Trump Fascists' Attack On EPA Demands Political Warfare- From Scientists Too!

"I am merely following the advice from my resident Nazi, Mr. Bannon of Breitbart.com!"

Now we know the Trump gaggle of degenerates wants war- all out political war - as Bernie Sanders endorsed in a 40 second viral video from Jan. 20th.  Yesterday, under advice from Obersturmfuhrer Steve Bannon, the Trump administration instituted a media blackout at the Environmental Protection Agency and barred staff from awarding any new contracts or grants, part of a broader communications clampdown within the executive branch.

Emails sent to EPA staff and reviewed by The Associated Press also detailed specific prohibitions banning press releases, blog updates or posts to the agency’s social media accounts. According to one directive, likely penned in Bannon's office:

"Incoming media requests will be carefully screened. Only send out critical messages, as messages can be shared broadly and end up in the press.””

These prohibitions came to light-  thanks to a defiant EPA whistle blowing staffer-  as the agency moved to delay at least 30 environmental rules finalized in the closing months of President Barack Obama’s term. This is seen as a blatant first step to seeking to kill all the regulations. Many of these will directly impact the health and well being of citizens. For example, a summary of the actions posted in the Federal Register included a long list of regulations such as updated air pollution rulings for several states, renewable fuel standards and limits on the amount of formaldehyde that can leach from wood products. Oh, the Trump bunch wants to rescind water quality standards too, so you can guzzle more fracking carcinogens like benzene and xylene.

So the time for fun and games and mere speculation of what the blowhard asshole seated in the Oval Office might do is now over. This Swine -in -Chief and his henchmen, with their shuttering of the EPA and other Agency websites, information flow have now incited full scale political warfare. This  must now be declared, as Bernie did a week ago,  until this gang of reprobates is driven from power. And that must include scientists at the assorted agencies too,

Having worked in the space science research field for over two decades, and as a member of three  professional scientific organizations, I know how averse most members are to stepping into any political arena - especially in that era . The reasons are not hard to fathom, given in that era most grant money arrived from the federal government. Hence, the desire not to 'bite" the hand that feeds you.

But this is different, given science (especially climate and environmental) is now under existential threat from the illegitimate Trump maladministration. Hence, receiving money in any form from this fascist bunch of degenerates can now only be governed by extortion or the demand to lie and produce false data to receive $$$. This can't happen. Scientists, like it or not, must now engage in their own form of resistance and political warfare - including defying the imposed Trumpster gag rules and tweeting scientific facts - like the SD Badlands National Parks site did yesterday (informing citizens that the CO2 concentration at 404.93 ppm is now the highest in 650,000 years)

Scientists have already saved many gigs of actual data, enabling its protection from the predation and destruction of the Trump fascistas. Fortunately realizing they will need to destroy the actual climate facts to be able to spout "alternative facts". But they need to go even further, and that means setting up their own information and data release sites (maybe 'dark')  for citizens to access to stay in touch with real data.  They also need to rebel against any pseudo-authority imposed in the interest of doing the right thing to protect said data and get it to larger audiences. Sympathetic media outlets can greatly help here, including Bill Maher's Real Time, or John Oliver's 'Last Week Tonight'.

Leaks of information, defying the gag rule ban, can also be salutary and advance scientific integrity.. Indeed, it was thanks to an EPA scientist that we even know about this latest Trump abomination - as he took it upon himself to inform a congressional contact. The Trumpies had issued orders that no one was to talk about it, nada, but he defied these imps to get the word out. This is how more scientists will now have to act in defiance of the Trump Nazis and assholes.

In addition, scientists ensconced in agencies like the EPA, NOAA, NASA etc. must let us know - including by blog or defiant tweet or leak, what the nefarious Trumpistas are up to. If they plan to stack the agencies with fake climate scientists they must all be outed by name, including into what agency they're being insinuated. Citizens can then clobber them daily with phone messages, emails etc. or even protest in person at their DC offices or better, in front of their homes.  Everything goes in political warfare that is within the legal framework of constitutional action.

