Woke Capitalism

The American corporate board room is arguably the post powerful place in the country. Since Citizens United v FEC (i) a strong argument can be made that it is even more powerful than either the Oval office, Cabinet meeting room, or halls of Congress. Large, powerful corporations tell us what we like, what we want, how we feel, for whom to vote, and, when we get upset, will salve our pain with meaningless platitudes and gestures. Sadly, we buy it both figuratively and literally. Capitalism, by its very nature and structure, is unstable, being dependent upon ever continuing and ever increasing consumption. It has, for some time, been in survival mode which has forced it to change its outward appearance without changing its power structure. They are struggling to acclimate to a more socially aware society and, while unwilling to give up their power or their profits, give the consumer the erroneous idea that the corporation cares. This is done in a host of ways from token contributions to social institutions to direct consumer advertising.

I must honestly admit that, while a strong opponent to capitalism, I thought very little of either cancel culture or woke capitalism until I read Helen Lewis’s July 14th. article in The Atlantic Magazine. Just the title of her article caused my body to tighten. “How Capitalism drives cancel culture: Beware splashy corporate gestures when they leave existing power structures intact.” One statement early in the article, “Because the best way to see the firings, outings, and online denunciations grouped together as ‘cancel culture,’ is not through a social lens, but an economic one” (ii) explained my sudden tension. My mind immediately went to my philosophical discussion of what I call ‘social systems’. In my six essay discussion of social systems I identified four dominant social systems: family-community, religion, politics-nationalism and economics. The criteria for a social system is that it is run by an elite few and exploits and oppresses all those whom it encounters. It is the basis for conflict, as well as real and psychological suffering. (iii) Ms. Lewis’ article was the evidence of my premise that social systems are both dangerous and not at all in the best interest of the people.

The reality with which Ms. Lewis’ article confronts me pushes my philosophical discussions of social systems into a new and rather intimidating arena. Even apart from its complicity with government and religion, capitalism is demonstrating its power to run our lives in the most insidious and intimate ways. It is like a deadly virus capable of changing and mutating to survive, killing its hosts to reproduce and spread.

Capitalism has been carrying on its dastardly deeds since the 17th century, so most of this is nothing new. It has, however, grown to the point that it is unstable and unsustainable. How many cars, cell phones or computers does one person need? What this article illuminates is that capitalism is mutating in order to maintain position, power and legitimacy. Whether a grizzly bear or corporate CEO, there is nothing more dangerous than a cornered animal.

What becomes so disconcerting is the evidence that capitalists are now successfully using the very social ethical issues that should be bringing them down to strengthen their position, their power and their hold on the American people. (v) This is Woke Capitalism. As Ms. Lewis write, “Progressive values are now a powerful branding tool.”

Ms. Lewis writes, “In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, and the protests that followed, White Fragility, a 2018 book by Robin DiAngelo, returned to the top of The New York Times’s paperback-nonfiction chart. The author is white, and her book is for white people, encouraging them to think about what it’s like to be white. So the American book-buying public’s single biggest response to the Black Lives Matter movement was … to buy a book about whiteness written by a white person. This is worse than mere navel-gazing; it’s synthetic activism. It risks making readers feel full of piety and righteousness without having actually done anything.” (vi)

Matthew Continetti, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (vii) gave a good example in his article “Woke Capitalism is a sign of things to come.” He wrote

The U.S. industries most obsequious to Chinese audiences present themselves as socially, culturally, and economically progressive at home. The National Basketball Association, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and major financial institutions are exemplars of the “woke capitalism” that has transformed the business landscape in recent years. GM cannot meet the demands of 48,000 striking workers, but it wants you to know that it supports wind power and gender equity. GE suspended pension benefits, but remains a signatory to the U.N. Global Compact, is a highly rated workplace according to the Human Rights Campaign, and received a State Department award for “inclusive hiring in Saudi Arabia.” (viii)

In other words, capitalists have very successful convinced an under-educated and anti-intellectual public (ix); both of which are of their design; that they are good and essential citizens when, in fact, they are the leeches sucking the life-blood from society for the sake of money and power.

FOOTNOTES:

(i) Citizens United v Federal Election Comission. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations could spend an unlimited amount of money on political campaigns. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf -and- https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

(ii) Lewis, Helen. (7/14/2020). How Capitalism drives cancel culture. The Atlantic Magazine. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/07/cancel-culture-and-problem-woke-capitalism/614086/

(iii) Vance, Russell E. (3/2020) What constitutes a social system? https://oldconservationist.blogspot.com/2020/03/what-constitutes-social-system.html

(iv) ibid. Lewis.

(v) I will keep my discussion limited to the United States. While I have no doubt that this reality is global, it would take a lot more evidence than I have time here to provide to show such a world-wide generalization.

(vi) ibid. Lewis.

(vii) The American Enterprise Institute is “a public policy think tank dedicated to defending human dignity, expanding human potential, and building a freer and safer world.”

(viii) Continetti, Matthew. (11/26/2019). Woke Capitalism is a sign of things to come. AEI website. https://www.aei.org/articles/woke-capitalism-is-a-sign-of-things-to-come/

(ix) To support this claim I generally refer to reader to two outstanding and highly reputable books.

Hofstadler, Richard (1962) Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Vintage Books. New York. -and-

Pierce, Charles P. (2009). Idiot America: How stupidity became a virtue in the land of the free. New York. Doubleday

Support and Defend the Constitution

I was reading an article by Andrew Selsky of the Associated Press after he interviewed Christopher David, the US Naval Academy graduate and “Navy veteran” who was beaten by #45’s Brownshirts in Portland. Multiple pictures and videos show David just standing there, hands to his side, “like a redwood”. He said that he actually thought that he would be able to talk to them and remind them of their military oath. Sadly, he was wrong. David had to have been a naval officer. You don’t go from the US Naval Academy to active duty as a seaman. From the fact and tone of Selsky’s article, David did not dwell on being a naval officer but did make a point of the military oath, which every one of us who has ever served in the United States military has taken. I was not a military academy graduate, nor was I an officer. In my four years my only citations of any merit were for good conduct, which merely meant that I had kept my nose clean and did my job, and a marksmanship badge. I received an honorable discharge three months after spending 100 days being prepared by the 101st Airborne for Vietnam. The only thing I learned from them was that, if I were to end up in Vietnam, I was fairly certain of coming home in a body bag. I was simply a young man at the height of the Vietnam war trying to survive. Nevertheless, I will still never forget the day that my small class took the oath of office. Like David, I found it a profoundly moving moment. “I, ___, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same:….” Perhaps it was because my Father was a decorated WWII disabled veteran who survive Omaha Beach and Battle of the Bulge before falling to a bomb somewhere in Germany.

