Can We Still Be Friends?

© American Psychological Association

That may be the biggest question resulting from the outcome of our recent Presidential election. Many of us were shocked to find that close personal friends were opposed in the choice of candidates that we endorsed, however enthusiastically or reluctantly. The candidates were not nearly as important as the values, ethics, and potential policy decisions they represented, and that is of course what is at the core of our national divide. "Splintering" is more like it, actually. So, how do we reconcile with those closest to us? Do we want to? I would say that we must at least make the attempt. Here, I'll start.

What I cannot fathom, as someone who was greatly enthused by Bernie Sanders, and reluctantly supportive of Hillary Clinton, is how some of my friends could willingly sacrifice values that I thought we had in common, for the sake of a very vague description of "change." How can you be an ardent wildlife conservationist, for example, and potentially be throwing public lands under the bus when it seems abundantly clear that a Trump presidency will not value biodiversity and wild places at all? Please explain that.

How can you claim to value human diversity and vote for a candidate who has made it abundantly clear that only the most beautiful people deserve good things, that women are to be servants of men, and that immigrants and refugees have brought only grief and strife to the White Privileged class instead of enriching our collective souls as they do? If you believe, as I do, that a candidate's vocabulary and gestures and other behaviors predict his or her potential actions once in office, then how can you not be genuinely frightened of the prospects? Hey, I was appalled by the "basket of deplorables" quote, too. What was shocking was how stark that comment was in comparison to an otherwise mostly positive picture Clinton painted of the electorate.

Perhaps one thing we can agree on is that no presidential candidate in recent history, maybe even in our lifetimes, has been someone we can personally relate to. Time and time again we are forced to choose between ultra-wealthy, arguably elitist, representatives of a corporate-dominated business world that looks out only for itself, its shareholders, and its CEOs. Employees, consumers, and our environment and climate are expendable, if not actual obstacles to success. Why can't you see that?! Actually, enough people do see that, enough that it nearly got Sanders the democratic nomination. The bullying tactics of the Democratic National Committee are what delivered Clinton instead. Meanwhile the fumbling ineptitude of the Republican National Committee permitted the rise of President Trump.

Ok, back to our basic question of whether we can be friends. It boils down to the "I feel your pain" scenario. If you do not have empathy for each other's fears of what could have been (Clinton) or what could come (Trump), then we don't have hope. We have to clearly articulate those sentiments, fearlessly, and then listen to the other side without judgment. We have to realize that we need to help each other rise, start electing each other, putting those people who we can relate to into places of power where we know we will be listened to.

We live at a unique time in which social media and the digital age are leveling the playing field. We don't have to appeal to corporate interests to run for office. We have Facebook, Kickstarter, GoFundMe, and so many other campaign options at our disposal that bypass the traditional gauntlets. We can do this. First, though, we have to stay friends.

State of the Union Divide

My new masquerade in the interest of personal safety: As White and Patriotic as possible

Never have I felt such a sense of being misplaced as I do right now in the wake of this U.S. election cycle. I was less anxious after September 11, 2001. The title of this post is misleading, too. We are not a country divided, we are a nation that is shattered. Placing the entire federal government leadership in the hands of a single party sets up the potential for unimaginable tragedy.

The working class, the poor, minorities, immigrants ("illegal" or documented), the LGBTQ community, women, children, and many other conveniently-lumped groups of human beings have legitimate, profound complaints with current leadership. About the only group without an axe to grind are those with White Male Privilege, yet we elected about the most privileged White (well, orange, close enough) male possible to the highest office in the land. Yes, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rammed Hillary Clinton down our throats when it was glaringly apparent that Bernie Sanders was a cut above, able to address fully the wealth inequality that is at the core of the angst of the electorate; and without any attendant scandal. Still.

Part of the problem is that our electorate is so fragmented that their votes are based on a single issue. Blacks want a leader who will keep them alive, then, hopefully, give them more opportunity for advancement in society. Republicans are not going to reduce mass incarcerations, let alone pledge a moratorium on fatal shootings by police.

