Letters to the Editor - Lakeville Journal - 2-9-17

If you voted for Donald Trump ...

If you voted for Donald Trump last November and are happy with what he is doing, then this letter is not for you.

On the other hand, if you voted for him and now find yourself confused or disillusioned, then this letter is for you.

For example, this letter is for you if you are concerned about the implicit and shadowy encouragement given to those who discriminate against Jews, Latinos, African-Americans, GLBTs and Muslims — that is, anyone other than white people. I am a white male and because of Trump’s careless and reckless actions, I am afraid for our country and the world.

If you believe this letter is for you, then make your voice heard and organize with others who may be disheartened or disillusioned. Communicate your thoughts and feelings through emails, letters and phone calls to both Republican and Democratic leaders alike.

One call from a disenchanted Trump supporter is probably worth 10 from those who already reject what he is doing.

“If we don’t stand for something, we will fall for anything.” 

John Carter

Lakeville

It’s what keeps me up at night

The writing is on the wall, not even subtle. President Trump, guided by his trusted advisor Stephen Bannon, seems headed for a “takeover.” “Shut up and comply with my directives or you are out,” is the premise. The apparent policy goal: build a legal foundation to “make America great again” — that is, as white as possible.

What are the steps to achieve such a goal? Create rationales for policies and executive orders that sound plausible, until scrutinized by facts. One such rationale: “to protect the American people” (a favorite among dictators). The recent executive orders regarding immigration are cases in point.

Why would the American people need protection from undocumented immigrants? It is well-known that undocumented immigrants (“intruders” is the name they are given by the far-right groups promoted by Bannon’s Breitbart News) have an extremely low rate of committing crimes. Undocumented immigrants, however, become “criminals” by definition since the president calls it a crime to be in this country without valid visa or green card (see the full text of his Jan. 25 order).

Foreign policy experts agree that immigrants from the seven countries to which the travel ban applies (Jan. 27 executive order) have never perpetrated terrorist acts in the USA. So why single them out? Take Rudy Giuliani’s explanation. The president asked him to create a “legal” rationale for a Muslim ban. The president’s duty to protect his country’s citizens fit the bill. Directives against dangers that do not exist are stupid at best and more likely indicative of an abuse of power. Worse, we have already heard ISIS rejoice in being given proof that the U.S. is “at war” with Muslims. The travel ban is an effective rationale indeed — for extremists to recruit more terrorists.

Steve Bannon is said to have drafted these executive orders. His track record of support for white nationalists who vilify Muslims is well-documented. Breitbart News from its London office currently disseminates xenophobic fake news in Europe, aiming to strengthen extreme rightist nationalist parties in France and Germany, and to break up the European Union.

The distressing executive orders with their destructive consequences may be but a small part of what is in store. We have already witnessed the president and his staff attack journalists and news media. Protests against actions of the current White House are growing daily. These political struggles are not just about party politics.

The writing on the wall: curtail and discourage people of color (whichever shade), people of Muslim background or religion, from feeling safe and at home in this country. Above all, shut the borders to nonwhites, cost what it may.

What more are we in for?

Postscript

“Before he came to power Hitler never succeeded in winning more than thirty-seven percent of votes in a free election. Had the remaining sixty-three percent of the German people been united in their opposition he could have never hoped to become Chancellor by legal means.”

—Alan Bullock,

“Hitler, a Study of Tyranny,” 1962 (revised edition) 

Elisabeth Kaestner

West Cornwall 

Climate change deniers hurt all

In a Jan. 26 letter, John Mauer says he’s a physicist, then serves up a piping hot helping of climate denial. When encountering a list of threadbare arguments such as Mauer’s, I turn to the website Skeptical Science, which has regularly updated pages on climate denial: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Here we find each of Mauer’s shibboleths debunked by researchers who actually know something about climate science. Mauer repeats the claim that climate models are unreliable, judging from the look he took at them “a few years back.” But climate models undergo constant refinement and improvement, and in fact their predictive power is impressive. He also suggests that the models have so many qualifications and caveats that they are unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific — another falsehood (or “alternative fact”). Just poke around the Skeptical Science website, and you’ll find refutations of all Mauer’s points.

One sign that you’re in a stagnant backwater, scientifically speaking —there’s no new research. The same denialist claims are trotted out, get debunked again by weary climate scientists, and then six months pass before the same arguments reappear, unchanged since their earlier refutation. Why is there so little new denialist research?

Readers who want to know more about how the denial game works should read a book by Erik M. Conway and Naomi Oreskes: “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.” The authors show how a highly paid group of scientists worked hard to obscure and minimize the growing evidence of the human role in worsening global warming. Denial is lucrative, too. In startling historical overlap, many of these same scientists were paid handsomely by the tobacco industry to dispute the mounting evidence of links between smoking and a number of diseases.

Mauer intones that science is never settled, and that it is conducted by evidence, not consensus. That’s certainly true. But when 97 percent of climate scientists accept that anthropogenic climate change is altering the world’s climate system, it’s worth taking notice. Lavish prizes await the scientist who could successfully challenge the 97 percent consensus. But that prodigy hasn’t come along yet.

Climate action is a growing, urgent priority. The Arctic is 36 degrees F warmer than usual this year. In Florida, saltwater intrusion into vulnerable coastal aquifers is an early warning sign of rising sea levels, with catastrophic implications for the state’s water supply. Worsening natural disasters are a danger for all of us here in Litchfield County.

The world knows from bitter experience that the first few policies to address climate change will be full of flaws and unintended consequences. Conservatives, fossil fuel advocates, and others could make a huge contribution by critiquing the proposed methods for dealing with climate impacts and coming up with their own presumably market-oriented measures. We need everyone’s best thinking. In their commitment to business as usual, though, denialists like Mauer hurt themselves and, indeed, the rest of us, by refusing to engage climate change in any meaningful way. 

Brian Thomas

West Cornwall