Palin’s endorsement of Trump trivial

So former Alaska Governor and 2008 GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has endorsed Donald Trump to be the Republican Party’s nominee for President of the United States.

Big flopping deal.

Here we have one political opportunist endorsing another. So what else is new?

In the grand scheme of things, what Sarah Palin does or says these days is trivial and carries little weight with those of us serious about the political condition of our country.

This endorsement is coming from a person who quit her elected post as governor half way through her first term in order to pursue a book deal and a more lucrative career as a television media pundit.

She proved to me that her own self-promotion was of greater importance than the oath she took as governor. That has “opportunist” written all over it.

Trump, like Palin, is an opportunist out to get as much attention on himself as he can. He built a financial empire on his ego alone, and he looks to create a political one for the same reason.

He has more in common with P.T. Barnum than he does Abraham Lincoln. He’s a showman, a shameless self-promoter who will say anything controversial just to get a sound bite, a headline and a quote. It is why he sought his own reality television show. He wanted to stroke his ego, and in a big way.

I think Trump views the White House as the ultimate stage upon which to puff out his chest and bristle his feathers. No other stage can cause an ego to swell quite like the one in the Oval Office.

For Trump and Palin to be spoken of together is kind of like Wild West show legend Buffalo Bill Cody taking a bow with Annie Oakley at his side. No offense to the wild west legends themselves.

Should Trump accept Palin’s endorse and ask her to join his team, then his campaign will come to resemble a freak show even more than it already does. It will become a two-headed monster with double the zeal for self-promotion and attention.

I am saying a prayer that Trump’s campaign will fold sometime shortly after January next year when the primaries hit full swing. By then, the run for president will separate the men from the boys.

God help us all if our choice a year from this coming November is either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. We either choose a person with a deep psychological appetite for the White House, or one who wants it to be his biggest stage yet.

I wonder if Mr. T has considered a third party bid.

Green energy requires serious green

Have you ever wondered why there has been such a big push in the past decade or two toward so-called green energy?

I surmise that the reason has less to do with saving the environment, and more to do with saving the pockets of people who have tied up their fortunes in it.

Solar and wind power sources have been around for decades, but they’ve never really caught on. Kind of like electric cars. There have been fads and trends toward them, but none that have been proven to last the tests of time.

But the people who have tried, to their credit, to sincerely sell these products have found themselves knee-deep in capital debt and no way to dig themselves out.

The only answer has been to create a green energy lobby in an effort to gain not only federal dollars but the national attention that goes with it. The natural results have been legitimacy in the popular culture, and acceptance in the marketplace.

Now you have private enterprise and public entities alike literally investing billions of dollars in solar panels and wind turbines in hopes of curbing the high costs of energy consumption. All the while, the makers of these products have breathed a collective sigh of relief.

Their lobby has paid off. Big time.

These days, green energy is as big a business as environmental protection; another lobby that has cashed in on government money and popular culture’s all too willing nod toward anything that makes it feel good.

What I fail to see, however, are the dividends of this green energy. City fees still routinely go up, not down, despite significant civic investments in solar panels. State taxes also keep going up, not down, even though tens of millions of public dollars have been spent on solar panels and wind turbines. My energy bill hasn’t been reduced even though the utility company has supposedly been adding more and more green energy technology to its production lines.

As an individual consumer, the initial costs of solar and wind technology remain prohibitive. Industry experts, of course, claim that although initial costs are high, they pay off in the long-run.

Perhaps.

But, as a low- or middle-income consumer, I still have to contend with those prohibitively high costs of equipment and installation. For me, the bottom line is still the bottom line. We are talking five figures to get started. How many consumers have that kind of money laying around? And, how many are really going to seek the credit for it?

For those who can afford the initial start-up costs of converting to green energy, more power to you. Perhaps solar and wind power are sufficient to meet the energy needs of individual households…as long as those households can afford to make the switch.

However, the jury is still out as to whether or not this green energy is really adequate for meeting the needs of mass populations.

A close friend of mine is an engineer for an electrical cooperative. He has told me that the inherent problem with green technology is that it cannot provide nearly the same quantity of energy that hydroelectric, coal or nuclear power can.

He reported that solar panels and wind turbines measure output in kilowatts, while hydroelectric, nuclear and coal sources measure output in megawatts. In other words, for every megawatt of energy produced at a conventional, non-green power source, a green source must produce a thousand kilowatts.