Meanwhile, immigrants from everywhere, not just south of the border, want equal opportunity. We need to work on overcoming language barriers, but they are not "taking our jobs" as many would have us believe. Frankly, nobody should be doing dangerous work like that of migrant workers for a sub-minimum wage, without proper healthcare, nutritious food, and secure lodging. "Cheap labor" is an insult that encourages poor performance, a litigious society (lawsuits are viewed as getting what the plaintiff feels is owed to them already), and a screw-you attitude toward our nation as a whole. After all, look who literally prospers from the fruits of their labor.

Women did not vote in overwhelming numbers for Clinton. I suspect many wanted the symbolism of a female leader, but were uncomfortable associating themselves (or their votes) with someone of dubious repute. Did she earn her way to the top by sticking to her values and principles, or did she compromise time and time again to survive and advance? Why they saw Trump as a viable alternative is beyond me.

Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the campaign leading up to the election was, well, the campaign. The media failed completely in holding discussion to issues of core importance. Trump was, is, and always will be, an entertainer first, a businessman second, and everything else a distant third. He was allowed to take his act, unrestrained, to every debate, town hall, and public appearance. Don Rickles could not have done it better. The insults. The distractions. The vulgar humor.

The act of running the country, however, is not a celebrity roast, or even a reality television show. It takes diplomacy, of which Trump has demonstrated zero aptitude. It takes tolerance, to which Trump has turned a deaf ear. It takes humility, for which Trump scores in negative numbers.

Trump appealed because he gave us the promise that all we had to do was elect him and all our problems would magically disappear, like he is the Great Houdini or something. Again, the showman emerges, with no substance behind it. Are we so lazy that we will freely admit we want someone else to do the work, even if that "work" in the short term undermines long range opportunities for prosperity for ourselves, our children, and others?

Despite the results, I would still like to believe the majority of U.S. citizens want our nation to be an example of charity and good will, both at home and abroad. We believe in rewarding good work, holding ourselves and each other accountable for our actions or lack thereof, and actively punishing wrongdoing.

What I fear is that a sizeable minority will take this political moment as a sign that they have permission to exercise their White Male Privilege even more destructively than is currently the case. Trump rallies have been a horror show in this regard, and I am not looking forward to inauguration day. There may be civil unrest for months, but the good news is there will no longer be complacency from any party dedicated to civil rights. We have clearly been living under a false sense of security.

Left to political devices and political "will" and whims alone, we are never going to rise to our true potential as a nation. We don't have all the answers, either, and until we embrace the successes and innovations of other countries as well as those here at home, we will flounder; and enjoy a global reputation as a population of gluttonous egomaniacs. Sound familiar? I'm Eric Eaton, and I approved this message.

Women, Nasty and Otherwise

I have concluded that I am completely unqualified to write about the fairer sex. Oops, I did it again. I probably just offended thousands of feminists with a phrase that was considered complimentary back in the day. The following is not meant to be humorous, or flippant, but a reflection of an honest struggle to achieve personal understanding of how to relate to the opposite gender in a positive way, both personally and as a society.

© Midult.com

There are countless examples of sayings that should no longer be part of our societal conversation. "A woman's place is in the home." Utter that, and you deserve to be slapped upside the head. Every son knows that if someone calls him a "momma's boy," it is not intended as a compliment. Well, why not? What is wrong with having empathy, compassion, and at least some degree of sensitivity? We have very few words in our collective vocabulary that paint a positive picture of females, but suddenly, thanks to a certain high-profile political race, "nasty woman" is embraced as a badge of honor. Meanwhile, we throw around labels like b***h, diva, and whatnot every day. No wonder we are confused.

We call our entire species "mankind." We call God "Our Father." Jesus....Jesus was a man! The whole construct of human history, myth, and "progress" is overwhelmingly male-centered. Women have always been a footnote while men have left a footprint.