Before I finish my story, let me point out that the oath does continue and say that the soldier promises to follow the orders of their appointed officer and the President of the United States. If one looks carefully at the oath, and thinks about what they are saying, there are three distinct sections clearly divided by semicolons: (i) I swear to support and defend the Constitution; (ii) I will bear allegiance to the Constitution; (iii) I will follow the orders of my superiors. To pledge that you will follow the orders of your superiors is important and the President is the Commander-in-Chief. BUT … and this ‘but’ needs to be in big, bold, underlined and italicized letters … this oath does not say that I will support and defend my officer or the President. It says I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in doing so, I’ll follow orders.

This said, let’s continue with my story. My Father wasn’t exactly excited about my joining the Army. He had become a Constitutional expert and was strongly opposed to the war in Vietnam, but he supported me. The one thing that he did impress upon me was that under US military justice no soldier can be made to follow an order that is illegal, immoral or unconstitutional. All of the cadre under whom I served were career officers and Vietnam vets. They also taught me that under US military justice no soldier can be made to follow an order that is illegal, immoral or unconstitutional. This does not put orders up for a vote. They’re still orders to be followed, and if you do feel strongly enough that the orders are illegal, immoral or unconstitutional you are most probably going to face a court martial. The responsibility to refuse such orders obviously becomes more demanding as one goes up in rank. It is hard for an Army private to refuse an order, but a ranking non-commissioned or commissioned officer has a responsibility. It comes with the oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Historically we witness this in the heroic act of Capt. Silus Soule and Lt. Joseph Cramer who refused to allow their Company F of the First Colorado to take part in the Sand Creek Massacre carried out by Colonel John Chivington on Nov. 29, 1864 which killed 200 native Americans, mostly women and children. The two officers were tried and exonerated, but their lives were practically destroyed. Nevertheless, they did the right thing. They defended the Constitution.

Totally unknown to historians is the account which my Father related to me many years after World War II when he was finally able to talk about his experience. At one point he had a sergeant who was shooting Germans who had surrendered. The sergeant would walk the prisoner out away from the bivouac and come back alone with the story that they had attempted to escape. My Father, and the other men, refused to join the sergeant in his killing and turned him in. They were not there to injure or kill unarmed people whether civilians or prisoners-of-war.

As a psychotherapist with over twenty-five years working in geriatric psych, I heard many such accounts from Korean and Vietnam veterans. The point is that in the United States one is not expected to carry out illegal, immoral or unconstitutional orders. It takes a tremendous amount of intestinal fortitude to disobey such orders, but it is all about “support and defend the Constitution.” That is what Christopher David was talking about. That is what he was trying to say to #45’s Brownshirts who beat him.

We have entered a full-blown Constitutional crisis. #45 insists that because he says it we must obey it. That just isn’t true. The President is not a king or dictator but an elected official who is supposed to work for the people of the United States. The oath taken by the President says “I do solemly 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.” To call the Constitution an archaic system that is bad for the country is not fulfilling that oath. (There are at least nine good sources that documented his statement.) To send Brownshirts to forcefully and violently violate the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” (First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.) is not fulfilling that oath.

Christopher David was trying to remind his attackers of their oath of enlistment. He was trying to tell them that their orders, presence and behavior were illegal, immoral and unconstitutional and that they had both the right and responsibility to refuse to carry out those orders. His only failing was that he was so naive as to believe that they cared.

Sharing the blame for pollution

This is the Triple Divide Peak inside Glacier National Park in northwestern Montana. It is sixteen miles into the wilderness as the crow flies from the nearest “town”, a village of 396 people. The big town in the area; Browning, MT., the capital of the Blackfeet Nation with a population of 1,026; is seventeen miles further away. Water flowing from this peak contacts and effects water throughout the North American continent. The upper part flows into the North Pacific and effects waters from Northern California to Alaska. Waters flowing off the right side go up through Canada and out the St Lawrence Seaway effecting everything in between including Hudson Bay. The lower left flows through the Missouri River, down the Mississippi and into the Gulf of Mexico. (i) This site is so environmentally sensitive that scientist from all over the world come to study it. The Triple Divide is polluted and we must all share the blame.

None of us like to take responsibility for something that goes wrong, is wrong or is bad. How many of us want to stand up and say “Yes, I’m partially to blame for killing the Earth.” Believe me, I can understand that. Nevertheless, just not admitting it, or going even further by blaming it on something or someone else, just doesn’t work. An ‘alternative fact’ by any other name is a falsehood, intentional or otherwise. But this is leading to a discussion of ‘alternative fact’ which I don’t want to have here. Suffice it to say, facts are facts are facts and by definition that means that they are a truth that is supported with documented empirical evidence.

I am an environmentalist, a conservationist, a naturalist. It would take me very little time to gather overwhelming proof that humans are doing far more than our fair share to destroy nature and bring about the Sixth Mass Extinction. Until the pandemic I spent the majority of my time off-the-grid. My home is a twenty-one foot Roadtrek. That’s minimalism. We use solar and can go over two weeks on less than forty-gallons of water. We avoid plastics; carrying our own cups and metal straws for truck-stop drinks, etc.; recycle what little waste we have, don’t use processed foods, rarely eat fast-foods, avoid drive-thru to save gas and avoid paper products. We check everything we do or buy for environmental impact. You’d have to admit that not many people try any harder to be good citizens of Earth. BUT … you knew there would be a ‘but’ somewhere, didn’t you? … I still cannot say “It isn’t me killing the earth.” I can’t escape my share of the blame and I can’t blame my actions on someone or something else.