This means that, in order for an electrical utility to provide green energy to entire communities, exponentially more power structures are required to equal the output of one structure of coal, nuclear or hydroelectric-generated power.

This means acres upon acres of land must been used to install hundreds of wind turbines, and thousands of solar panels.

And, that means governments must be willing to pay out millions, or billions, more in energy costs to convert to green energy that will power communities with comparable output of electricity.

This means an endeavor that is, literally, years in the making and at a substantial cost to taxpayers and utility consumers.

In the meantime, our country’s population continues to grow. It is soaring, in fact, with figures now above 300 million. This means demand for energy is also growing to meet the needs of swelling urban populations.

I’m not convinced that green energy has what it takes, either in resources or time, to meet this demand.

Until green technology can begin measuring output in megawatts, I do not see it becoming the predominant energy sources anytime soon.

You may be able to run your individual property on kilowatt output, but I think it is a mile-wide stretch to say an entire community can adequately run on kilowatts.

The problem is simple supply and demand. The demand for energy is very high, but the supply from green energy sources remains low. Until that changes, conventional sources of energy will continue to meet the demand.

Current electric cars, too, won’t stand the tests of time the way the internal combustion engine has, because their energy outputs are considerably weaker.

Electric cars don’t have near the range that gasoline-powered automobiles do. An average of one to two hundred miles on a charge is about half the distance a car can go on a full tank of gas.

Electric cars are also hideously expensive compared with their gasoline-powered counterparts. If the Chevrolet Volt had a gasoline-alternative model, it would likely cost about $10-$15K less, on average, than the electric version does. Plus, there’s the problem with the battery. It has a finite life, and after so many miles put on the car, the battery will have to be replaced. Only after the warranty has expired. Then the consumer must fork out thousands of dollars for a new battery.

Gas and electric hybrids have had this problem for years. It is one reason why my sister won’t buy another one when her battery gives out. She’ll trade in the vehicle for the conventional gasoline engine again.

My point with this diatribe is to illustrate how inefficient and ineffective green energy really is. It still has miles to go before it can equal the quantity of energy put out by those dreaded carbon-based energy sources. Until that happens, time and demand are the enemies that will determine the industry’s fate.

What exactly does it mean to be gay, anyway?

I’m confused.

Forty years ago, the gay rights lobby just wanted to be recognized for its existence and its lifestyle. A quarter century back, the gay community just wanted acceptance for its sexual preference. Then fifteen years ago, it sought legitimacy for a biological orientation.

My question is, which is it? The gay rights lobby could not seem to settle on whether it wanted to argue a lifestyle, a preference, or a biological orientation. When it did not win recognition for its existence and lifestyle, the ante was upped to a sexual preference. When preference failed to gain acceptance, then it embraced the notion of a biological orientation.

This latest argument has undeniably been its most successful, because now the lobby can claim legal status based upon something that just is. Kind of like the way a person cannot help the color of his or her skin and his or her ethnicity. Gender, however, has become a condition that is changed with an operation, or series of them. Just ask Bruce—er, I mean Caitlin—Jenner.

Gay rights had a tough sell for legal status back when homosexuality was a lifestyle or a physiological preference, because it was still viewed as a choice, oftentimes made from environmental influences.

But now, all bets are off. The instant some scientist claimed to have isolated a possible “gay gene,” the lobby has jumped on this band wagon and ridden it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Homosexuality, under the genetic theory, then is a biological orientation that cannot be helped or changed. It is what it is.

Really?

Funny how no one in the gay community argued that back when it was just a lifestyle, or when it became a preference. It was then what it was, too.

But a genetic explanation is more politically expedient, and a convenient way to garner sympathy amidst popular culture. They can’t help it, after all.

Can’t help it? Where is your pride? A quarter century ago, gay pride was taking a stand for one’s personal sexual preference. No shame.

But to claim now that homosexuality is a biological force that cannot be helped sort of neutralizes the whole pride thing, doesn’t it? If a gay person is proud to be gay, then why would he or she want to lean on an argument that says their homosexuality is something that cannot be changed. If one is proud, then why would one want to argue they cannot change? Would they even want to if they could?

Furthermore, the gay gene theory seems to violate the laws of nature as it is, and the theory of evolution. No other creature in the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior for the sake of sexual activity. Some animals, like canines and other pack animals, may “hump” others in their group in order to establish superiority and their place in the hierarchy of the pack.