Back to day-to-day gender relations. Even chivalry may have ulterior motives. Are we being a gentleman when we hold open the door, or do we just want to watch your a** go through it? I suspect it is a little bit of both. I guarantee that I have offended entirely too many women throughout my life, knowingly or not. Today, I can no longer claim ignorance, cannot continue to make assumptions, or otherwise believe I know how to conduct myself in the presence of women. I may no longer attempt a hug without an unequivocal invitation to do so.

Now, women object to suggestions they should smile. There is open hostility from pent-up rage and resentment over Male Privilege. No one can blame them. They face daily the insidious if not outright blatant vulgarities of male dominance and expectation of subordination and male-defined femininity. The fact is, men have no clue as to what the average woman has gone through in her life, how many are victims of sexual assault, attempted assault, harassment, discrimination, and/or any other form of abuse. Guys, even your closest female friends are unlikely to let on if they have faced these crimes. They are also not likely to tell you if you are behaving inappropriately.

I carry guilt for myself, and for men in general. I am ruled by hormones to this day, I admit it; but that is no excuse for bad behavior, let alone criminal behavior. I hope that I am not a jerk, but I am lustful, no question. It is not a quality I am particularly proud of, but it is a facet of my being I have come to accept.

What was once considered polite and courteous is now considered condescending and patronizing. Men no longer have a language for women that is acceptable to women, and frankly I am not sure how that can be resolved. Tension between the sexes is at an all-time high. Part of the reason for this is the rise of women into positions of social, political, and economic power. It is about time that happened, but it makes the Good Old Boys network nervous. These men then regress into childish, but still hostile, language and behavior in a desperate attempt to return current situations to more familiar but oppressive norms.

Furthermore, masculinity, in America at least, is built largely on your history of sexual conquests and your "success" in manipulating women to suit your needs and desires. There are no rules, just goals, if you can call getting laid a goal. Losing one's virginity is the standard rite of passage for teenage boys seeking manhood, along with getting your first car. What the hell?

So, here we are in a "swipe right" society, pretending we still care about dignity and respect. Alas we are shallow. It is the sad luxury of too large a population where there are always more fish in the sea, and our relationships on the whole are superficial. When all is said and done, though, one old saying still rings true: "Women: can't live without 'em."

Suicide Prevention Month

September has been National Suicide Prevention Month. That seems like a great idea; so why am I struggling with the concept? Between friends, families of friends, and friends of friends, I have entirely too much personal experience with suicide and would not wish to visit that kind of ordeal on my worst enemy. Still, the idea of depriving an individual of death on their terms seems equally wrong.

© SPRC.org

Looking at our society's schizophrenic approach to dealing with suicide, I can see I am not alone in my ambivalence. This November there will be a ballot issue (Proposition 106- "End of Life Options Act") seeking the legalization of physician-assisted suicide here in Colorado. Citizens in my home state of Oregon have had this legal recourse for some time already. At the same time, suicide is generally regarded as the "coward's way out," an ultimate sin just this side of murder. Why the polar opposite opinions?

I think we tend to draw the line based on what we interpret to be the intent of the victim in carrying out their lethal measures. Did the person do this to end their own suffering? If so, while tragic, we can comprehend it to a degree at least. If not, then we view suicide as punishment for those left behind, abandoned literally or figuratively. Few, if any, decisions we make impact only ourselves. Life-altering and life-ending rationales obviously stress a great many others.

It is only natural to feel conflicted on this issue. We are by nature selfish organisms. We want our loved ones and friends around for as long as we are, to give us comfort, to provide us with joy, love, counsel, and all the other positives that come from personal relationships. Just the same, if we truly love someone, we have to recognize the boundaries for personal decisions like suicide do not encompass us. We can choose only how we react in the aftermath.

