INAUGURATION PART I: THE PREFACE - "I Do Solemnly Swear...”: A Historic Oath That Suddenly Means Nothing

(GAZETTE BLOG EDITOR'S NOTE: Inaugurations are supposed to be a big deal.  With that in mind, the Gazette has broken Trump's Tiring Tirade into manageable pieces.  Herein is "Part 1: The Preface" by beloved journalist Dan Rather.  Stay tuned.)

 

Pledge to uphold Constitution by a man who incited insurrection against its principles

 

Dan Rather. (photo: Stewart Volland/Vulture)

 

Dan Rather / Substack 21 January 25

 

The quadrennial celebration of our democracy, the inauguration of an incoming president, should instill pride in every American. But come Monday many will see more farce than fanfare.

One week from today, January 20, 2025, at precisely 12 noon, the peaceful transfer of power will occur in Washington, D.C., when Chief Justice John Roberts reads and Donald Trump repeats these 35 words:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The Presidential Oath of Office can be found in Article II, Section I, Clause 8 of the Constitution. These exact words have been spoken by every president since George Washington nearly 236 years ago.

The Constitution requires no elaborate ceremony, no parade, bands, or balls. It requires only a pledge by the incoming president to uphold the founding principles of our nation. In this case, that “pledge” will be made by a man who incited an insurrection against those very principles, and who has repeatedly said he will cherry-pick which constitutional principles to uphold.

The idea that Trump will once again be the guardian of our democracy is no doubt weighing on many of the 75 million Americans who didn’t vote for him and perhaps some who did.

The brief proceeding will begin with sharp irony as Chief Justice Roberts, whose Supreme Court has given the president immunity to act as he pleases, reads the oath. It will end with the absurdity of Trump responding that he will in fact preserve, protect, and defend a document that he has openly ridiculed. To wit:

The Constitution prescribes that Cabinet officers must be confirmed with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Trump has said he wants to bypass the confirmation process in favor of recess appointments, meaning no congressional oversight.

The Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution forbids the president from accepting money from foreign governments. According to a congressional investigation, Trump took in millions from other countries during his first term at his various properties.

Don’t forget the disqualification clause in the 14th Amendment that forbids former federal officials from seeking office if they’ve taken part in an insurrection. Trump dodged that one after the Supreme Court tossed the case.

Our founding document states that the president cannot repurpose money already approved by Congress. During his first term, Trump moved money appropriated for the military to build his border wall.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, which includes the right to openly criticize those with whom we don’t agree. Trump, who famously holds grudges against those who challenge him, does not interpret the First Amendment that way. For him, freedom of speech is reserved for those who support him. If you don’t, look out. Especially if you are a journalist. The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law that restricts freedom of the press. Trump has talked of jailing journalists and revoking broadcast licenses.

Then there is the freedom of assembly, such as the right to protest without fear of intimidation. Trump threatened to use the military to quell demonstrations after George Floyd was murdered.

How about the right to fair trial? That’s found in the Sixth Amendment. Trump has repeatedly said he will seek revenge against his perceived political opponents. Jack Smith, Liz Cheney, and others will need preemptive pardons or good lawyers.

The Constitution contains no laws, just the framework to make laws. It establishes three independent branches of government, each with its own powers, responsibilities, and checks on the powers of the other branches. For the next two years (at least), Trump will have control of both houses of a MAGA-led Congress that has not been shy in doing his bidding, even before he has taken the oath of office.

These are all provisions laid out in the Constitution. What about the norms that almost all preceding presidents have followed? Those we should be even more worried about.

The independence of the attorney general and choosing not to weaponize the Department of Justice to pursue a political agenda aren’t written anywhere and therefore not enforceable. They depend on the character of the president.

Let’s also not forget a federal judiciary stocked with Trump appointees, many of whom regularly hand down political-inspired decisions to benefit the president-elect. Trump’s classified documents case was dismissed by a judge he appointed.

The pomp and pageantry of our presidential inaugurations has always been emotional for me. After observing so much repression around the world, I was always proud to witness a peaceful and democratic transition of power here at home. That all changed four years ago when Trump incited a mob to overturn the election results, an action for which he will likely never be held accountable.