Yes, we do a lot to conserve and be environmentally friendly. Our solar is great, but the panels and batteries caused pollution and required a great deal of energy in the manufacturing process. Sure, once I get them they’re environmentally friendly but I must accept some responsibility for creating the demand for their creation. Yes, our van home has a very small environmental footprint, but it still uses gasoline. Our Roadtrek is twenty-four years old, but RVs are still be manufactured by the thousands and that has a significant environmental impact. I must maintain ours to keep it operating in the most environmentally efficient manner possible, and that requires tires, spark plugs, brake pads, oil changes, etc., all of which have a significant environmental impact. Our furnace, stove and fridge run on propane. That isn’t as environmentally friendly as the propane industry would like you to think. We use cell phones to communicate. The manufacturing and maintenance of cell phones is a significant pollutant. I cannot deny that I’m contributing to pollution no matter how hard I work to minimize my impact.

I’m not suggesting that we all need to hang our heads, pound our chests and chant “Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa!” (ii) I’m suggest that we stop trying to place blame on someone or something else. Accept the science. Whether the actual percentage of our contribution is 10% or 90% doesn’t matter. We know that we are making a tremendous contribution to our own demise. Accept that we each contribute to the problem and, therefore, we can each do something to address the problem.

Science Daily reported that since the lock-down nitrogen dioxide levels have fallen 20-38% in the US and Europe and 40% in China. (iii) The International Energy Agency reports that the demand for energy has fallen 6%. (iv) That is equivalent to the entire pre-Covid energy demand for India. Emissions are on target to fall 4-8%. Jet fuel consumption is down 65% because, according to the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Europe has 90% fewer flights and the US has 50% fewer airline flights. (v) This alone means that each day we reduce CO2 pollution by 975 tons just on the NYC to LAX flights, and that is a low estimate. (vi)

COVID-19 has forced us to see that we are quite capable of doing what is necessary to reduce the pollution that is killing our planet. It has forced us to realize that we have the ability to save countless plant and animal species from extinction, one of those being the homo sapiens.

FOOTNOTES:

(i) Triple Divide, Montana. https://editions.lib.umn.edu/openrivers/article/where-the-water-flows-understanding-glaciers-triple-divide-peak/

(ii) “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa” is from the old Latin mass and means “my sin, my sin, my most grievous sin”

(iii) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200511124444.htm see also: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/drop-in-air-pollution-over-northeast

(iv) https://www.iea.org/news/global-energy-demand-to-plunge-this-year-as-a-result-of-the-biggest-shock-since-the-second-world-war

(v) https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2020/oil see also: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52485712

(vi) my calculation based upon distance, number of flights at 50% reduction, at 53# of CO2 per mile.

Fascism in our streets?

I have spent at least two hours this morning (7/18/2020) reading the news, opinion articles and analysis from several sources. (Washington Post, AP News, CNN, OPB, etc.) As I put down my phone, on which I was reading the news, and reached for the last sip of my coffee I shuddered. Is this fascism in our streets? The terrifying question of where all of this is going is always on my mind. For the second time in 2020 the occupant of the White House has unleashed his Brown Shirts in a draconian, dictatorial manner; this time against the wishes of a legally elected government in our own country. Of course we can’t forget that the Administration’s personal SA (Sturmabteilung) has been bullying, terrorizing and illegally detaining immigrants and citizens since shortly after #45 took office. It makes the news almost daily. Have we become so jaded?

#45 is “reworking” laws to make them bend to his wishes. He announces that that’s what he’s doing. I thought that, constitutionally, lawmaking was the purview of the Legislative Branch. He rules by executive order. Last time I knew he was neither a god nor emperor of the universe. Why are legislators, even of his own party, standing back and allowing this? There are suppose to be checks and balances in our three-branch system. Where are they? #45 has systematically removed or sidelined all oversight. He thumbs his nose at the judicial system, openly calls the Constitution an archaic document, and appears to be working very hard at creating violence and discord around the country by what he says and doesn’t say. By the end of his first hundred days in office (April 2017) #45 called the Constitution’s system of checks and balances on power “archaic”. “It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.” (i) At any other time in our history such a statement would have landed that politician outside the beltway immediately, and been the end of their political career. In 2017 it went seemingly unnoticed.

But this, except for the Brown Shirt invasion of Portland (7/16/2020), is nothing new. I couldn’t help but think that under what we might call “normal” circumstances; viz. with a functional and civilized government; this behavior would have been political suicide, a lethal shot in one’s own political foot. Where would we expect to find this type of behavior? Where might it be considered ‘normal’? Hum. I think history might offer some answers. Where do we see this type of behavior?

Awe, yes, there was Benito Mussolini, the father of fascism, in Italy from 1922-1943. While his buddy, who would follow him in Germany, had his brown shirts, Benito had his black shirts. They accomplished the same ends; viz. a dictatorship. Mussolini wrote in La Dotrina de Fascismo, “We stand for a new principle in the world, we stand for sheer, categorical, definitive antithesis to the world of democracy,...” and proclaimed “We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty.” (ii) Both Benito and Adolph felt that, to quote Adolph, “democracy undermined the natural selection of ruling elites and was nothing other than the systematic cultivation of human failure.” (iii)

Of course, we can’t forget good ‘ole Adolph in Germany, 1933-1945. He’s the one with the original brown shirts. His political party received 43.9 percent of the vote in the 1933 elections. He needed the votes of the German National People’s Party (DNVP) with which he barely created a working majority in the Reichstag. Hitler had been appointed (not elected) Chancellor. He was able to push through the Enabling Act, which effectively gave him dictatorial power. Within months the Nazis banned all other political parties. (iv)

Oh, yes, and then there came Antonio Salazar who installed “corporatism” in Portugal 1932-1968. Some try to say that Mussolini wanted to call fascism ‘corporatism’. Actually, that doesn’t seem to be true, even though Mussolini did say that fascism had created “a full-blown Corporative state.” (v)

Francisco Franco, overthrew the Spanish Republic by revolution in 1939. He sat up a totally authoritarian regime that was known for brutal oppression, with the killing of thousands and economic growth. What are you willing to endure for economic growth? He ruled until 1975.