Bottom line, scientists can no longer retreat into enclaves of pseudo objectivity  but must be fully engaged - participating in political warfare and energized resistance.  Will this be partisan? How can it be otherwise when the other side is foursquare against the science? There is no issue here, of course it will be partisan!

Meanwhile, the professional science organizations like the AGU (American Geophysical Union), and Union of Concerned Scientists, must go all out to release data and current research. This basically  compensates for what their peers at NASA, NOAA etc. may not be able to do. This will put greater pressure on outside academic centers, which must not be intimidated in releasing research or data that (i.e. in new papers) that  is sourced from the gag-hamstrung agencies.  

You can also be sure that the substance of any available research papers will be presented here in this blog. I am not part of any government agency but still read current journals and am not averse to keeping fellow citizens informed, devil take the hindmost.

We're in a new era of asymmetric warfare and I will have more to write on more general political warfare in the near future, so that all citizens can get involved in doing more than just one off marches.

Stay tuned!

Is it "Unconstitutional" NOT to Pass a Constitutional Amendment? Of course not!

It is sad that so many Americans (mostly inadequately educated, i.e. never took a high school course in Government) have so little grasp of our Constitution that they're unable to reason clearly and thus become hostage to ideology and hysteria.  One of the uninformed tropes currently circulating in various parts of the Net is that it is "unconstitutional not to pass a particular Constitutional Amendment". 

If we are to take this literally it means that those proclaiming it think that just because the word "Constitutional" appears ("Constitutional Amendment".) then it HAS to be passed. Of course this is total nonsense!  If one understands the process for proposal and then ratification, it becomes clear that the arduous and difficult nature of each serves as insurance against stupid or unwise amendment proposals, i.e. such as against burning the flag to express symbolic dissent, or against government-based health care providing contraceptives.

The details of the process of passing a Constitutional Amendment are given in the Federal Register archives, and I reproduce them here in summary form:

"The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures.....

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).  "

 Note first that "the authority to amend" the Constitution (by Article V) doesn't mean that there is no authority to oppose it. Indeed, this is why there are two key parts to passage: 1) proposal and 2) ratification. Both provide steep impediments to passing foolish or frivolous Constitutional Amendments, e.g. such as outlawing contraception or abortion, or dictating that all atheists must register their name, addresses and get special IDs before they can vote.  Part (1) is a monumental barrier because two-thirds of BOTH Houses of congress are needed. Thus, any person with a degree of common sense can see (given how our congress is divided) that any given attempt at proposal is more likely to FAIL than succeed  - especially if it's a controversial issue like flag burning or abortion.

But getting the proposal through is only the beginning. Even if by some fortuitous circumstance two thirds of congress agrees and the proposal is completed and submitted to OFR for processing and publication - it now must be sent to the states where three-fourths must vote for ratification. The mere completion of the proposal or publication stage doesn't mean the Constitutional Amendment is a reality!

The fact that 38 of 50 states need to agree to ratify the amendment is probably the biggest hurdle of them all. Given how our electoral maps (even with gerrymandering) show clear 'blue' and 'red' states it means that any "red state" - proposed Constitutional amendment - say like banning abortion in the nation- has about as much chance of ratification in blue states as I have becoming a tourist to Mars before I croak. Thus, if there are 22 'blue states' and none of them ratify a given proposed Constitutional amendment it will fall ten short of the needed 38.

Thus, we see clearly that there is NO guarantee that just because something is proposed as a Constitutional Amendment, it deserves to be automatically ratified and become part of the Constitution.

This is not by happenstance, but by design. Watch the HBO series 'John Adams' again and the segments of the parts to do with the Constitutional Convention. The Founders were quite aware of how any obscene power monger might seek to impose his will via Constitutional amendments, so they deliberately made passage difficult, just as they rendered it difficult for one branch of government to supersede others in influence (via the separation of powers).

We should applaud the fact it is difficult to get Constitutional amendments ratified, not bellyache about a (probable) negative outcome being somehow "unconstitutional" - which only reveals a deep-seated ignorance of the amendment process.