A reminder: The 22nd Amendment states that a president can serve only two terms. Trump has made noises about ignoring this stipulation, saying that because his terms were not consecutive, he can run again. That argument is meritless. The Constitution is clear.

Time to renew our hopes and prayers that our Constitution and our country survive a second and final Trump term.

Remember how he played through Covid causing an additional 80,000 Americans to die?  What will he play through this time around.

Thousands of Protestors March in Washington, D.C.

 

People attend the "People's March on Washington" ahead of the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, in Washington, D.C., Jan. 18, 2025. (photo: Jon Cherry/Reuters)

350 more marches taking place in every state

Linday Whitehurst and Ashraf Khalil / PBS 

19 January 25

 

Thousands of people from around the United States rallied in the nation’s capital Saturday for women’s reproductive rights and other causes they believe are under threat from the incoming Trump administration, reprising the original Women’s March days before President-elect Donald Trump’s second inauguration.

Eight years after the first historic Women’s March at the start of Trump’s first term, marchers said they were caught off guard by Trump’s victory and are determined now to show that support remains strong for women’s access to abortion, for transgender people, for combating climate change and other issues.

The march is just one of several protests, rallies and vigils focused on abortion, rights, immigration rights and the Israel-Hamas war planned in advance of inauguration Monday. Around the country, over 350 similar marches are taking place in every state.

Jill Parrish of Austin, Texas, said she initially bought a plane ticket to Washington for what she expected to be Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris’s inauguration. She wound up changing the dates to march in protest ahead of Trump’s swearing-in instead, saying the world should know that half of U.S. voters didn’t support Trump.

“Most importantly, I’m here to demonstrate my fear, about the state of our democracy,” Parrish said.

Demonstrators staged in squares around Washington ahead of the march, pounding drums and yelling chants under a slate-gray sky and in a chilly wind. Protesters then marched to the Lincoln Memorial for larger rally and fair, where organizations at the local, state and national level hosted information tables.

They held signs with slogans including, “Save America” and “Against abortions? Then don’t have one” and “Hate won’t win.”

There were brief moments of tension between protesters and Trump supporters. The march paused briefly when a man in a red Make America Great Again hat and a green camo backpack walked into a line of demonstrators at the front. Police intervened and separated him from the group peacefully as marchers chanted “We won’t take the bait.”

As the protesters approached the Washington Monument, a small group of men in MAGA hats walking in the opposite direction appeared to draw the attention of a protest leader with a megaphone. The leader veered closer to the group and began chanting “No Trump, no KKK” through the megaphone. The groups were separated by high black fencing and police officers eventually gathered around.

Rick Glatz, of Manchester, New Hampshire, said he came to Washington for the sake of his four granddaughters: ” I’m a grandpa. And that’s why I’m marching.”

Minnesota high school teacher Anna Bergman wore her original pink pussy hat from her time in the 2017 Women’s March, a moment that captured the shock and anger of progressives and moderates at Trump’s first win.

With Trump coming back now, “I just wanted to be surrounded by likeminded people on a day like today,” Bergman said.

Rebranded and reorganized, the rally has a new name — the People’s March — as a means to broaden support, especially during a reflective moment for progressive organizing after Trump’s decisive win in November. The Republican takes the oath of office Monday.

Women outraged over Trump’s 2016 presidential win flocked to Washington in 2017 and organized large rallies in cities throughout the country, building the base of a grassroots movement that became known as the Women’s March. The Washington rally alone attracted over 500,000 marchers, and millions more participated in local marches around the country, marking one of the largest single-day demonstrations in U.S. history.

This year, the crowd was far fewer than the expected 50,000 participants, already just one-tenth the size of the first march. The demonstration comes amid a restrained moment of reflection as many progressive voters navigate feelings of exhaustion, disappointment and despair after Harris’ loss.

“Before we do anything about democracy, we have to fight our own despair,” said one of the event’s first speakers, Rachel O’Leary Carmona, executive director of Women’s March.

The comparative quiet contrasts sharply with the white-knuckled fury of the inaugural rally as massive crowds shouted demands over megaphones and marched in pink pussyhats in response to Trump’s first election win.