There are really too many examples to mention them all, but let’s conclude with two who have often been left out of the dictatorial hall of infamy. Both ‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier of Haiti and Idi Amin Dada Oumee of Uganda came to power in 1971. ‘Baby Doc’ actually came to power with the death of his father, ‘Papa Doc’, who was actually elected by the people in 1957 but didn’t give up power. (vi) Idi Amin, as he is better known, was known as the ‘Butcher of Uganda,” and his reign was characterized by rampant human rights abuse, political repression, ethnic persecution, nepotism, corruption and gross economic mismanagement. (vii) I know. That sounds like a list of #45’s accomplishments, but it was actually Idi Amin.

I do think that I’ve been known, on numerous occasions, to say “those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it.” Recommended reading: Lewis, Sinclair. (1935). It can’t happen here. New York. Doubleday, Doran & Co.

FOOTNOTES:

(i) Trump blames his failures on the Constitution.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-constitution-archaic-really-bad-fox-news-100-days-trump-popularity-ratings-barack-a7710781.html

(ii) Mussolini, Benito and Giovanni Gentile. (1932). La Dotrina del fascismo. Enciclopedia Italiana. Rome.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

(iii) https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Opposition-to-parliamentary-democracy

(iv) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_election

(v) Mussolini, Benito and Giovanni Gentile. (1932). La Dotrina del fascismo. Enciclopedia Italiana. Rome.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

(vi) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Duvalier

(vii) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin

Hope lies in the wilderness

Hope lies in the wilderness. Life comes from nature.
The large chunk of limestone, which most likely fell from the escarpment next to me many ages ago, made the perfect resting place. I sat on the boulder as the brook next to me gurgled over and around the rocky debris of ages past on its way to the Russell Fork River over seven-hundred feet below. It is rather mind boggling that these gentle flowing waters can carve the magnificent towering escarpments and natural arches that I see around me. I removed my backpack and took off my lightweight Mexican cowboy hat that I bought for living in the desert, dipped a handkerchief into the cool water and wiped my face and head. It was in the eighties but worse than the heat of July in eastern Kentucky is the humidity. While the escarpment and lofty forest canopy afford me some shelter from the summer sun, nothing protected me from the humidity. As long as I sat still, I was fine. As soon as I would move I began perspiring profusely, constantly having to wipe the sweat from my eyes.

As I sat and admired the scene around me, I couldn’t help but think of John Muir’s famous trek from Indianapolis, Indiana to Florida in 1867. His awe of the beauty of Kentucky as he crossed the Ohio River was soon replaced by the desire to be just about anywhere else on earth. The heat and humidity of the south just about finished John Muir before he could become the Father of American Conservation.

I grew up in these eastern mountains, although much farther north, where I learned to love the wilderness and nature. I have spent the last several years in the Rocky Mountains and claim Montana as home. The Appalachian Mountains are not as spectacular and showy as the Rocky Mountains. The highest point east of the Mississippi is Mount Mitchel at 6,684 feet. Lake McDonald in Glacier National Park, northwestern Montana, is the lowest point in the Rocky Mountains at 3,120 feet. The glacial moraine along the lake’ s east side are still, at 6,600 feet, called hills. Nevertheless, there is the majestic beauty of old age in the eastern mountains. There are no “tree-lines” unless some nasty coal company has cut the top off a mountain. Unless there is more uplift, this is what the Rocky Mountains will one day look like.

Growing old with grace and dignity, the Appalachian Mountains present as a carpet of green that almost invites one standing on a high overlook to jump into its lush foliage. The upper story of the canopy is dominated by several varieties of Oaks. A good ten-percent of the trees in this part of the Appalachians are Oak. The beautiful Tulip Poplar is the Kentucky state tree. I am also surrounded by Maples, Hickory, Sycamore and Ash trees. The under story around me is predominantly Rhododendron and fills the hollows and ravines.

We were camped on the edge of one such Rhododendron filled ravine. Studying my topographic map I noticed that the ravine beside us led down to a road that I could follow for a short distance to a trail. I’m very accustomed to going cross country in the wilderness, so this wouldn’t be any big deal. As long as I headed downstream there was no hopes of getting lost. As I made my way the few hundred yards from our camp to the road I had a difficult time maneuvering through the dense Rhododendron. In the area of the Allegheny Mountains where I grew up the Rhododendron would bloom in late May but here there were still plenty of flower in early July.

One of the trails I followed made its way up to almost 1,800 feet to an overlook that looked out over the gorge, called the Grand Canyon of the East. It was breathtakingly beautiful but I must admit to having as much reverence and admiration for a place called the Notches. That’s where I stopped to rest. It was more of a ravine than a hollow, with very steep sides and of great outcroppings of limestone like the escarpment next to which I rested. Often there were recesses in these walls with the allure of a cave holding ancient secrets. Of course I had to make my way through the thick Rhododendron to check them out. I could only imagine how often their deep, dark, cool recesses might have been shelter for animals, including the indigenous homo sapiens. There have been reports of Black Bears in the area. I’ll admit to approaching the caves cautiously. If I were a Black Bear on a day like today, I would be escaping the heat either in such a recess or lying in one of the creeks.

I covered a lot of ground in Breaks Interstate Park – a park shared by Kentucky and Virginia. It was all beautiful but my favorite spot is the Notches.

I strongly believe that hope lies in the wilderness. Peace and renewal is our mantra. It took me most of a lifetime, but I now know that this is where I belong. It is where I feel free and experience true inner peace. I return home; return to the wilderness; to recover from the stress and anguish caused by what we call civilization. In the wilderness I am safe. Kiaayo (the bear) will not kill me for fun or attack me because of the color of my skin or what I believe.

Most modern people have neither the desire nor the skills to avail themselves of the life-saving gift of nature. We have been, and continue to be, worse than cruel to nature, yet nature, without revenge or retaliation, continues to provide us with those things essential to life: air, water, food, medicine and shelter. In fact, nature is the only source for these things.

