267. Far more fear than there is terror

The steak on your dinner plate is significantly more dangerous and much more likely to cause your death than a terror attack by immigrants or refugees.

According to the National Safety Council, the odds of dying from heart disease and cancer is 1 in 7. Reporting from Business Insider, the odds of dying from all forms of terrorism is 1 in 45,808. And the odds from dying from a terrorist attack from a refugee is 1 in over 46 million and from an illegal immigrant is 1 in over 138 million.

Eight years later and here we are again forced to deal with fear being propagated by the White House. Trump is obsessed, and seemingly terrified, by immigration and refugees seeking to relocate. His constant tweeting about the overturn of his travel ban called it, “SO DANGEROUS” and “THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” If fact, the Trump administration is so dedicated to scaring Americans that it created a fake terrorist attack, The Bowling Green Massacre, to instill fear of the unknown and unreported.

Terrorism is scary. People fear terrorism because it is random, unpredictable and people are often left feeling powerless. I have had more than one nightmare that entails me running from a shooter. Terrorism works precisely because of the emotion it creates drives irrational responses. Patrick Kennedy said, “Terrorism is a psychological warfare. Terrorists try to manipulate us and change our behavior by creating fear, uncertainty, and division in society.”

Terrorists succeed when countries turn on themselves and manipulate its politics through fear.

I’m not being dismissive. A terrorist attack could occur, and it could be horrible. It is unsettling to know that at any time, in any venue, something terrible could happen. There is also the difference from a coordinated terrorist attack that kills hundreds and lone wolf spree shootings that attack dozens. Either way, we should do everything we reasonably can do to prevent mass killings or shooting by anyone or any organization.

The thing is, at least in regards to refugees and illegal immigrants, the process works. To declare that drastic measures, like a Muslim ban, is necessary for the safety of our country is, statistically and frankly ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous when you factor that the last major terrorist attack was the result of individuals primarily from Saudi Arabia, one country that was not included in the travel ban.

Refugees, in particular, are well vetted over a couple of years and generally have no say as to which country they will be sent. These are people fleeing their country because of tragedy—war or fear of persecution. As many have said, the refugee program would be a poor route for a terrorist.

Recently in the news, a 14-year-old Cleveland girl was taken and killed on her way to school. In Columbus, a 21-year-old college student was found murdered in a park. In Lorain, a man was killed while going through a fast food restaurant drive thru.

Of preventable deaths, last year over 3,000 people died from drug overdoses in Ohio alone. In 2015, there were over 38,000 motor vehicle deaths across the country. Death by suicide numbers over 45,000 annually.

The point is that statistics do not provide a rational argument for changing our travel security procedures. There are many more things that people can do, individually, and without increased government intervention, to make our country safer. And if that government money was spent on treatment and prevention drug programs, for example, many thousands of lives could be saved—compared to the near non-existent crimes committed by illegal immigration and refugees.

We just need to keep things in perspective. I think everyone supports reasonable efforts to keep our country and its citizens safe. It’s just not ever acceptable to create artificial fears to justify the political discrimination of racial, ethnic or religious groups.

Less steak, more kale.

266. Trump is acting like a spoiled child

For President Donald Trump, it’s not just about power, it is the lack of absolute power.

As most know, Trump grew up in privilege. He had a head start in life that most people can only dream about. While his father showed him the ropes, I doubt that Trump has ever really had a boss. Even when his businesses fell into deep financial trouble, he was bailed out by the banks, which included a ridiculous monthly salary.

When other troubles arose, Trump was able to use his power, influence, and extensive network of business owners and politicians to get his way. He was able to manipulate the laws, political system, and the threat of legal action to get people to do what he wanted.

Trump’s remarkable run to the White House has also been without consequence. His transgressions were unprecedented not only for a presidential candidate, but really any politician. There have been many crooked politicians, but rarely one that began their political career with so much baggage. The more people criticized him, made fun of him, the more his supporters rewarded him.