Janet Adkins was the wife of my Boy Scout Troop Leader, Ron Adkins, and mother to three boys who were my friend, classmate, and friend respectively. When she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, she turned to Dr. Jack Kevorkian to help her end her life. June 4, 1990, she did so, with the blessings of her family and friends. Anyone who knew the Adkins family knows that they did not reach this decision without a great degree of deliberation and mutual understanding. At the time, Alzheimer's was in no way treatable and both patient and family endured horrific emotional suffering. Mrs. Adkins did not want to visit that hell on her children and husband. I respect that and marvel at their resolve in the face of the public spotlight.

More recently, a dear friend and colleague apparently ended her own life after suffering decades of severe depression. The family is understandably quiet in the name of privacy and respect, but it seems an inescapable conclusion. I desperately wish they did not feel stigmatized if that is what happened. We have no right to demand that a person, no matter how much we love them, continue to endure excruciating pain, be it physical, psychological, or emotional, just for our own benefit. That is not love, that is the worst kind of selfishness. If you consider suicide a sin, maybe the real sin is in believing that you have any stake in determining how someone else lives their life, or decides to end it. Have you ever thought about it that way?

Don't look for the "healthcare system" to have mercy on you, either. The horrible truth is that no matter what our personal suffering, we are precious lives in the economic sense. The medical marketplace will twist and distort your sense of self in every way imaginable if it preserves your living, dollar-spending soul. We are not good at healthcare, but even worse at deathcare. The system will cling and claw until it can no longer drain you of any more financial blood. It is extremely convincing, to the point that it will turn surviving family members against your own desire for eternal peace.

So, this is what we need to prevent: the extension of life beyond the wishes of the individual affected. We need to prevent bullying, harassment, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and other willful behaviors that cause unbearable suffering leading to suicides on impulse. We need to stop allowing for-profit entities from sticking their noses and money-grubbing fingers into the ultimate of personal decisions.

To friends and family who have chosen to end their lives: Worry not. Rest in the peace that you deserve. There is nothing for which you need forgiveness from me. Nothing. I know that all the king's horses, all the king's men, and all the love in the world could not have saved you. And that's ok. Love, Eric

Happy (Belated) B-day NPS

I am overdue in wishing the National Park Service a happy 100th birthday, which they celebrated back on August 25th. Apparently it is more properly the centennial anniversary, but whatever. My own love affair with our national parks dates back to my childhood, and I don't see the passion ending anytime soon.

Growing up in Oregon, we did not have many national parks or monuments in the 1960s and 1970s, but I found my way to them anyway. My father enjoyed driving, and made sure to get me to Oregon's scenic wonders like Crater Lake and Oregon Caves. Through the Boy Scouts (traditional and Explorer Post) I also explored other areas like Newberry Crater in central Oregon. In 1990, long after I left Oregon, the crater became Newberry National Volcanic Monument.

At the end of my junior year of high school, my mother took me on a cross-country vacation to visit relatives and friends in St. Louis, Missouri, New York City, Washington, DC, and Florida. Obviously, we hit a number of national landmarks along the way. One highlight I still remember vividly was visiting Everglades National Park. Before we embarked from Oregon, I tried to secure a permit to collect insects in the park, or at least a visit to the Archbold Biological Research Station. Neither of those things happened, but it did not diminish my experience.

Me at the Everglades in June, 1978

We took a route through Homestead, Florida to the park entrance there, and then headed for the Anhinga Trail. Ironically, the Royal Palm Visitor Center there had a wonderful insect collection on display. Outside the door, an armada of dragonflies was engaged in a swirling feeding swarm over the lawn. Strolling the boardwalk, I remember thinking it was just like Wild Kingdom, the television show hosted by Marlin Perkins. You could see fish, the occasional alligator, birds of every description....There was even a soft-shelled turtle basking right beside the trail.