Hope lies in the wilderness. Life comes from nature.

Unprovoked Federal Violence

Once I had a dream for this country. Once I actually believed that we were on our way to being a truly great nation. Once I had a dream. Now that dream has turned into a nightmare and all I want is for our country to survive the tirades, anger, and hateful destructive acts of the incoherently ranting narcissistic madman who occupies the White House. This essay was slated for publication the middle of next week. Then came a night of unprovoked federal violence in the city of Portland, OR.

Last night – the evening of 7/16/2020 – I started reading accounts of unidentified “federal agents” running amuck in Portland. By the morning of 7/17/2020, it had been confirmed by reputable sources; Washington Post and Oregon Public Broadcasting being two principal reporters; that the unmarked military-like men were a part of the Department of Homeland Security. (i) They had been sent by our current Administration without the request of the local government, which had jurisdiction. In fact, Oregon authorities asked the White House to remove the federal troops (ii) that had taken a peaceful protest and turned it into chaos, violating the civil right of untold numbers of people and seriously injuring at least one whose skull was fractured by a “non-lethal” weapon. Donald Trump’s brown shirts had struck again. (iii)

How did we get into this predicament? Fascism is quite insidious. I know that I have explained its origins in some of my earlier essays, but, for the sake of those who have not read those essays and may not know the history, let’s quickly review. In 1932 the Enciclopedia Italiana published a thirty-seven page essay by Benito Mussolini and an Italian philosopher, Giovanni Gentile, entitled La dotrina del fascismo (The doctrine of fascism.) Mussolini is considered the father of fascism. In that essay Mussolini explains how fascism is the merger of corporate and government power. Mussolini wrote, “We control political forces, we control moral forces we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state.” The most chilling was “We stand for a new principle in the world, we stand for sheer, categorical, definitive antithesis to the world of democracy,…” (iv) If one studies the history of Italy and Germany we see that both Mussolini and Hitler worked the existing political systems. They played on the less educated and struggling person’s nationalism, telling them that they were going to make Italy and Germany great world powers again. Extreme nationalism is the villainous key to every dictator’s success. By the time the common people get over the nationalistic high and realize that they’ve been duped, it’s too late. They’ve created a dictator. As Mussolini and Hitler solidified their political power, more educated and intellectual citizens, who believed in their system of government, honestly believed “it can’t happen here.” Oh, how wrong they were.

Vitally important to the success of any fascist take-over is the under-educated common person who at least feels like they’re struggling and/or being abused by the government system. The would be dictator uses this group, promises them to make their country “great again”, and gets them to willingly participate in their own destruction. They become the fascist state’s first victims.

Lyndon Johnson started out as a good-ole-boy southern politician. He knew how to work the voters. It is ironic that he turned out to be the President under whom some of the most powerful and important civil rights legislation took place. The story goes, as told by Bill Moyers, a member of Johnson’s staff, that Johnson was in Nashville and noticed some racial signs as their motorcade drove through town. Later at the hotel, after all of the good ole boys had finished Johnson’s branch water and whiskey and gone home, Johnson explained how the southern politician controlled the racist, ignorant population. “I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” (v) We’ve seen that used recently, haven’t we?

How can people fall for this? Why do people continue to follow Trump when it is evident to the entire world that he is mentally unstable and using them to further his own wealth and power? Those really aren’t as hard a question as you’d think. These people fall into one of three scenario: (a) they are desperate not to believe the truth because they feel their lives are desperate and they truthfully believe that Trump’s fantasy is better than their reality; (b) they are ashamed to admit that they’ve been duped. I think we have a lot of Senators and members of Congress in this group; and (c) they are actually gullible enough to believe his lies. Our biggest problem with these three is that there is no logic or power on Earth that is going to dissuade them.

We’ve all seen the quote attributed to Sinclair Lewis. “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.” We have seen the truth of that statement but Sinclair Lewis never said it. (vi) He said some far more important things. In 1935, Lewis published the novel It Can’t Happen Here. (vii) The premise of the book was that a fascist dictatorship can happen here. The main character, Buzz Windrip, appealed to voters with his crass language, nativist ideology and super nationalism. He defeats Franklin Roosevelt and becomes President. After being elected he started solidifying his power by promoting violence and anger toward immigrants, people on welfare and the liberal press.

There is no doubt that fascism has come to the United States. We, by the strictest definition of the term, are a fascist state. Donald Trump has brought capitalism into government in such a way that the control is almost absolute. Absolute control is, of course, his goal. Radical fundamentalist Christianity has joined this horrific union for benefits which I shall perhaps address in some future essay. Suffice it to say, they have something to offer; viz. religious control over a large group of people. Their reward is to be the official religion of the new order. Trump is trying to silence the free press by calling it the “enemy of the people”. That’s a common phrase among dictators. He works very hard to attempt to discredit intellectuals or other independent thinkers by labeling us unAmerican or elitist and attacking us personally.

In a June 2020 essay entitled “One more step toward totalitarianism” (viii) I reviewed twelve twentieth century dictators, arrived at nine common practices, and compared those to Donald Trump. The nine common practices are: attacking the press, having someone to hate and blame, promise to make the country great again (super-nationalism), attack intellectuals, commit human rights violations, practice and promote political persecution, nepotism, corruption, and economic mismanagement.

Once I had a dream for this country. Once I actually believed that we were on our way to being a truly great nation. Once I had a dream. Now that dream has turned into a nightmare and all I want is for our country to survive the tirades, anger, and hateful destructive acts of the incoherently ranting narcissistic madman who occupies the White House. If we can have a fair election, and if he is defeated, my fear is that we will not get him out of the White House without him inciting his followers to extreme violence.