“The reality is that it’s just hard to capture lightning in a bottle,” said Tamika Middleton, managing director at the Women’s March. “It was a really particular moment. In 2017, we had not seen a Trump presidency and the kind of vitriol that that represented.”

The movement fractured after that hugely successful day of protests over accusations that it was not diverse enough. 

This year’s rebrand as a People’s March is the result of an overhaul intended to broaden the group’s appeal. Saturday’s demonstration promoted themes related to feminism, racial justice, anti-militarization and other issues and ended with discussions hosted by various social justice organizations.

The People’s March is unusual in the “vast array of issues brought together under one umbrella,” said Jo Reger, a sociology professor who researches social movements at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. Women’s suffrage marches, for example, were focused on a specific goal of voting rights.

For a broad-based social justice movement such as the march, conflicting visions are impossible to avoid and there is “immense pressure” for organizers to meet everyone’s needs, Reger said. But she also said some discord isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

“Often what it does is bring change and bring in new perspectives, especially of underrepresented voices,” Reger said.

Middleton, of the Women’s March, said a massive demonstration like the one in 2017 was not the goal of Saturday’s event. Instead, it’s goal was focusing attention on a broader set of issues — women’s and reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, immigration, climate and democracy — rather than centering it more narrowly around Trump.

“We’re not thinking about the march as the endgame,” Middleton said. “How do we get those folks who show up into organizations and into their political homes so they can keep fighting in their communities long term?”

We shall overcome.

Allies Are Assets, You Morons

 

Then-President Donald Trump shakes hands with Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the then-prime minister of Denmark, in the Oval Office on March 30, 2017. (photo: Chimp Somodevilla/Getty)

 

"Threatening allies and partners is stupid and self-defeating"

 

Nicholas Grossman / The Bulwark 19 January 25 

 

Donald Trump is threatening America’s foreign partners. The United States, he says, will buy or take over Greenland (which is officially part of Denmark and doesn’t want to sell), turn Canada into the fifty-first state, and (re)take the Panama Canal.

He’s doing it in the “just joking (or maybe not)” style of internet trolls, which gives the troll an out—“I’m just kidding, lighten up”—while also laying the groundwork for future action if he decides that, actually, he wasn’t kidding. Does he really mean it? And if so, to what extent, intending which actions? Chances are he himself doesn’t know, and hasn’t put much thought into it. But whatever the level of seriousness, it harms U.S. interests.

Nevertheless, a variety of politicians and media rushed to defend the threats, or “sanewash” them by treating them as a coherent policy that must have a smart reason behind it somewhere. Besides the many Republicans who try to paint a rational, intellectual veneer on Trump’s impulses, there’s Democratic Sen. John Fetterman praising the Greenland threats as “smart.” Meanwhile, think tanks put out explainers like “Everything you need to know about Trump’s Greenland gambit,” and newspapers publish reports on public opinion asking, for example, “Do Americans want Trump to acquire Greenland?”—as if it were a normal policy proposal going through normal discussion.

All that misses the point. Whatever Trump’s intentions or lack thereof, threatening allies and partners is stupid and self-defeating. Following up with more verbal threats, economic pressure, or even military force would harm the United States.

Allies are assets. A good relationship means resources and knowledge to help with mutual challenges, access to foreign territory, economic benefits, and avoiding the costs of trying to force a foreign country to do something an ally would do upon request. Some international partners can be liabilities—for example, if they drag the United States into ill-advised wars—but Denmark, Greenland, Canada, and Panama haven’t done anything like that, and aren’t a threat to.

There’s no possible negotiation aided by these threats that will yield more for the United States than the good relationships do. And no possible military action, no matter how smooth, that would leave the United States in a stronger international position.

It’s true that Greenland is important to American national security interests. It’s a large island in the north Atlantic, part of a land-hopping path between North America and Europe. But the U.S. military is already the dominant power there. The region is controlled by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the U.S.-led alliance that includes Denmark.