But they don’t do this for sexual gratification or because they are romantically attracted to a member of the opposite sex. Human beings, it seems, are the only creatures in the entire animal kingdom who exhibit homosexual behavior for this purpose.

If homosexuality is indeed biological, then how could it be isolated only to humans? Where is the research on other animals in the kingdom, and why aren’t other creatures found to have the same traits?

In my opinion, the gay rights movement had it right the first time. Homosexuality is a preference and a lifestyle, influenced significantly by environment. There is as much or more evidence of this as there is of a genetic explanation for homosexuality.

But popular culture, in its zeal to embrace yet another oppressed segment of the population, chooses to ignore other explanations for homosexuality. It has blindly accepted the gay gene theory, which is still just a theory. Nothing conclusive has been found over the past two decades of research. Not any more than the research on environmental factors of gayness.

And yet, here we are, on the cusp of social upheaval over gay rights and its blatant intrusion into the sacred religious social institution of marriage, with the full backing of the nation’s highest court. All based on a scientific theory that still has more questions attached to it than it has been able to provide answers for.

Near as I can tell, no “law” of nature has been written yet concerning homosexuality. The questions of how it develops still remain, and the debate continues. But we are content to award legal status to the gay community and give it the full might of the U.S. Supreme Court based on some theory, a scientific notion that homosexuality is like ethnicity. It is biological and cannot be helped or changed.

What in the world are we coming to? What other institutions will be infiltrated and, indeed, invaded by the lobby now that it has marriage ruled in its favor? And if public officials can be jailed, dismissed, disbarred or de-licensed for refusing to perform their duties on religious grounds, then can the religious community expect further violations if it refuses to admit gay members into its folds? Where will the social and legal assaults stop? Or, will they?

Mental health is Nevada’s albatross

During this year’s legislative session, my wife and I approached our state legislators about resources for Nevada’s most underserved population: The mentally ill.

There is a health crisis in our state, one which has grown into an epidemic across the nation, but one that is especially endemic right here in the Silver State.

Having lived more than twelve years in a state that seems to cater to many human vices, this comes as no surprise to me.

Nevada legalized statewide gambling in 1931. Gaming has lasted longer in Nevada than it has in most other states. Ours is also the only state that has legalized prostitution. Urban Nevada is notorious for its 24-hour lifestyle. And, the Silver State has a reputation for easy access to alcohol.

This is not to say that the legal vices in our state have caused a mental health crisis here, but they sure haven’t helped matters any, either.

Gaming, substance, and also sexual addictions are poignant examples of mental health problems that have sprung from the promotion and sale of the vices that cause them.

According to a White House study performed from 2007-08, Nevada ranked in the top 10 nationally for the rate of substance abuse among residents. The rate of illicit drug use and substance-related suicides in Nevada were higher than the national averages, too.

The Volberg Report, released in 2002, cited a problem gambling prevalence rate of 6.4% in Nevada based on year 2000 figures. The information was used by the State of Nevada’s Department of Health and Human Services in formulating its problem gambling prevention strategic plan of 2009.

Figures indicate that Nevada has one of the highest gambling participation rates in the United States, and also one of the highest prevalence rates of problem gambling in the nation.

This information should not be surprising to Nevadans, who have generally accepted addiction-based mental illness as coming with the territory of more libertarian policies toward the human vices.

But what should not be acceptable is the lack of mental health resources available to combat these problems and other mental illnesses that plague our population.

Besides the sale and promotion of various vices, Nevada also has a rather large transient population. Many of these people are homeless, and in desperate need of services; including access to mental health treatment.

In fact, the Las Vegas Review Journal in October 2014 cites Nevada as leading the country in its increase in homelessness. And, the Las Vegas Sun published an article in November 2011 that stated native Nevadans are a minority in the Silver State, consistent with the high rate of transience that Nevada attracts.

Perhaps this is one reason why Nevada’s mental health resources have historically been—and continue to be—woefully inadequate. Why should a state with such a high rate of transience invest money in treating illnesses that come and go with many of the residents that pass through its borders?

Point taken.

But what about those residents who actually live here, want to live here, and must cope with their illnesses in the face of inadequate resources?

I’m not talking about the basic outpatient services. There are a lot of counseling centers and clinics in Nevada. What I’m referring to are more intensive treatment services that offer the kind of support that severe mental illness requires; such therapeutic modalities as day treatment centers and residential care or support for those who struggle to live on their own. These are individuals who have fallen through the proverbial cracks of our community because they aren’t deemed severe enough to be institutionalized, but they are severe enough to pose a risk to themselves or others in the community due to significant functional deficits.