Since I could not collect inside the park boundary, we drove just outside, where I found a pair of Eastern Lubber Grasshoppers, huge insects that, though harmless, are still intimidating to a kid from Oregon who is not accustomed to such giants. I saw a big Black Ratsnake, and mud dauber nests coating the underside of a bridge. This remains, however, one of only two times I have stopped collecting or observing insects....because of insects. Biting flies were whining incessantly in my ears, and I was sweating off repellent by the gallon.

Most recently, my wife and I visited Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. We entered on the South Rim. Thirty dollars buys you seven days of sightseeing there. That may sound exorbitant, but trust me, it is worth it, if not downright underpriced. No sooner had we left to kiosk where we got our visitor's pass than we almost collided with a coyote that was about to cross the road. Not even one hundred yards later, another car had pulled over, the occupants enjoying a view of a small elk herd.

Heidi at the Grand Canyon in August, 2016

The Grand Canyon gets a lot of hype, but it backs it up. The scenery is indeed spectacular, but the wild flora and fauna are plentiful and engaging. No one is in a bad mood. Few people are loud. The park literally creates a silencing awe and commands respect that transfers over into interpersonal relations with other tourists. It is the United Nations of nature.

That's it! The national parks are our parks, yes, but they also belong to the world, and people come from all over the globe to experience them. They are also treated, usually, to the best in American hospitality. The lodges and restaurants in our national parks are magnificent structures, offering comfort, cheer, and familiarity. Our servers in Grand Canyon were both from Thailand. That may seem insignificant to us as U.S. citizens, but what a great joy it must be for visitors from Thailand.

Knowing how underfunded the National Park Service is, it is remarkable how well it does what it does, overcoming obstacles both natural and political to deliver once-in-a-lifetime memories for millions each year. This, this is the face the U.S. we want people everywhere to see. Something we have done right, arguably better than any other nation on Earth, and inspiring other countries to do the same, or at least similar.

Were I ever, by some quirk of fate or destiny, empowered to save only one federal government program, the National Park Service might just be it. It is too impactful on our nation's heritage, freedom, and sanity to allow it to wither due to lack of a robust budget. Meanwhile, here I have been living in Colorado for nearly five years and I have yet to visit Rocky Mountain National Park. Shame on me.

Frack Off

© Propublica.org (Canada)

I was already aggravated by the incessant television commercials here in Colorado that are promoting fracking, a method of natural gas and oil extraction that uses pressurized chemicals to fracture bedrock in order to "free" the desired natural resource. This week, we get Gale Norton (yes, that Gale Norton) stumping for Protect Colorado, the greenwashed front for the oil and natural gas industry. This raises my degree of ire even higher.

Gale Norton is the former Secretary of the Interior. You heard me correctly, this woman once oversaw the National Park Service, BLM, and other public land management bodies. Even when she was appointed by George W. Bush to serve as the 48th Secretary of the Interior (2001-2006), her ties to the energy lobby elicited vocal criticism.

She also served as Colorado's State Attorney General, 1991-1999, and has returned here where she is apparently her own corporation, Norton Regulatory Strategies. She also served as general counsel to "Royal Dutch Shell Unconventional Oil, 2007-2010. She was a member of Shell’s global legal leadership team, and handled legal, regulatory and governmental issues for Shell’s oil shale and in-situ oil sands projects, primarily in Colorado and Alberta." That according to her Norton Regs website.

Norton has managed, successfully, to greenwash herself, masquerading as someone who truly cares about the environment and sustainable energy, thanks in large part to her former employment overseeing public lands. No wonder Protect Colorado finds her to be such a perfect spokesperson.

Understand that we are treated to at least one pro-fracking television commercial in prime time every single night. It is the industry's right, of course, to exercise their free speech. They are paying handsomely for the chance to broadcast their message, but that is exactly my point. They can afford to make their case publicly, night after night. Not so for any group opposing them. Just because you are the loudest voice, doesn't mean you should be the only voice.