The U.S. military already has a base on Greenland, active since 1951 (which shows the depth of the relationship). If there were a need to increase America’s force posture on Greenland, the United States could do it quickly, and Denmark would likely help, as would other regional allies, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. From a U.S. national security perspective, this situation is in hand and functioning well. NATO has unquestioned military superiority, with information flowing among mutually trusting allies.

Disrupting this situation would be detrimental to U.S. national security. America’s position would be considerably weaker without local buy-in—and cost a lot more. There’s no plausible scenario in which undermining America, Greenland, and Denmark’s relationship of mutual trust would be a national defense improvement.

Greenland has resources, such as rare earth minerals, and more may be discovered as the glaciers retreat. The easiest, most economically efficient path to exploiting those resources is a development deal with local authorities. The bedrock of security and economic cooperation is already in place, and ensuring locals get a piece of the windfall is almost always less expensive than suppressing their anger over being looted.

A SIMILAR POINT APPLIES TO CANADA, which Trump has been antagonizing with talk of making it the fifty-first state.

The United States gains a lot from its close partnership with Canada: a long land border that requires minimal military protection, extensive support for competition with Russia and others over the Arctic—increasingly important as sea ice melts, opening shipping lanes and easing access to natural resources—plus trusted intelligence sharing as a member of the closely knit “Five Eyes.” There are no potential U.S. national security benefits to disrupting the U.S.-Canada alliance, and many potential downsides.

Per the North Atlantic Treaty, Canada responded to the September 11th attacks on the United States as if they had been attacks on Canada. The Canadians not only housed Americans caught in the air when the United States closed its skies, but also helped defend American airspace against possible follow-on attacks as part of Operation Eagle Assist. And they deployed troops alongside American forces in Afghanistan. Denmark sent troops as well, and like Canada authorized them to conduct combat operations, which not all coalition members did. After Americans and Brits, Canadian forces endured the third-highest total number of deaths, while Denmark saw the highest losses per capita. If they weren’t there, those deaths would’ve been American.

Maybe Trump’s issue with Canada isn’t a security matter but an economic one. Trade, after all, is what Trump focuses on when he speaks ill of Canada, claiming that the United States heavily “subsidizes” its northern neighbor, by which he means that America has a trade deficit with Canada. But that’s absurd, as any economist can tell you, and many have surely told him. Trump has, over the years, often seemed not to grasp the concept of a trade deficit, but it’s not very complicated: A trade deficit means American consumers and corporations voluntarily buy more from Canada than Canadians buy from America. It’s not a problem—if anything it’s a sign of the health of the American economy. At the risk of oversimplifying, my employer has a trade deficit with me (they give me money in exchange for services) and I have a trade deficit with the supermarket (I give them money in exchange for food). We’re all benefiting.

Canada is one of the two biggest markets for American exports—vying year after year with Mexico—buying more from the United States than the twenty-seven EU countries combined, and more than twice as much as China. Canada’s biggest export by far to the United States is crude oil, which goes to American refineries, primarily on the Gulf Coast, to be shipped around the world at a profit for U.S. companies. America would lose out if more of the Canadian crude went elsewhere.

CANADA AND DENMARK ARE TREATY ALLIES of the United States, which Panama is not, but it is still an international partner that yields benefits for America. The United States built the Panama Canal early in the twentieth century. In the following decades, U.S. control caused increasing problems for U.S.-Panama relations, and in 1977 both sides signed a treaty that gave Panama control of the canal after 1999. American commercial and military ships traverse it when they want, and under the treaty, Panama accepted America’s right to use force if any foreign threat tries to disrupt the canal’s operations, so the United States has everything it needs from this arrangement.

Trump, however, claims that China controls the canal’s operations, which is a blatant lie. He claims Chinese spies are active there, which is probably true—they’re active just about everywhere, including Trump’s resort home, Mar-a-Lago—but the United States is in a much better position to counter it with the Panamanians friendly rather than hostile. The same point applies to Trump’s inaccurate claims that Panama controlling the canal hurts America economically. It’s cheaper for the United States if Panama runs it.