FOOTNOTES:

(i) Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/

(ii) https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/16/oregon-gov-kate-brown-says-president-trump-is-invading-portland-as-an-election-stunt/ and https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/13/portland-protester-injured-federal/

(iii) https://www.historyhit.com/hitlers-bullyboys-the-role-of-the-sa-in-nazi-germany/

Hitler formed SA in Munich in 1921, drawing membership from violent anti-leftist and anti-democratic former soldiers in order to lend muscle to the young Nazi Party. Recognisable by their brown uniforms, similar to those of Mussolini’s Blackshirts, the SA functioned as a ‘security’ force at Nazi rallies and meetings, using threats and outright violence to secure votes and overcome Hitler’s political enemies.

(iv) Mussolini, Benito and Giovanni Gentile. (1932). La Dotrina del fascismo. Enciclopedia Italiana. Footnote 16. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

(v) Moyers, Bill. (11/13/1988). “What a real President was like: To Lyndon Johnson, the Great Society meant hope and dignity.” The Washington Post.

(vi) https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sinclair-lewis-on-fascism/

(vii) Lewis, Sinclair. (1935). It can’t happen here. New York. Doubleday, Doran & Co. T

(viii) https://oldconservationist.blogspot.com/2020/06/one-more-step-toward-totalitarianism.html

The denier mentality

My, oh, my! We environmentalists are such alarmists. After all, the latest scientific evidence is that we have at least ten to fifteen more years until the point of no return. Oh, but we’re talking about deniers, so it doesn’t matter if there is scientific evidence. That’s the denier mentality. Most likely a fair number of the deniers in our government will not be alive to see that day, so why should they care?

The mentality of the denier is utterly fascinating. Totally wrong and usually dangerous, but really quite fascinating. I would have less anxiety studying such though process if it weren’t that it is the deniers who are currently running this country and they’re pushing hard to remove any programs that might save or salvage our environment and our lives. Nature will ultimately prevail but we won’t be around to enjoy that.

The denier mentality is nothing new, but prior to 2017 I don’t believe that the blatant denier of established fact had much credibility. It appears that we have Kellyanne Conway to thank for the term “alternative facts” and a credibility for denying and lying. On January 22, 2017 Trump’s campaign strategist and counselor, Kellyanne Conway, defended totally erroneous information provided to the press by Press Secretary, Sean Spicer. (i) She called the erroneous information “alternative facts” and a new term, a godsend to liars, narcissists and deniers, was born. She later appeared on Meet the Press where, in defending the administration making false claims and losing credibility, she said “Our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that, but the point remains that ….” Meet the Press host, Chuck Todd, interrupted. “Wait a minute. Alternative facts? … Alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods.” (ii)

This term, “alternative facts”, was coined for the purpose of justifying a press secretary who gave totally erroneous information about Trump’s inauguration attendance. Actually I don’t care about how many people did or did not attend the event. I do care about the fact; i.e. the truth; that this was the justification for the first of thousands of pieces of misleading information and outright lies. When has an administration made so many false or erroneous statements that people are actually tracking, categorizing and documenting? In fact, a January 20, 2020 Washington Post article written by Glenn Kessler, Salvador Rizzo and Meg Kelly, entitled “President Trump made 16,241 false or misleading claims in his first three years.” states,

“We started this project as part of our coverage of the president’s first 100 days, largely because we could not possibly keep up with the pace and volume of the president’s misstatements. We recorded 492 claims – an average of just under five a day – and readers demanded that we keep it going for the rest of Trump’s presidency. Little did we know what that would mean. In 2017, Trump made 1,999 false or misleading claims. In 2018, he added 5,689 more, for a total of 7,688. And in 2019, he made 8,155 suspect claims.” (iii)

I’m not writing to argue about “alternative facts”. Any reasonably intelligent person knows that a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. There is no alternative. An alternative to a fact is a non-fact, a lie, an untruth. If you believe that something considered “a fact” is wrong, and you can prove it, what you provide is not an “alternative fact” but “the fact” because a fact is something that is known or proven to be true. Opinions are not fact. They hopefully contain fact but fact is not essential for an opinion. One can hold the opinion that the sky is actually orange, that’s why we get orange and red sunsets, and that opinion doesn’t make the sky orange. It is strictly opinion. My essays are my opinion. I work hard to present truth and facts in them, which I document in my footnotes, but my opinion still isn’t the fact or the truth. For me to say that climate change deniers are wrong is simply opinion. For me to provide thousands of documented facts, replicated studies, and peer reviewed articles is something else. Now we’re talking about fact.

The point of bringing this up is that we see here the ease at which our current GOP Congress and Administration will spout “alternative facts” and expect the American public to accept them as truth. The fact that there are so many people who will accept the concept of “alternative facts” and accept and believe irrefutably erroneous statements is a sad commentary on our population, but, to avoid getting any farther afield, I must defer this line of thought to the reader. I would recommend reading Charles P. Pierce’s book “Idiot America: how stupidity became a virtue in the land of the free.” (iv)

Honest. I haven’t forgotten what started this. We were talking about the denier mentality. “Alternative facts” have given credibility to the denier: ‘My opinion is as good as your fact.’ I guess we can’t see this as too new. Kellyanne Conway just gave it a name. Galileo had the evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, but the Roman Catholic Church (the denier) called that heresy. He ended up in house arrest from circa 1610 to his death in 1642. (v) “Alternative fact” dominated until the truth absolutely overwhelmed the church.

Of course, you and I both know that the scientific world has provided overwhelming fact that the sixth mass extinction is real, climate change is real, and that the extinction’s time line has been dramatically pushed up as a result of human behavior. 97% of the world scientist actually agree. The denier’s reaction is to attempt to discredit the scientist. They make no attempt to argue or discredit expert data and research. They personally attack the scientist as heretics; saying that the scientists are purposely perpetrating a hoax to mislead the general public for political gain. What political gain? The only one who has anything personal to gain is the capitalist denier who is making a fortune by not addressing the problems. The longer the capitalist can keep our government and millions of people deniers, the more money she/he will make.

The biggest problem with the denier mentality is that it is based upon a ‘my-mind-is-made-up-don’t-confuse-me-with-facts’ attitude. This in itself precludes any discussion, debate or argument. It is easy, comfortable, and now, suddenly, powerful to be a denier. To argue that there will not be a sixth mass extinction requires an argument, fact or at least some semblance of data or proof. To argue that humans are not responsible for the rapidity at which the extinction approaches requires an argument, fact or at least some semblance of data or proof. To argue that climate change is a hoax requires an argument and evidence that we environmentalist and scientist have fabricated our data. The denier can’t come up with the data or the proof, so it is much easier, and currently more powerful, just to deny what we say and attack us personally. Let him have the rat.