Even the number of psychiatric institutions is inadequate to meet demand for inpatient mental health services in Nevada, so those who need to be institutionalized end up in jail because there is no place else for them.

My wife and I found out first-hand just how inadequate Nevada’s mental health resources are. You know it’s bad when you have to look out of state for resources and services that are appropriate for your loved ones, because the state you live in does not have what your loved one needs.

In Nevada, the situation is serious.

Among our state’s youth, the problem is worse than that. It’s dire.

Compounding the problem of mental illness amidst our state’s young people is the number of children that end up in foster care in Nevada each year. Displacement from the home—and homes that, quite frankly, are placing Nevada’s children at high risk of exploitation, neglect and endangerment—is a root cause of many problems facing the thousands of youth in foster care in our state. The trauma they experienced while in the homes from which they were taken, and the trauma of displacement, lead to deeper, more chronic, and pervasive mental, emotional, and behavioral health problems.

If the number of adults suffering from mental illness hasn’t been enough for the Silver State to take action on behalf of its residents, then perhaps the number of children and youth suffering in our state will.

There are plenty of reasons for Nevada to finally step up to the plate and begin addressing its endemic mental health problems: about 2.84 million of them, to be precise.

If Nevada is going to continue propagating the vices of gambling, prostitution, and alcohol consumption, then it only stands to reason that our state should lead the way in providing adequate mental health resources to people suffering from psychiatric illnesses.

As Nevadans, proud of our independent heritage and libertarian ways, we must take responsibility for the social and recreational activities we allow to flourish here. We must hold ourselves accountable for the consequences of socio-economic policies that naturally lend themselves to psychiatric problems.

It’s time for Nevada to be a stand-up state, advocating for the mental health of its residents, old and young. Recognizing we have a problem is one thing, but actually doing something about it is quite another.

I advocate a greater portion of the gaming tax be allocated to support the treatment of mental illnesses that can and have resulted from problematic gambling.

I’m in favor of levying a tax on legalized prostitution to assist in funding mental health resources, as well as state and county foster care services.

Finally, there should be a nominal liquor tax specific to funding not only psychiatric treatment related to alcohol abuse, but also the lifelong residuals of prenatal alcohol and drug use.

I’m talking about fetal alcohol and fetal drug spectrum disorders that are the direct—and, sadly, highly preventable—result of using alcohol or other drugs while pregnant. These are mental disorders that should never be. But, unfortunately, they are. And, their prevalence is comparable to that of Autism Spectrum Disorders. Only the latter seems to get the lion’s share of media attention.

Those individuals suffering from FASD have lifelong deficiencies that require highly supportive and structured treatment. Once again, Nevada is woefully deficient in providing services, supports and resources for individuals suffering from FASD.

I’d like to think that a state which promotes liberal consumption of alcohol would step up to the plate and provide adequate resources for the casualties of this use.

I’d like to think that Nevadans aren’t ignorant or blind to the consequences of promoting social or recreational vices, and neglecting the resources needed to combat problems arising from them.

If Nevada’s mental illness problems are going to be adequately addressed, then our state needs more than John and Jane Q. Public to foot the bill. The purveyors of the vices that contribute to social problems need to be carrying a larger share of the burden if we are going to begin sufficiently helping those who need the help.

I hope this column catches the eyes of more than a few public officials, and that they take my plea, my appeal with serious zeal.

I hope many of you will join me in the fight to combat our state’s sad mental health condition. Things need to change, and it only happens when we do.

Taking an unpopular stand requires courage

Bravery is heroism, an act of valor, while courage is the decision to act bravely even when one is afraid. Courage is taking a stand for something one believes in, even in the face of ridicule or persecution.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, has taken a stand.

She has stated that her decision was made on moral rather than legal grounds. She has openly expressed that her refusal to comply with the law is based upon the laws of God, and not of men.

Regardless of how one feels about the gay marriage issue, or Davis herself, this lady’s courage in the face of criticism, ridicule and unpopularity cannot be ignored. You can call it homophobia, bigotry, ignorance, narrow-minded stubbornness, however you want to slice it. But Davis’s decision—and her determination to stick with it—is undeniable, unmistakable, and admirable.

How many of us would be willing to stake our careers, our integrity, and our character for a belief, an idea that will cost us dearly?

