Obviously the Keystone XL Pipeline extension is not the legendary philosopher’s stone that could transform lead into gold. But I wonder whether some believe this myth has become reality in the case of TransCanada’s pipeline project. According to its proponents, it will provide hundreds of thousands of jobs, further America’s independence from foreign oil, free us of future interventions in oil rich Middle Eastern countries, offer a more cost efficient and safer transportation medium than rail, and boost our energy driven economy. Is this nothing more than a figurative transformation of crude oil into liquid gold? Perhaps, but it may not seem so to its opponents, especially after two recent pipeline spills into the Yellowstone River. If you are a farmer or rancher in Nebraska or a member of the Cowboy and Indian Alliance in South Dakota, you may not be thrilled with the prospect of your land or water supply being polluted by a broken pipeline. In addition, proponents of climate change foresee Agamemnon if this pipeline extension is built. It seems environmentalists and business interests are irreversibly at odds on the decision to build this pipeline extension. Moreover, these conflicting positions have roiled the cages of our politicians who have emerged with straw man arguments with which to rip apart their opponents. What are we to make of this conflict? Let me offer another perspective. But first, let’s briefly outline a few facts.

Normally, a pipeline cannot be built without hearings to determine justification for the state to force private lands to be sold for public interests. These hearings are generally established to protect private citizens from being damaged by the state’s use of eminent domain. In Nebraska, this protection was overridden by a state law (LB 1161) in 2012 that gave the Governor the authority to grant the use of eminent domain to TransCanada without hearings or any kind of analysis. (It should be noted that Nebraska’s Department of Environmental Quality has no standards for assessing oil pipeline impacts.) A Nebraskan judge found the Governor’s use of the right of eminent domain to be unconstitutional. This month (January, 2015) a majority of the Nebraskan Supreme Court agreed with the lower court ruling, that is, 4 out of 7 Supreme Court judges were in agreement. However, in Nebraska a super majority of 5 is required to overturn the legislature. So LB 1161 stands and the Governor can force the remaining farmers/ranchers to sell the land needed by TransCanada to complete the Nebraska portion of the pipeline. However, the Nebraskans who are affected by this decision have not given up their fight and plan to reprise their case in the courts. In fact, they are being joined by South Dakotans who are also unwilling to give up their property rights. But now that the Nebraskan Governor can authorize the sale of private property to a foreign company under the right of eminent domain, the same ranchers/farmers will be in a position to claim damages. Recent oil pipeline spills will be brought into court hearings as evidence of the potential risk to fresh water supplies and to surrounding communities as well as of possible unrecoverable damage to private property owners. In other words, the Keystone pipeline will continue to be tied up in the courts for a very long time. Meanwhile, the permit that allowed TransCanada to build the South Dakota portion of Keystone has expired. The Cowboy and Indian Alliance in that state is already celebrating what they believe is the death Nell for this pipeline project. How difficult would it now be for TransCanada to justify eminent domain—to show that America’s need for Canadian oil is a public good that outweighs the property rights of American citizens when that oil is intended for cargo ships destined for foreign ports?

Will TransCanada persists in its attempts to build this Keystone pipeline extension or finally revert to their alternate strategy, a new pipeline extending to Canada’s western shore? If the President or legislative action authorized the border crossing of this pipeline at this time, would that action allow pipeline construction to begin? The answer to my first question is unknown, but clearly the second question can only be answered in the negative. With respect to the pro and con arguments, there are a few facts that we can weigh. Is a pipeline a better option for transporting crude oil in terms of safety and costs? One only needs to review rail transportation fees and recent oil railcar explosions before replying strongly affirmative to this question. Will the pipeline extension provide hundreds of thousands of jobs? Not likely, though it certainly will employ thousands of already employed construction workers and require a relatively small number of permanent jobs to maintain the pipeline after construction. How many additional workers will be hired during the construction phase is open to speculation for it depends on decisions TransCanada will make regarding the pace of construction. The mid-West is already riddled with pipelines; literally thousands of pipeline workers are readily available to sign onto this project. Will this pipeline have any affect at all on American energy use, foreign policy, or economy? Since this heavy Canadian crude was never intended to be refined for American use, its only economic beneficiary is a Canadian oil company. Given crashing oil prices, it is no longer clear whether TransCanada’s capital investment in this project is even worthwhile. And since changing the means of transporting this oil has no relevance to its production or ultimate provisioning to customers, there is no effect on the world oil supply, on climate change, or on Middle Eastern oil producers. The only foreign policy impact that I can visualize concerns whether this oil is shipped out of Texas refineries to Europe or out of Canada’s western province to China. Finally, how relevant is the politicization of the President’s approval of this pipeline extension? In my opinion, the facts reveal an alarming lack of political relevancy. Clearly, the President indicated to the Canadian Prime Minister that he favored the pipeline once it passed legal and regulatory due process. Part of that process was the EPA application of extensive monitoring for pipeline leakage and provision of adequate oil spill clean-up capability. The EPA’s favorable determination was probably the major hurdle for the Administration. But the legal issues still persists in the courts.