FOOTNOTES.

(i) Blake, Aaron (1/22/2017). “Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump’s team has ‘alternative facts.’ Which pretty much sdays it all.” Washington Post. see also: New York Post (1/22/2017) “Conway: Trump spokesman gave alternative facts.”

(ii) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts#:~:text=%22Alternative%20facts%22%20was%20a%20phrase,President%20of%20the%20United%20States. This article is very well documented if you care about things like facts.

(iii) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/20/president-trump-made-16241-false-or-misleading-claims-his-first-three-years/

(iv) Pierce, Charles P. (2009). Idiot America: how stupidity became a virtue in the land of the free. New York. Doubleday.

(v) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-accused-of-heresy#:~:text=Galileo%20was%20ordered%20to%20turn,and%20secluded%20during%20the%20trial.

Can we live without social systems?

In my essay Are we other than our social systems? I concluded that we are, in fact, other than our social systems since we came before them and they developed as a means of controlling the population with the rules being made by a ruling elite. Social systems are not a natural part of our species. Starting from the premise that this is true, I can not help but wonder whether or not a group of humans could live together without any social systems as I have defined them. (i)

The reason that I wonder whether or not we could actually live together without social systems is three-fold: (1) we have had social systems for thousands of years, (2) most people believe that social systems are a natural part of being human, and (3) over-population makes many of the factors which contributed to the success we experienced in the first 90% of our existence impossible to replicate. I think it is fair to assume that everyone would agree that we can not “go back”. Many people, throughout history, have tried to return to a previous more prosperous or happier time. We know it doesn’t work. Our history, current situations, experiences and mentality are all different from that at the time to which we might like to return. For that reason it can never be the same.

What this means is that if we are going to somehow attempt to replicate the communal life situation of those who lived in the days without social systems, or without social systems are we know them, we must look for a new and different way to create the results we desire.

One of the things I’m sure that we would all like to replicate is greater equity. This isn’t going to happen while we still have the haves and havenots. I think it is reasonable to assume that the one-percent who control our lives and own 44% of the world’s wealth (ii) isn’t going to decide to share. When you create the divide between the haves and havenots you quickly find that the havenots will fight among themselves for the scraps the haves drop. It’s called survival. President Lyndon Johnson; originally a good-ole boy southern politician who knew how to manipulate this reality then became the US President to pass some of the most important civil rights legislation in history; explained the concept politically. According to Bill Moyers, an American journalist and political commentator who served as the ninth White House Press Secretary under the Johnson Administration from 1965-67, when President Lyndon Johnson was in Nashville, TN with a group of southern politicians Johnson told Moyers the secret to their success. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” (iii) How are we ever to get the one-percent to share their wealth and the poor to stop fighting among themselves for the scraps? I do believe that it would be possible to non-violently force the top one-percent to share. What I don’t believe possible is getting the remaining 99% to cooperate. We have no experience of anything other than struggling and fighting over what the one-percent don’t take. I’m afraid that the only thing we could expect would be failure.

One of the ways to force the one-percent to accept an egalitarian society is to crash their precious capitalistic system. That really wouldn’t be hard. It is totally unsustainable and barely functional as it is. If the havenots would actually cooperate and refuse to over-consume, the system would quickly collapse. Sadly, it would be the havenots who would suffer most so you can’t blame them if they refused to cooperate. Since I can not see any other way of non-violently forcing the haves to cooperate, I would have to conclude that we are doomed to failure.

The other option would be to change the social systems. I figure that would be a lost cause as well since it is the elite few who define the social systems. The masses changing the social system would be rather like Orwell’s Animal Farm. In that book the animals rebelled against the authoritarian farmer and took over the farm. By the end of the book the pigs and dogs had become the elite with the saying “all animals are created equal but some animals are more equal.” (iv) We would eventually end up creating another elite group to set the rules just as the pigs took over the position and power of the farmer. Actually we see this same pattern in the American Revolution, French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, among many others.

This historic reality would support the position of the early twentieth century philosopher, Juddi Krishnamurti. Were he here now I’m sure he would argue that this is cyclical. When we attempt to break free we end up just establishing another ‘environment’ (like my social systems) as a savior. The only way to become truly free is to stop and question the environment. “But if you understand the significance of environment, that is, wealth, poverty, exploitation, oppression, nationalities, religions and all the inanities of social life in modern existence, not trying to overcome them but seeing their significance, then there must be individual action, and complete revolution of ideas and thought. Then there is no longer a struggle, but rather light dispelling darkness.” (v)

This confronts us with a conclusion that I was really hoping to avoid; viz. individual personal action. Krishnamurti obviously would not hold out any hope for group action. Animal Farm.

I have to admit to being a skeptic. In fact, I can be so skeptical that I’m skeptical about being a skeptic. Nevertheless, we can not ignore this option. We have explored a couple of group options and found them fraught with problems such as the cost in life and resources, the poor fighting over the crumbs and the development of a new elite. If we consider making this quest an individual effort, we likewise find problems. The biggest problem is the time factor. Assuming that it could actually be accomplished, I would have to wonder how many hundreds of generations would pass before freedom and equity are achieved. Then there is the high percent of the population who wish to be free but are so indoctrinated by the elite that they believe that their life is as life should be. “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal.” They would not participate in any group or individual effort mostly out of fear of losing what little they have because they have been convinced that this is truly their lot.