The U.S. military could take over the Panama Canal without much difficulty, at least in military terms. But that hardly means it’s costless. The United States invaded Panama in December 1989 after military dictator Manuel Noriega rejected election results. Ousting him took a month and a half, killed 23 Americans (with more than 300 injured) and 314 Panamanian military members, along with hundreds of Panamanian civilians. It cost $163.6 million on top of the normal military budget—more than $400 million in today’s dollars. And that’s just for a limited military operation that partnered with local opposition forces and left shortly thereafter. Maintaining military control of the canal would impose ongoing costs on the United States, especially if any Panamanian insurgency developed in response to foreign occupiers taking their major national asset. Then add the costs to international shipping—including between the East and West Coasts of the United States—when the canal closes, or is damaged, because of the ongoing military operations around it.

The friendly, treaty-governed relationships with Panama, Canada, and Denmark all serve U.S. national security and economic interests. The only thing Americans don’t currently get from those partnerships that they get from Trump’s threats is the bullying itself.

Voluntary, mutually beneficial partnerships are a core component of American power. Trump and everyone going along with him are throwing it away. And for what?

Y'all don't know what a tinhorn banana republic dictator is truly capable of until you see Der Draft Dodging Donald lead the charge on Greenland. 

 

Special counsel's Jan. 6 report releasd - slams Trump's 'unprecedented' crimes

Special counsel Jack Smith

Says Trump “engaged in unprecedented criminal effort to overturn legitimate results of election"

 

By Oliver Willis 

Daily Kos Staff

Tuesday, January 14, 2025 at 9:00:07a MST

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog 

By Oliver Willis Daily Kos StaffSpecial counsel Jack Smith released his report on the election interference case against Donald Trump on Monday night. The report summarized the case against Trump for his role in attempting to subvert and steal the 2020 election, which he lost to President Joe Biden.

Smith pulled the plug on the two federal cases against Trump following his 2024 election victory. Trump had been charged with multiple counts of defrauding the country, as well as obstructing official proceedings. He was also charged with multiple federal offenses for hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

In the report, Smith writes that Trump was “engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power” and “attempted to use the power and authority of the United States Government in furtherance of his scheme.”

The report notes that Trump attempted to get state officials to ignore election results showing millions of people had voted for Biden and instead pressured them to certify him as the winner, tried to get states to send fake electors for certification by the Electoral College, and pressured officials at the Department of Justice to call the election “corrupt.”

Trump followed up these actions by directing “an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election and then leverage rioters' violence to further delay it,” the report details, in reference to the Jan. 6 attack.

Insurrectionists loyal to President Donald Trump try to break through a police barrier, Jan. 6, 2021, at the Capitol in Washington.

Smith concludes that “the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial,” and that only Trump’s election win prevented that outcome.

The report finally surfaced after Trump’s lawyers attempted to hold up the document’s release and after pro-Trump U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon initially blocked the public from seeing the outcome of Smith’s investigation.

On social media, Trump raged about the release of the report.

“Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his ‘boss,’ Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another ‘Report’ based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were,” Trump wrote.

In his post, Trump also lied and claimed that he defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in a “landslide.” Trump’s margin of victory in the popular vote was 1.5%. By contrast, in the 2020 election he tried to steal, he lost to Biden by 4.5%.

Trump will never face a penalty for the allegations in the report, but he was convicted of multiple charges in New York for attempting to cover up his affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels. When he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, he will be the first convicted felon to assume the presidency. 

Trump is seeing red over Smith's report as he faces life as the first convicted felon to assume the presidency (you know, over that Stormy Daniels thing).

Bannon Condemns Musk as ‘Racist,’ ‘Truly Evil’

   

Sweet guy Steve Bannon. (photo: Luke MacGregor/Bloomberg)

Evil calls evil "evil" - vows to take "President" Musk Down

Chris Michael / Guardian UK 13 January 25

 In an escalation of discontent among the highest-profile far-right followers of Donald Trump, his former adviser Steve Bannon has called Trump’s newest favorite, Elon Musk, “racist” and a “truly evil guy”, pledging to “take this guy down” and kick him out of the Maga movement.

 In an interview with the Corriere della Sera newspaper in Italy, excerpts of which were published this weekend by Breitbart, Bannon criticised Musk’s embrace of some forms of immigration and vowed to ensure that Musk does not have top-level access to the White House.