Given the facts of the matter, you might be wondering what perspective I might offer. Well, I confess I have a bias here. My mother loss her small business to the state’s application of eminent domain—for a freeway off ramp that was never in fact built. As a result, I find it hard to view the Keystone XL Pipeline issue as anything other than a determination of the lawful and fair application of eminent domain. Some South Dakotans and about 12% of affected Nebraskan farmers/ranchers feel their property rights are being unfairly usurped by the state. Clearly, that is an issue for the judicial system. The Administration has already played its part and can do no more until the matter is adjudicated in the courts. The Nebraskan legislature has done its task. Our Congress has no role at all in the matter.

In conclusion, I would like to see the pipeline built with as much spill protection as technology can offer, BUT only if property owners’ interests are protected. And, frankly, I would like our politics to become relevant once again.

Many people have complained of late about the lack of compromise in our elected government. It has been said that the problem in Washington is an inability to concede anything to the opposition or simply to identify common ground. But I think the problem may be language.

Some years ago I read a book about how dogs communicate. What struck me as remarkable was the fact that dog “language” is quite constant across all species of dogs. A tail wag, a raised ear, or a show of teeth always communicated the same message. A British terrier has no problem communicating with an Irish bulldog. Now, if we humans could replicate the same feat in our communication, it would be considered a real breakthrough in international relations and especially in our congressional negotiations. Elsewhere I touched upon our seeming failure to communicate in the hallowed halls of Congress in terms of the misapplication of words and analogies (ref. “Words Have Meaning”). But I think the lesson canines can teach us is different.

If a dog humps your leg, its message is clear. But, as I mentioned in a recent blog, our species can simply change the meaning of something that looks like torture by calling it “enhanced interrogation.” If a dog were capable of such duplicity, I suppose its humping would be interpreted as a desire to clean your pants leg. Of course, dogs are not capable of our dishonesty in their communication. They are quite reliable in their use of dog language. We know why they hump.

Let’s move beyond “torture,” since certain people in a past Administration refuse to use that word to describe certain heinous acts committed in our name. Instead, I want to consider what has been done to the word “compromise.” Its dictionary meaning is a “settlement of differences . . . reached by mutual concession.” Its Latin derivatives—com, “together, with”, and promittere, “to promise”—strongly imply an intent or promise to come together. Now suppose you reverse the meaning. For example, the Democrats in Oregon and the Republicans in Washington State agreed not to replace the Interstate Bridge across the Columbia River after deficit hawks on the right and environmentalist on the left lobbied their representatives to do nothing. As a result salmon continue to swim unabated under a rickety old bridge that ranks as the 28th most insufficient amongst 18,984 similar bridges in the U.S.; and the states pass up $1.25 billion in federal funding for a new bridge in lieu of the $900 million it will costs the states to keep the current nearly 100 year old structure temporarily upright. The right and the left “compromised” by agreeing to do nothing. We experienced a similar “compromise” in a recent debt ceiling negotiation: the President agreed NOT to amend Obamacare and the Republicans agreed NOT to shut down the government. Currently, our government is faced with another showdown over funding for homeland security. My guess is that both sides will “compromise” on an agreement that will NOT defund or limit the Homeland Security Department and will NOT revoke the President’s executive orders affecting immigrant families. Both sides will “come together” without any concessions so that nothing will be accomplished.