There are only a few areas of his life that Trump doesn’t have total control. Sure, occasionally, a deal falls through or someone won’t sell him the land he wants. Companies don’t always do as he says, such as Nordstrom, who recently dumped his daughter’s clothing line.

But the one entity that has total control over Trump is the court system. It was like that in business and it is like that now, as it serves as a check and balance on the legislative and executive branches of the government.

Kids become spoiled because they too often get what they want, rather than what is right or what they deserve. Often parents give in to children to prevent a temper tantrum and other bad behaviors. It carries, of course, into adulthood and many of us know people that we have decided that it is far easier to give in to him or her than to deal with consequences of a childish battle.

What are the consequences? For the most vengeful, it means nothing is off the table. It is a personal or professional war that includes derogatory comments, personal and professional threats, name-calling and the threat of lawsuits. If they can’t beat you, they will belittle you, embarrass you, minimalize you, and attack your credibility.

Most people don’t want that — most times it is not worth it.

But the courts are different. Yes, they have become politicized in some instances. And yes, they have been influenced by society and difficult social moral issues. However, in the end, their decisions are final—at least for a time. Judges, like many professions, have a brotherhood and an unfair criticism to one is an attack on all.

When Trump lost a ruling regarding his fake university, he personally attacked Judge Gonzalo Curiel for being a Mexican and a “hater.” Trump later responded, “Even though I have a very biased and unfair judge in the Trump U civil case in San Diego, I have thousands of great reviews & will win case!” In the end, Trump didn’t win and settled the case, although he claims to “never settle.”

Trump then said, in response to the stay on a federal travel ban, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

Then after losing again in appeals court, Trump wrote in all caps, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

Trump can’t just disagree with a decision, he has to personally attack those who rendered it. When they agree with him, they are “very smart.” When they disagree, he attacks them with the worst thing that they have ever done or may have done.

Trump has also transferred responsibility of the safety of the country — which is his job — to what he feels is a bad decision. Now, if something does happen, it’s the court’s fault, not his and his unconstitutional ban. Trump could simply rewrite the ban, but he would rather have a scapegoat and an adversary. He loves life in the gutter.

Nothing is his fault and for someone so privileged, he is often treated “so unfairly.” These are traits of a spoiled brat, not an American president. His temper tantrums are quite unbecoming for the leader of the free world. His lack of consideration for others in unacceptable and any delay of immediate gratification is the product of a lack of preparation and the inability to take the time to understand the complexity of a situation.

Trump is unable to see the world in color. All he ever sees is his own reflection.

265. Johnson Amendment should be sacred

President Trump wants to repeal the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches and other non-profits from specifically endorsing political candidates. Separating religion and politics is manifested in the constitutional separation of church and state. In exchange, churches and non-profits, do not have to pay taxes.

Jeremy W. Peter, of the New York Times, explains, “It is one of the brightest lines in the legal separation between religion and politics. Under the provision, which was made in 1954, tax-exempt entities like churches and charitable organizations are unable to directly or indirectly participate in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate. Specifically, ministers are restricted from endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit. If they do, they risk losing their tax-exempt status.”

There are major concerns that come with churches endorsing candidates for political office.

Churches are supposed to be led by trusted members of society. But considering that they have breached this trust on many occasions, do we really want to add additional temptation and put their congregation up for sale to the deep pockets of politicians and special interest groups? Church members should be able to apply religious teaching to the candidates on their own without their leaders holding their hands. If they can’t, then maybe church leaders are not good job in their religious teachings.

It is also about integrity. If the preachers just preach, there is no concern that teachings are being directed by political donations. Their mission is to lead church member in the examination and commitment to their religion, not to steer beliefs toward a financial incentive. And don’t think for a second that it doesn’t make a difference, I watched church leaders, in a hypothetical situation, gear their mission toward grant money.