“He is a truly evil guy, a very bad guy. I made it my personal thing to take this guy down,” Bannon said. “Before, because he put money in, I was prepared to tolerate it – I’m not prepared to tolerate it any more.”

He added: “I will have Elon Musk run out of here by inauguration day”, which falls on 20 January. “He will not have full access to the White House. He will be like any other person.”

Musk became one of Trump’s biggest cheerleaders, and certainly his richest, during the Republican’s ultimately successful campaign to regain the US presidency, spending reportedly about $270m and being rewarded with a place at Trump’s side ever since.

After his victory Trump tapped Musk to help lead an advisory group theoretically dedicated to cutting US government spending by up to $2tn, a quarter of its entire budget.

But Musk’s embrace of H-1B visas, which allow companies – such as Musk’s own SpaceX and Tesla – to hire skilled professionals and engineers from outside the US, has been taken badly by other Maga acolytes who are opposed to nearly all forms of immigration. Musk, who was born in South Africa, has himself held an H1-B visa.

“This thing of the H-1B visas, it’s about the entire immigration system is gamed by the tech overlords. They use it to their advantage. The people are furious,” said Bannon, whom Trump fired from his White House position during his first administration but who later reinvented himself through his War Room podcast as one of the chief evangelists of the Maga movement.

Bannon further widened his aim to attack Musk’s fellow tech giants Peter Thiel and David Sacks for having South African heritage.

“He [Musk] should go back to South Africa,” Bannon said. “Why do we have South Africans, the most racist people on earth, white South Africans, we have them making any comments at all on what goes on in the United States?”

Arguing that Musk’s “sole objective is to become a trillionaire” and calling him a proponent of “techno-feudalism on a global scale”, Bannon said, “I don’t support that and we’ll fight it,” adding: “He won’t fight. He’s got the maturity of a little boy.

“He will do anything to make sure that any one of his companies is protected or has a better deal or he makes more money.

“His aggregation of wealth, and then – through wealth – power: that’s what he’s focused on.”

He's mine, all mine: Jealous showdown of scumbags at the DT Corral.

How the Climate Crisis Fuels Devastating Wildfires: ‘We Have Tweaked Nature and Pissed It Off’

   

Firefighters tackle a wildfire. (photo: Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images)

 

"When you look at how we live, and what drives the life we live, we are a fire-based society." 

Victoria Namkung / Guardian UK 11 January 25 

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country  Gazette Blog 

When writing about the hot, dry Santa Ana winds and how they affect the behavior and imaginations of southern Californians, Joan Didion once said: “The winds show us how close to the edge we are.”

I’ve lived here my entire life. I evacuated my family’s hillside home as a teenager. I’ve experienced the surrealism of watching ash rain down from the sky more times than I can count. But there is something different, supercharged, about the hurricane-force winds that fueled this week’s catastrophic wildfires in Los Angeles.

We’re not just close to the edge. It feels like we’ve already gone overboard.

Over 10 million people live in LA county – more than the populations of most US states – and 150,000 of them remain under evacuation (another 166,800 residents are under evacuation warnings). At least 11 have died, more than 10,000 structures have been damaged or destroyed and hazardous smoke is compromising our already compromised air quality. The Los Angeles wildfires are on track to be the costliest in US history with some analysts projecting economic losses of $50 to $150bn.

Writer John Vaillant, an American and Canadian dual citizen who resides in Vancouver, is intimately familiar with colossal fires like the ones devouring Los Angeles. He’s the bestselling author of Fire Weather, a gripping account of Canada’s 2016 Fort McMurray fire and the relationship between fire and humans in a heating world that was a finalist for the Pulitzer prize and the National Book Award.

Throughout his work, Vaillant is clear about why these “21st-century fires” are so different from the ones I grew up with: it’s the climate crisis.

I spoke to Vaillant about these new fires we’re seeing, not just in Los Angeles, but in Paradise, California, and Maui, the role of the fossil-fuel industry and his advice for Angelenos right now.

We don’t know who or what exactly started the Los Angeles wildfires but what role has the fossil fuel industry played?