The situation in Washington reminds me of the failed compromise I tried to reach with my dog. I wanted her to hold it in until I could let her out the back door. But I could not return from work early enough and she could not restrain a doggie dump on the dining room carpet. You see, we just spoke different languages—much like many of our legislators.

Torture is clearly beyond the pale, for its end is recognizably evil. Or so it might seem. However, it has been judged differently in various contexts. Generally, we consider anyone who tortures another as a pariah, feeding on another’s misfortune to fall prey to his/her power. Such a person would normally be termed morally bankrupt. A sadomasochist, on the other hand, derives pleasure from causing or experiencing pain or both. In this instant, we consider such people mentally disturbed and their actions derived more from a psychological state than from a moral deficit. But how would we characterize torture as a means to an end, specifically, an end that is good and desirable? Recently a broadcaster asked this question in the context of America’s state-sponsored torture program after 9/11, “Is not torture justified when the lives of 3,000 people might be saved?” This question presumes that the saving of many lives is a most desirable end and, as such, can outweigh the evil act of torture. Or so it might seem.

I have mentioned elsewhere how national “ethics” differ from personal ethics (ref. “The Rule of the Primate”). The issue of torture touches on the same ambivalence in the guise of situational ethics. The classic hypothetical case presented in psychology 101 involves two scenarios. The first situation has a train approaching a fork controlled by a switch. On one track are five people who would be run over by the train. On the other track there is only one person. Should the track be switched so that only one person would die rather than five? In the second situation, there is no switch, but that one person is close at hand. Should that person be shoved in front of the oncoming train in order to stop it before it hits the other five people further down the track? “Most people would throw the switch in the first instance, but refuse to push a person in front of a moving train. Even though the moral judgment is the same in either case—the saving of five people at the expense of one—the decision is made on the basis of emotions, not rational judgment. In brain scans they have found that the amygdala, our emotional center, is deeply engaged in your (sic) second scenario. Most people cannot execute the correct, moral act in this case because of the emotions triggered by physical contact with the person they must sacrifice (ref. p.95, “The Therapy Session,” in A Life Apart).” This quote, albeit taken out of context, seems to support the Bush administration’s argument that so-called “enhance interrogations” were morally correct, based upon rational judgment rather than the emotions of teary-eyed liberals. And this argument, my friends, represents the classic difference between the ethical actions that must exist between individuals and the practices of nation states. Ethics is foremost about values, like the value of a human life, and the discernment of such in given situations. Logic then must serve those values, not the reverse, thereby giving weight to that fundamental ethical construct, “the end does not justify the means.”

How torturous is the logic of those defenders of “enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT)?” Well, they never define EIT as torture. Its acronym even further obfuscates its true nature. Yet EIT is the same elephant that was adjudicated in the Nuremburg Trials, is well defined in UN Conventions as torture, and is specifically absent in the US military guidelines for combatant interrogations. Unfortunately, that elephant took up residence in our White House. When its proponents could no longer argue that the elephant did not exist, they argued that it was legal and justified. Of course, slavery was once legal and so was the exclusion of women from the electorate. Legality does not always square with morality. And the pragmatic argument seems no less torturous. Besides the fact of being irrelevant (remember “the end does not justify the means”), what usable intelligence was derived from EIT? Allegedly, one victim’s denial of knowledge was the basis for assuming he was lying and therefore an unwitting admittance of usable intelligence in locating Bin Laden. Little else has been offered as justification for EIT. In reality, the case for a pragmatic justification seems mainly based upon categorical statements that EIT preserved lives without actual proof of such. Much like the statement of former Vice President Cheney that “I would do it again in a minute,” truth must be accepted as a matter of dictate, rather than of logic and, most certainly, of ethics.

Now it is true that we live in a violent world. For that reason alone, we elect leaders who we believe will protect us by any means appropriate. But where do we draw the line; where does our moral conscience intervene? President Johnson personally authorized B52 bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail, even though those bombs violated the sovereign territory of Vietnam’s neighbors. But he never authorized torture. President Nixon had no reserve about extending the bombing to civilian population centers like Hanoi and Haiphong. But he never authorized torture. President Obama personally authorized guidelines for drone strikes, where civilian casualties, though minimalized, are still incurred. But he revoked the guidelines for EIT and condemned torture. In a perfect world, civilian casualties in war would also be condemned as immoral. There is no moral justification for the killing of innocents. Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world. This fact only further emphasizes the need to adhere to any ethical guidelines the international community has agreed to support. Maybe the human species isn’t developed to the level of eliminating wars. But it can agree to prohibit indiscriminate minefields—and torture. And we can awaken to the fact that fighting terrorism with state-sponsored torture only raises the stakes in savagery. Rather than President Reagan’s bright city on a hill, we become no more than the whitened sepulcher of hypocrisy.