It is common courtesy to allow both sides to have their voice in debate of an issue. In my opinion, it should be the law. On issues as contentious as this one, both views should be granted equal time to make their case. This is also why the Supreme Court case of Citizens United needs to be overturned. The essential outcome of that decision was the "money equals free speech" doctrine that now dominates public discourse, certainly skewing the course of said discourse.

Advocacy groups involved in issues of free speech need to brainstorm another way to circumvent Citizens United until we get a constitutional amendment stripping corporations from the overwhelming advantage they have in the court of public opinion on issues like fracking that threaten public and environmental health.

Can you imagine where we would be today if oil and natural gas corporations were not so greedy in pursuit of profit, seeking from day one the elimination of competing, renewable, energy industries like solar and wind? It isn't just energy, either. The automobile industry has steadfastly opposed funding for public transit, while garnering huge government subsidies and outright bailouts. The cotton, pulp and paper, and plastics industries have all convinced us that hemp is a drug threat needing regulation if not prohibition, when in reality hemp is nothing but a more durable and preferred alternative in the manufacture of products from clothing to acid-free paper.

Back to Norton and her spokesperson role. We have apparently not yet graduated as a culture from the era of snake oil salesmen and other con artists. In fact, we are now appointing them to office and allowing them to swindle our faith in those who govern. It is up to us not only as consumers, but as citizens, to do a background check on those who purport to have our best collective interests at heart.

A Singular "Protest"

© inusanews.com

I was hoping I could refrain from making any comment on the Colin Kaepernick incident, whereby he refused to cooperate for the national anthem before a pre-season football game last week. It is, to my mind, a relatively trivial blip on the socio-political seismograph, but there have been too many ill-conceived attempts to either criticize or defend the quarterback's stand (or lack thereof) for me to ignore.

First of all, let me acknowledge his right of refusal to participate in a patriotic exercise. Does he have the personal authority to do that? Of course he does, it is a constitutionally-guaranteed act of free speech. Heck, these days I, myself, find the Star-spangled banner ringing at least a little bit hollow considering how the culture of this nation has degenerated. Home of the brave? We're afraid of everything, and everyone. Back to Kaepernick. Do I think his (in)action had anything to do with something larger than himself? Hell, no.

One man sitting out a pre-game ritual does not in any way constitute a protest. Recruit all of your teammates to do likewise? Now you have a protest. Furthermore, you have leadership, someone courageous enough to incite others to follow suit in a non-violent act of defiance. Kaepernick clearly wants to have nothing to do with anything "team." So, he comes off as a pouting little boy, demoralized that he is no longer the starter at his position, and desperate for any publicity, good or bad. I am almost willing to bet that the whole protest angle was an afterthought. He was sulking, but suddenly recalled a way he could turn a purely selfish act into something face-saving. Is that too cynical?

Wait, you say, aren't there other examples where a single individual forced change, or demonstrated courage that initiated a chain of events by others? What about that dude who stood in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square in 1989? Look at the context. That was during a sustained mass protest by students in China. It was also an act that had strong potential for life-and-death consequences. China does not have the same set of freedoms the U.S. does, and that man was going to face some kind of very harsh punishment.

Rosa Parks, there's a real heroine, no.? I agree. What made her special is that she was no one special until she did what she did; and she likewise had more to fear than (non-existent) social media rants. A lot more. Like lynching, for example. You simply cannot compare a safe exercise in disagreement with social norms, like sitting out the national anthem, with actions that actually violate current law, let alone cultural permissions.

So, yes, you have the right to stand down from the Star-Spangled Banner, burn the flag, and even spout hate as so many have from the safety of their keyboards and snarkphones. Just be aware that the true heroes of the world will quietly conclude that you are being intolerably lame, if not simply reinforcing the attitudes already directed at those of your kind, however we lump each other these days.

Sit down if you must, speak up as you should, but get over yourself. Also, I strongly recommend that "Whites" and "Coloreds" should only be used when referring to laundry. Let's top airing the dirty stuff, shall we? We face too many critical issues to waste time with one person's ego.