It’s certainly not the cause of the fires, but it is an enhancer, an enabler and an energizer of the fires. I coined a term in Fire Weather, which is “21st-century fires”. It burns fundamentally differently than it used to, and it’s responding to climate change and the atmosphere’s growing ability to hold heat at low elevations and heat everything around us. Climate science ain’t rocket science. When you make things hotter and drier, they burn more easily. We have basically tweaked nature, pissed it off and we have altered the climate of this planet in a way that makes it more hostile to our ambitions and safety.

How do you connect Canada’s 2016 Fort McMurray fire, which you documented extensively in your book, to other massive fires like we saw more recently in Paradise, Maui and now Los Angeles?

The intensity of the fire that burned through Fort McMurry in 2016, in the sub-Arctic of Canada when there was still ice on the lakes, burned basically the same way as the ones in LA. You had the drought, you had the fuel, you had the wind and that’s all you need. That can be recreated anywhere in the world. Any city can burn now. LA is effectively surrounded by fires and the wind will decide the fate of LA. That is a weird situation to be in, but it’s also a very honest one. I don’t care what business you’re in, nature owns 51% of it, at least. We act as if we own it. We share it. That’s what LA is discovering.

In your book, you propose that we replace the nomenclature homo sapiens with homo flagrans, which loosely translates to ‘burning man,’ to characterize our species. Why?

Homo sapiens, which is a generous name for us, means wise man, rational man. We have speech and we can organize and do incredible things and that’s awesome. Flagrans means fiery, it means outrageous. We are fiery, we are passionate, we do outrageous things, good and bad. So flagrans is not necessarily negative, it’s not homo horribilis, but it’s recognizing our allegiance to and entanglement with and dependence on combustion. We are a fire species. Fire is our enabler and it’s our superpower.

When you look at how we live, and what drives the life we live, we are a fire-based society. I’m watching cars just whispering along right now. There’s no smoke, there’s no fire, but there are raging violent explosions going on under the hood of these gasoline-powered cars. If you were to mount an engine on your kitchen table and run it, you’d go deaf from the noise and then you’d be dead from the emissions if you didn’t have the windows open, so that’s what we have under the hood of our car. You multiply that by every furnace, every water heater and when you look at the things in your house, everything is mediated some way through fire’s energy or fire’s heat.

We need to tip our hats to the engineers because that you and I can sit in a car together and have a conversation with that incredibly powerful engine banging away under the hood, but so expertly muffled and insulated and siphoned off that we don’t hear it, smell it or notice it. The engineering has enabled us to forget the real cost, which is the heat and emissions. They’re invisible to our eye, but the atmosphere knows and fire absolutely senses it and is capitalizing on it.

More people are waking up to that cost it seems.

Fire has no heart and soul; all it wants to do is grow and expand. There are analogies there if you look at how Amazon behaves or Elon Musk behaves or Walmart. The emphasis is on growth and it’s exciting to grow a company and have an idea that sells. 

But the act of creation can also be an engine of destruction. The dynamic with the shareholder engineers the conditions for institutional sociopathy. The CEO’s job is to create profits for the shareholders to keep them invested. You have to do that at all costs. Profit trumps everything else and that is sociopathic and it’s not reality-based because it doesn’t take into account the limits of nature and the limits of nature determine whether we live or die or prosper or fail and that’s the reckoning.

What role does the modern house play in intensifying fires like the ones in Los Angeles?

I’m walking around on a laminate floor made from petroleum distillates, so if that started burning it would start offgassing and it would make terribly toxic black smoke. I’m leaning on a sofa, this colossal sectional that’s completely synthetic. Synthetic is almost a euphemism for petroleum protects. I’m sitting on a couple barrels of gas here, but it’s disguised as pillows and cushions and it’s really comfortable. The TV is all plastic. The kitchen cupboard doors are particle board, held together with glue, which is flammable chemicals. A particle board door is going to burn very differently than a pine covered door from your great-grandmother’s house.

What would you say to political leaders and billionaires who put the blame for these fires on Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass or Governor Gavin Newsom?