Personally, I prefer the moral high ground. Let’s not vote for any politician that defends or supports torture. “I think it’s possible for people to change history by choosing not to become participants in its destructive tendencies (ref. p.297, “A War of Words,” in A Life Apart, or for context click here).”

The following tale is about a young social caseworker who plied his skills in Central Los Angeles shortly after the Watts riots of 1965.

The caseworker had just turned into a side street lined with overfilled garbage cans and blocked by police cars. One of the policemen approached his vehicle. The caseworker rolled down his car window and was about to ask the policeman to let him pass. He was running late on his rounds. But he had to fit Mrs. Long into his schedule. He knew she would be excited to hear his news. But before he could address the policeman, the officer blurted out, “Are you lost?” Of course, he wasn’t. Quickly, he explained who he was and that he knew the area well. The policeman eyed him with suspicion and said, “No white man is safe here, especially one in a suit and tie. I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t my job and I wasn’t carrying a gun.” The caseworker explained his job was here too. This is where his clients lived. He assured the officer they presented no danger to him. The officer shrugged his shoulders and said, “Okay, but it’s your funeral.” The caseworker steered around the police cars and smiled to himself at the thought of the petite Mrs. Long being any kind of threat to him or to anybody. Two months earlier, when he had been assigned his initial case load, he did have some misgivings about the neighborhood. His apprehension seemed justified when children threw things at his car. But the adults soon corralled them. Now the only danger he faced was the potholed streets and driving after dark. Once he had left a client shortly after sunset and found it difficult to find his way in the darkened streets. His only fear then was the potholes he might not avoid and the pedestrians he might not see. Street lamps he learned were never replaced after burn out. That fact probably explained why the local police cars were all equipped with search lights.

Pulling into Mrs. Long’s driveway, a neighbor saluted and said, “I thought you’d be coming tomorrow.” The caseworker acknowledged the greeting with a wave and replied, “I came early with good news.” The neighbor shook his head and warned, “She won’t be expecting you.” At the front door, he hesitated before knocking. Of course, he would not normally show up unannounced if Mrs. Long could afford a phone. When the door suddenly swung open, he was surprised to be confronted by a large black man. The man was glaring at the over-dressed figure before him, apparently sizing him up. At the same time, the caseworker was making his own assessment. He knew Mrs. Long was married, but her application for AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) stated that her husband had abandoned her. The man spoke first, “So, who the hell are you? You’re not carrying, so I know you’re no goddam cop. If you’re one of those insurance salesmen, we don’t want any of that bogus crap you’re selling.” Suddenly, he took a step towards the caseworker. His face hardened, but his tone was confidential as he said, “If you know what’s good for you, you’d get the hell out of here.”

The caseworker, feeling intimidated, tensed up. He reacted by assuming the air of a county official and met his perceived challenger head on. “You’re Mr. Long aren’t you? Well I’m your wife’s social worker. Do you realize I could have you arrested for failure to support your wife and child?” The large black man caved quickly. “Please sir, don’t call the cops. I’m not living off my wife’s money. I just came by to visit and see my daughter. I’d give them money if I had any . . . I’m looking for work, I am.” He was suddenly interrupted by Mrs. Long who pushed him aside. She apologized for her husband and reiterated his story. The social caseworker relaxed. He reminded her that Mr. Long would not be permitted to live with her unless he was contributing to the support of the family. There were tears in her eyes as she nodded her understanding. The social caseworker was beginning to feel guilty. Finally, he gave her the good news about her acceptance in the training program she wanted. She wiped a tear from her cheek and smiled. Now embarrassed, he suggested that Mr. Long should come to the office and ask for him. He promised to connect her husband with an employment counselor.

Later, he found himself staring at the ignition switch in his car, unable to turn the key. He was caught up in an emotion he was struggling to understand. He felt ashamed.