Even though churches already suggest their political interests to members and, due to public outcry,  the IRS has essentially stopped enforcing church-led politics, it should not be legalized and open the door to political money—the same political money that is already ruining fair elections. Church leaders can and do offer their influence, because they can always make their political feelings known outside of church activities.

In addition, it is not a popular idea. Scott McConnell, executive director of LifeWay Research, found that 79 percent of Americans thought it is inappropriate for churches to endorse political candidates. “Americans already argue about politics enough outside the church,” said McConnell. “They don’t want pastors bringing those arguments into worship.”

In that manner, it could also hurt the church attendance and financial support from the membership if they become divided over politics. Politics are increasingly being woven into society, and those who take sides, whether it is actors, athletes or business owners, risk losing or dividing their support. It may even prompt a church split, which unfortunately is already too common in the religious community.

The proposed repeal is noticeably political. In the spirit that nothing is sacred or constitutional anymore, churches are generally a stronghold of the Republican party, uniting the strange relationship between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Thus, Republicans have a partisan interest in churches endorsing candidates.

Ironically, if the Johnson Amendment is repealed, it could backfire on Trump in 2020.  As I have mentioned many times, it is difficult for a moral Christian to justify or reconcile the ethics and values of their religion with voting for Trump and his transgressions.

264. From seeds to grizzly bears

When most people think of the significance of climate change, they are concerned with the human consequences of melting ice, rising sea levels and changing weather patterns—sometimes resulting in prolonged droughts and severe storms. However, climate change also affects ecosystems as the slightest variation can have a domino effect on the organisms within the system.  Ecosystems that include plants, animals, microorganisms and non-living components, such as air, water, temperature and minerals, can be vulnerable to even minor disturbances.

One example, the Mountain pine beetle, only measures approximately five millimeters, but it is wreaking havoc on large Whitebark pines and the mighty Grizzly bear that rely on them.

According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, “(The) Whitebark pine is typically found in cold, windy, high elevation or high latitude sites in western North America and as a result, many stands are geographically isolated.  It is a stress-tolerant pine and its hardiness allows it to grow where other conifer species cannot.” It is also considered “. . . a keystone species because it regulates runoff by slowing the progress of snowmelt, reduces soil erosion by initiating early succession after fires and other disturbances, and provides seeds that are a high-energy food source for some birds and mammals.”

Rising temperatures have allowed the beetle to move into higher elevations where the Whitebark pine used to thrive. Research by Evan Esch showed that “climate change was causing temperatures to rise in the cold mountain elevations where the whitebark pine grow, creating ripe conditions for the destructive beetle to spread.”

And because ecosystems can be complex, the impact on species are not always easy for scientists to predict.

In a Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation (WPEF) climate change white paper, Keane et al, writes, “While there is little debate that atmospheric C02, is increasing and this increase will cause major changes in the climate, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the magnitude and rate of change.”

Grizzly bears rely on the seed because they are large, easy to eat and provide valuable calories. There is also evidence that the seeds of Whitebark pines increase the reproductive success of the bears—resulting in reproducing at a younger age with larger litters.

Thus, if we connect the dots, the small increase in temperature caused by climate change moves the tiny beetle north into the forests of Whitebark pines, whose seeds both feed and help Grizzly bears reproduce.

“While it is true that whitebark pine forest are likely to become more vulnerable under warming climates, the same is true for all ecosystems from prairie grasslands to arctic tundra,” the WPEF white paper warned.

Climate change is happening now; it is not going to wait four to eight years until we elect an educated president.  It should not be a political debate in which Republicans deny its existence to preserve corporate profits. Myron Ebell, advisor to the Trump transition team, recently said, “The environmental movement is, in my view, the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world.” It’s a shortsighted, anti-science perspective—whose consequence may be irreversible ecological harm.  This year was the warmest year on record for the third straight year.

To make matters worse, Trump has nominated Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA. Pruitt is a climate change denier who has sued the EPA 14 times. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house.