Unfortunately, we have the most powerful people in the world trying to distract and obfuscate and frankly lie about this. The idea of leaders lying about science is so fundamentally wrong and damaging and civilization-corroding. What do you do when the future president of the United States attacks the most populous state in the union? Using every opportunity to foment division and partisanship is absolutely toxic – as toxic as supercharging the atmosphere with fossil fuels that make the entire world more combustible.

You have a whole bunch of people who are traumatized now. When you go back and see the place you live, or where you were raised, or where you raised your kids, and you see that smoking ruin and somewhere in there is your kid’s bed, that is a blade to the heart and that’s what any national leader, industrial leader should be focusing on.

What can people do to better prepare for fires in the future?

We need people to speak courageously about why we are in this situation and our role in it, but we don’t have the same control as a CEO does. We don’t have the same control as a city councilor who got installed by the petroleum industry to advocate for petroleum. There’s a program in Canada called FireSmart where firefighters come to your community and go over your yard and cul-de-sac and suggest cutting things down and pulling things back. They recommend removing things that are fuses for fuel.

We’ve moved back into the forest because it’s gorgeous to live there. The Palisades is the poster child for beautiful mountain forest living, but it’s flammable as hell, especially in a drought. We have to get humble and renegotiate our relationship to fire and also to water and petroleum. How do we keep you safe and conscious where you live?

What’s one piece of advice people in the Los Angeles area can use right now?

Don’t look at the fire, look at the wind. If the wind is blowing over you, it means the embers are, too. The fire could be 2 miles away, but if the wind is toward you, the embers are, too, and act accordingly.

Over 17,000 doctors warn Senate: RFK Jr. is 'actively dangerous'

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Donald Trump's pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

By Oliver Willis 

Daily Kos Staff

Thursday, January 09, 2025 at 6:01:08p MST

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog 

By Oliver Willis Daily Kos Staff A coalition of over 17,000 doctors sent a joint letter to the Senate, asking members to vote against Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to be secretary of health and human services under Donald Trump.

The Committee to Protect Health Care said in its letter that Kennedy is “not only unqualified to lead this essential agency—he is actively dangerous.” The group describes Trump’s decision to nominate him as “an affront to the principles of public health, the tireless dedication of medical professionals, and the trust that millions of Americans place in the health care system.”

Chief among the group’s concerns about Kennedy are his years promoting conspiracy theories about vaccines and his activism against vaccination. The letter describes Kennedy’s support for these unscientific notions as “direct threat to the safety of our patients and the public at large.”

Vaccination has historically been an extremely effective way to safeguard public health. Vaccination for HPV (human papillomavirus) prevents most cases of cervical cancer, while polio has nearly been eradicated after the deployment of a vaccine.

Despite these and many other successes, the group of doctors noted that in a 2022 speech, Kennedy compared vaccination policies to the actions of Nazi Germany. They also highlighted the work of Kennedy’s nonprofit, Children's Health Defense, in fighting against vaccination.

In its letter, the group also pointed out Kennedy’s 2019 trip to Samoa, during which he advocated against vaccines. The trip was followed by a major outbreak of measles there that killed more than 80 people (mostly babies and young children).

Public opinion polling has shown distrust for Kennedy because of his anti-science advocacy. In a Dec. 6-9 poll from Axios/Ipsos, only 30% of Americans said they trust Kennedy on health-related topics, ranking him 2 percentage points lower than Trump in the same survey.

Medical experts have said that if the Department of Health and Human Services follows Kennedy and deemphasizes support for vaccination and medical research, it could lead to a resurgence of key diseases and infections. Cases of measles and whooping cough, along with meningitis and polio, could explode under such policies.

Related story: RFK Jr. faces fresh scrutiny over alleged ties to deadly measles outbreak

When Trump was last in office, he misinformed and misled the public about the rampant COVID-19 pandemic. He argued that warm weather would lead to the virus dissipating and complained about masking to prevent the spread. Ultimately, more than 396,000 Americans died from COVID-19 while he was in power.

A successful nomination of Kennedy and the implementation of his anti-science ideas could make things much worse.

Trump's Covid crap policies killed thousands of Americans and Kennedy might very well out-kill him.