What all this means is that I see no way we could ever make living without social systems, or at least without our current social systems, a universal experience. Again the skeptic in me doubts the ability of the current elite to permit groups of people to establish communities based upon equity, freedom and the hunter-gatherer (HG) model. All we need to confirm this is look at how current hunter-gatherer tribes and other indigenous people who live outside the social systems are treated. Indigenous people face “eviction from their ancestral lands, being denied the opportunity to express their culture, physical attacks and treatment as second-class citizens.” (vi) Brazil President Bolsonaro is outspoken in his desire to eradicate indigenous people from the Amazon. (vii) Here in the United States indigenous people experience tremendous abuse. No treaty made by the US government has gone unbroken. Even the growing nomad community, made up of people who do not want to live the conventional, sticks-n-bricks, capitalistic nightmare, experience growing harassment and prejudice. Why? Because those of us who do not want to participate in the capitalistic social system are seen as a threat to the system. Not only might we attract more people to a simpler lifestyle but we don’t participate in excessive consumption which is all that holds the fragile, unstable and unsustainable capitalistic system together. Also almost all of us live in undeveloped, wilderness areas. Capitalists want these areas to search for their treasures, dump their trash or other environmentally destructive activities. For someone to live anywhere without ‘turning a profit’ seems to be more than any self-respecting capitalist can handle. How, then, could we ever purposely develop communities, villages or tribes for those who would prefer to live a simple, egalitarian life?

I’m afraid that we can’t leave this discussion or draw any conclusions without considering the most important problem with the greatest impact; viz. over-population. Two of the most important factors in the success of the HG are small groups living together with plenty of area for all groups to hunt and gather. We don’t have either. Even if we got the 1% to share and everyone was excited to participate, how are you going to create small group living with sufficient space when you have cities like Tokyo with 38 million people in 845 mi2. That is one person for ever 1.36 square feet!!! The entire planet has only 57,308,738 square miles. That sounds like a lot but that includes land areas that are uninhabitable. According to the University of Texas only 24,642,757 square miles of the Earth’s land is habitable. Divide that by 7.7 billion people and we find that we already have one person on every .0032 square miles or about 312 people per square mile over the entire habitable land on Earth. That isn’t really sustainable nevertheless conducive to small group living with an agrarian or modified HG lifestyle.

It would seem that while there are probably many of us who are emotionally and intellectually prepared, and even desirous, to move toward a much simpler lifestyle, it is not currently an option for most because of the choke-hold of the capitalistic elite. Even if we could overcome this blockade we are confronted by the sheer numbers of humans. I must admit that I do not want to contemplate, nevertheless put in print, what it would take for humans to live without social systems. It would seem that the best we can do is follow the advice of philosophers like Krishnamurti and find our freedom and peace as individuals who have learned to deal with the everyday negativity of the social systems.

FOOTNOTES:

(i) see What Constitutes a Social System? 3/15/2020. https://oldconservationist.blogspot.com/2020/03/what-constitutes-social-system.html

(ii) Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report. 2019.

(iii) Lyndon B. Johnson. (1960)— Said in 1960 in response to racist signs held by Johnson’s motorcade in Tennessee. Recounted by Bill Moyers, then a member of Johnson’s staff, in Bill Moyers: “What a Real President Was Like; To Lyndon Johnson, the Great Society Meant Hope and Dignity,” The Washington Post, Nov. 13, 1988.

(iv) Orwell, George. (1945). Animal Farm. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. New York.

(v) Krishnamurti, Juddi. Total Freedom: the essential Krishnamurti. Harper Collins Ebooks. p. 20.

(vi) Tryon, Zoe Indigenous Peoples. ://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/indigenous-peoples/

(vii) Phillips, Tom (26 Jul 2019) ‘He wants to destroy us’: Bolsonaro poses gravest threat in decades, Amazon tribes say. The Guardian on-line. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/26/bolsonaro-amazon-tribes-indigenous-brazil-dictatorship

Old Conservationist – Introduction

Hello! My name is Russell Vance. I’m a retired psychotherapist turned environmentalist, philosopher and essayist. I want to introduce you to my new blog page and tell you about myself.

This isn’t my first web page but I am excited about it and anxious to find people who will enjoy it and follow it. My beautiful soul-mate, Pamela, and I headed west in 2014 to work as volunteers for the National Park Service. We soon fell in love with our new home and became Montana residents. We love the west, especially the Rocky Mountains and desert! We served as campground hosts sixteen miles into the wilderness and I started my avocation in wildlife management. We became nomads, spending the first of May thru September in Glacier National Park (northwest Montana), November to March in the deserts of the southwest, and the rest of our time visiting family in the Midwest. Our current home is a twenty-one foot 1996 Roadtrek Class-B RV. That’s a 96C210P for Roadtrek fans. With sufficient solar power, we live most of the time off-the-grid. People call it boondocking. We can go two weeks in the wilderness before being forced to go into town to dump our tanks and get more water. Oh, I can’t forget food and laundry.

When we’re not working for the Nat’l Park Service or visiting family, I spend my time roaming through the wilderness, taking pictures, studying the marvels around me and thinking about my next essay. In 2019 we made a 15,000 mile journey around Alaska and the Canadian Yukon, making it all the way to the Arctic Ocean in Canada.

My essays and blogs will almost always be about four subjects: the environment, our adventures as nomads living off-the-grid, social issues, and philosophy. Since I am an unabashed tree-huger, you won’t be surprised to know that I am philosophically an ontological naturalist and existentialist. Over the years I have written extensively on all four topics. I’m also the author of two novels, four novella and a handful of other fictional works that almost always address one of my subjects. I started out having them published and sold on Kindle or Amazon, but that seemed to actually limit my readership because I got lost in the plethora of good writers. Since I’m not trying to make money from any of this, I’m allowing people to have the books for free. Having to switch my web-site hosts, I’m going to have to find a new way to offer my books. If you’re interested, keep watch and I’ll announce how I’m going to share them. You can follow me on Facebook – www.facebook.com/old.conservationist – and on Twitter at @re_vance.

I hope you find my essays interesting, enjoyable and/or informative, and hope you will become a regular visitor and friend.

Pictured below (L-R): Our Roadtrek home about sixty miles out in the desert from Yuma, AZ. A desert storm – powerful, beautiful and a bit frightening. The mountain that has watched over us and protected us for years in Montana. Snowcovered Sierra Blanca, in New Mexico where we camped at 10,000 ft in December. What an adventure.