The End.

I call this story a “tale,” though it is not truly apocryphal. It is a composite of actual events. What it exemplifies is the many aspects of bias. At the time of this tale, there were many segregated black communities cowed by dependency on social welfare, distrustful of police, and intimidated by those who controlled their fate. The latter were also controlled by their fear of the vengeful black man and by deeply rooted misperceptions. In truth, every facet of my story exhibits telltale biases colored in white and black, framed within systems, and hung up in social structures no less bias.

I ask my readers how much of this story has changed in the last five decades and how much of it still shadows us today. Each generation has had to deal with this racial issue—from the creation of our Constitution, the Civil War, and the civil rights movement of the 1960s to Ferguson and the protest in our cities today. Though “the ark of change” may be long and progress has been made, how many generations after us will be still sorting out the consequences of the darkest chapters in American history? Telltale biases will persist until rooted out at their source. That source is only partially revealed in abstract self-examination. Changes in social systems and laws only address the externals, though they provide a threshold for change to pass through. It is only at the level of the heart, however, that these racial biases will finally be overcome. There is where change can touch the soul. (Ref. “Soulfulness”)

Greg Abbot, the Texas Attorney General and Governor-elect, is suing President Obama over his executive order regarding immigration. He says his suit has standing similar to the suits other states have taken against the Affordable Care Act, namely, the exorbitant costs to taxpayers. In the case of the President’s executive order deferring deportation of undocumented immigrants, these costs are allegedly incurred in social services. But he cannot deny the contribution immigrants make to the State’s economy nor can he quantify the countervailing costs incurred in their use of social services. His only supportive statement is the fact that there are immigrant children currently in Texas’ schools. And his comparison to the ACA suits is irrelevant since he is suing over an executive order whereas the ACA suits concern provisions of existing law that quantifiably affects a specific class of people. In effect, he is questioning the President’s Constitutional authority to decide how to enforce established law, specifically, his executive authority. Now this bone of contention has arisen before between the executive and legislative branches of our government and has been carefully skirted by our judges. In other words, the courts have stayed clear of the fray, leaving the dispute to the bickering participants to work out. His suit, then, has more to do with the Constitutional authority of the President than with any harm done to Texas taxpayers. Faced with this fact, he was asked what harm the President’s executive order has caused, or specifically, who has been harmed? His answer (ref “Meet the Press,” 12/7/2014) was the Constitution. He claims that when the President acts without Congress he erodes the Constitution which is the main attraction for legal immigration to America. Now if you allow me to break down this argument, Governor-elect Abbot is stating that (1) the President is violating the Constitution, (2) the Constitution is the main attraction that draws legal immigrants to our shores, and therefore (3) by violating the Constitution the President is removing that attraction and by implication is negatively affecting legal immigration. So, by this logic, the harmed party is the legal immigrant, for the Constitution can be “violated” but not harmed except by insurrection or amendment. Do you see the irony of his position? If he truly wanted to support legal immigration, why would he not support a policy that would in due course make the undocumented among us legal? Why, instead of a lawsuit, would he not engage Texas congressmen/women in comprehensive immigration reform? Simply stated, why not support the bipartisan Senate bill that maps a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants? Making the illegals legal is one way to affirm the “land of opportunity” for migrants to this country and to reaffirm our Constitutional rule of law.

Executive orders affecting immigration policy have been issued by various Presidents over the last several decades, though perhaps of less scope than this recent action by President Obama. That his action has led to debate is actually a good thing, for it has brought this issue to the forefront. In fact, the President has admitted that his order was only a stop-gap measure and that he preferred Congress to act. What prompted him to defer some deportations for three years was the inhumane breaking up of families, many of whom have lived in America for most or even all of their lives. He was echoing his predecessor who, when Governor of Texas, argued that “family values do not stop at the Rio Grande.” Then Governor Bush went on to say that people come to this country to work and feed their families. He felt that “there must be a humane way to help these people attain citizenship while still securing our borders.” When Governor-elect Abbot was asked whether he agreed with his predecessor, he replied, “I understand this even more powerfully because my wife will become the first Hispanic first lady.” His “understanding” implies that he agrees with the last two Presidents on their immigration positions, though he obviously opposes the current President on his executive order. So I must repeat the question: why, instead of a lawsuit, would he not engage Texas congressmen/women in comprehensive immigration reform?

