoring a Republican base of white Christians, mostly men, plus the continued drip, drip of corruption of behavior by Thomas, Alito, and even Roberts, are intensifying the frustration.  There’s a saying I saw on an apron that seems to sum up the long-term problem for SCOTUS and Republicans – “When mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.”   

As we approach July 4^th, 2023, mama and many others ain’t happy.  And what Republicans and far-right SCOTUS justices seem to have overlooked, is their bizarre interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment has resulted in widespread ownership of firearms among the frustrated majority.  These actions increase the likelihood of a more intense Revenge Revolution, which has already started but not yet boiled over.

Other Topics. Interested in more info about climate change, what’s required to electrify a fleet of cars/trucks, what it was like to work day-to-day with Lee Iacocca and an array of other topics? Visit another page of this website, https://usrevolution5.com/jrd-thought-comments/

Welcome to a discussion about the upcoming 5th Revolution in the US, which I’ve titled the “Revenge Revolution.” For more about the Revenge Revolution and the author, Entry #1.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US Entry #476 was the most recent “sense check.”

BEGIN ENTRY #482: You don’t need to think about this issue for very long. Why do certain SCOTUS justices think the law and/or ethics rules do not apply to them?

And which SCOTUS justices squawk the most about the importance of ethical behavior?  Yes, the same SCOTUS scum justices who flagrantly ignore any standard of ethical behavior.

The SCOTUS scum-justices are undermining the credibility of the Court.  The flagrant disregard of basic ethical and moral standards by certain justices is no surprise to anyone who regularly follows Supreme Court decisions and how each justice votes. To paraphrase Shakespeare, “Methinks certain Supreme Court Justices doth protest too much.”

The ethics of Clarence Thomas have always been in question. Thomas, aka Porno Man, never should have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee – shame on you then Senator and committee chairman Joe Biden – let alone confirmed by the entire Senate. Thomas was the token black proposed by Republicans to replace the legendary Thurgood Marshall. Who knows how much money Thomas was paid upfront to agree to keep his mouth shut, and always vote with conservatives. We know he’s been paid regularly since joining the court. We just don’t know how much.

Samuel Alito, the holier-than-thou justice, vigorously denied that his all-expenses paid sojourn to Alaska with a billionaire had any influence on his decision on the numerous cases before the court in which the billion’s company was involved.   Alito mounted his defense of the sojourn and failure to report it by opining an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.  The op-ed piece was published before the release of the article by ProPublica, which had sent him a courtesy copy to review.  The defense by Sinning Sam Alito was laughable by any standard.

Anyone who has studied human behavior knows that past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior. If Alito is prone to preempt publication of articles,  I wonder who leaked the decision in the Dobbs case that overturned Roe – and who wrote the majority opinion?  Oh, yes, Alito – and who might have leaked the decision in the Citizens United case?

The source of leaks never has been investigated adequately. A good first step by the Chief Justice would be to approve a 3^rd party professional – FBI or Federal prosecutor – to conduct a series of serious and professional interviews, starting with Alito.

While we’re on the subject of Roberts, his unethical behavior is not as blatant as either Thomas or Alito. However, Roberts as chief justice has an obligation to the country to rein in justices who do not follow the rules re reporting and recusal.  I can only imagine the uproar from Republicans if one of the more liberal justices had exhibited behavior 1/10 as egregious as either Thomas or Alito.

Roberts term  as chief justice will go down as possibly the worst since the beginning of the 20th century. While some decisions were questionable, the real problem for the Roberts court is the behavior of some justices. This behavior has contributed to a precipitous and sustained decline in the US public’s confidence in the Supreme Court. Roberts, it’s time to start a turnaround program and rebuild public confidence.  A good first step would be getting the two SCOTUS scums off the bench. END #482

Other Topics. Interested in more info about climate change, what’s required to electrify a fleet of cars/trucks, what it was like to work day-to-day with Lee Iacocca and an array of other topics? Visit another page of this website, https://usrevolution5.com/jrd-thought-comments/