The answer to my twice repeated question should be obvious: the Governor-elect, like many Republicans in the House, would rather indulge in “double-speak” than commit to any policy that provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. And yet the Republican platform supports outreach to Hispanic minorities. Many Republicans, as witnessed in the Senate, actually support comprehensive immigration reform along the lines outlined by the President. Perhaps the President’s opponents on this issue are just upset that he has forced their hand. They appear more committed to opposing him than his policy position. Is Congress actually determined to deport (or “self-deport,” as the last Republican nominee for President suggested) 11 million undocumented members of our society? I think not. Can Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation or will it just maintain the inhumane situation under which many now live? For how long will Congress dither, procrastinate, and indulge in diversions like lawsuits when the outlines of a solution are not only well known, but are actually embodied in a bipartisan piece of legislation before the House of Representatives?

Put in blunter terms: should party politics preclude actual governing.

In a democratic society, one of the political prerequisites is the dialogue required to define and eventually enact public policy. It is fair to question whether pundits, journalists, and political commentators support this brand of politics or hinder it. If the former is true, then political reporting supports the dialogue by reflecting the public will and/or the positions of duly elected/nominated representatives. If the latter is true, then political reporting can become nothing more than the management of information for the purpose of self-interest. In other words, it can become a form of propaganda (ref. Webster’s Dictionary, “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause”). Certainly, political operatives (e.g. campaign managers, press spokesmen, etc.) often excel in this form of politicking. Unfortunately, the “free” press too often provides them a megaphone for the controversial spin or allegation that might capture the public’s attention. Who can resist such coinage as “Governor Moonbeam,” “flip-flopper,” “leading from behind,” or “great communicator,” however misrepresentative these terms may be? For example, was Jerry Brown affected by the full moon when he promoted more sustainable development decades ago or was he just ahead of his time? Though it is true that Mitt Romney advocated his approach to mandated healthcare in Massachusetts for the rest of the nation, did he ever specify it should be a Federal program? Why is “leading from behind” not considered leadership? (Many NFL quarterbacks would beg to differ with the implication of this oxymoron.) And how well did President Reagan communicate his role in the Iran-Contra affair to justify his famous moniker (to paraphrase, “I don’t remember . . .”)? In this context, labels, tag lines, spin, and misnomers like “personhood” or “race baiting” are no more than self-serving propaganda. You may disagree with the terms I “labeled” as misnomers. But do your really believe there is conscious awareness in a zygote? Or do you not see a blind bigotry in any attempt to suppress dialogue on racial issues? If I’m right, then we are all being subject to the tyranny of propaganda where rhetoric subverts meaning.

In Russia, Putin has done a masterful job of controlling the press. He has cleverly used the rhetoric of nationalism as justification for his foreign invasions of Georgia and Ukraine. In order to gain some measure of international support for his policies, he has even established news organizations in America and Europe. Propaganda, after all, has always been one of the tools of tyrants, along with military power and suppression of opposition parties. In America, the news media has too often succumbed—perhaps unwittingly–to the lure of this same device. Following the example of Madisen Avenue, it has applied the mechanisms of word association, out-of-context snapshots, rhetorical hyperbole, and technical wizardry to illicit an unconscious acquiescence from a public mesmerized by presentation rather than substance. These mechanisms can be harmless, even trivial when used merely to attract readers or improve ratings. But applied to politics, they become as subversive as any propaganda waged by tyrants (ref. “Why Fable News?”). Oddly, this form of propaganda is generally anti-government because it reports “scandals” before evidence of such, policy opposition without debate, provocative statements taken out of context, and a laser-like focus on government shortfalls in lieu of subsequent remedies or successes. At times it seems the fifth estate has sold out its journalistic credentials to a kind of mindless propaganda. Although the intent may not be subversive, the result is the same: an inattentive public is lured into disgust and apathy.

Sound bites, catch phrases, and provocative insinuations may win an audience, but they do not make for substantive reporting. And the gross propagandizing of political issues does not alleviate or clarify a contentious debate. In fact, the only winner in this debate is ignorance; and the loser, democracy.