Undoubtedly, Davis stands to lose her job. She’ll probably end up being removed from office, and her professional reputation tarnished. But, it seems she is prepared to live with those consequences. She has decided that she cannot live with the consequences of compromising her spiritual principles.

In this day and age, sacrificing one’s professional career for principles is generally frowned upon. We are told to follow the rules no matter what. We are advised to comply with policy even if we have deep disagreements with it.

But, as King Solomon wrote in the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is a time for everything, a season for every activity under the heavens. There is a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from it. There’s a time to keep and a time to throw away. There’s a time to be silent, and a time to speak.

Kim Davis has decided that there is also a time for following policy, and a time for turning away from it, too.

Eight years ago, I faced a similar dilemma on the job. I worked for a child welfare agency, and my employer’s strict policy was not to place hands on children, no matter how violent or out of control they would become. One day I decided that I needed to act against this policy for the health, safety and welfare of two youths who proved to be dangers to one another. I restrained and removed one boy—who threw the first punch—so that the other boy had no opportunity to hit back. This action, I felt, kept a violent situation from getting out of control and resulting in injuries. But it also violated policy.

I remember being interviewed—more like interrogated—by administration over the incident. I was asked repeatedly if I thought there was something else I could have done and I shook my head. I explained my decision, and I stuck with it. I staked my job on principle. In the end, I lost my job. But I retained my integrity and my dignity. I stood up for doing what I felt was right, and I refused to give in to the pressure to comply with a policy that I believed turned out to be wrong in that particular case.

Although Ms. Davis will likely be impeached and removed from her elected post, her dignity and her character will be preserved, because she chose to stand up for what she believed in and refused to compromise on a decision she firmly believes is the right one.

Mark my words: This is only the first of many cases in which the SCOTUS decision will come into conflict with peoples’ religious and spiritual beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage.

It is only the beginning of a string of controversies sure to develop. Can a judge or justice of the peace be jailed and ultimately removed from office because he or she refuses to officiate a civil ceremony for a gay couple? Based upon what is happening to Davis, I’d say yes. It can and it will eventually happen.

And, in fact, it has. Marion County, Oregon, Circuit Court Judge Vance Day has also decided not to perform any gay marriages on his own personal religious grounds, too. Oregon has allowed gay marriage since May 2014, and Judge Day since then has been steadfast in his refusal to preside over same-sex nuptials. His story is just now surfacing nationally, though, because of what is happening to Davis in Kentucky. Day is facing a judicial investigation which could well lead to his dismissal, disbarment and/or removal from the bench. All because he has chosen to put personal religious beliefs and values above the law of men.

If such things are happening to a county clerk and a circuit court judge nationwide, then it can and will happen to others who become directly involved in the gay marriage issue. The can of worms has been opened, and the slope is dangerously slippery.

Can a minister and his church be sued for refusing to preside over a gay wedding, or allow the use of the sanctuary? It’s not only plausible, but probable. Depending upon the church, and whether or not it embraces more socially left-wing ideas, the unfortunate cleric could find himself out of a job, cast out of the pulpit and excommunicated from the denomination.

How about a judge who refuses to sign off on the adoption of a child by a gay couple? Why couldn’t he or she be jailed, disbarred, and ultimately removed from the bench for refusing to do his or her job? Or maybe a social worker who refuses to facilitate the adoption process for gay parents? Could he or she be fired, arrested, sued, have his or her license revoked, or all of the above?

How about a surrogate mother who refuses to carry the child of a gay couple? Could she be sued for discrimination? And then there is the doctor, who may refuse to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple on religious grounds and end up facing a damages lawsuit, revocation of his or her license from the state medical board, and/or dismissal from the clinic or hospital at which he or she works.

The scenarios are broad, and seemingly endless.
 

Considering what is happening to Ms. Davis in Rowan County, Kentucky, I’d say anything goes. Any opposition at all toward gay marriage will face the might of not only one of America's most aggressive sociopolitical lobbies, but also the nation’s highest court.

The gay rights lobby finally has the legal muscle it has sought for decades to legitimize its homosexual lifestyle. It finally has the meat to enforce its will on others. Now, few things will be able to stand in its way. Intimidation of those who oppose the gay agenda will continue, and things can be expected to get worse.

Many people will allow themselves to get bullied into submission because of the SCOTUS ruling.

But, thankfully, not Ms. Davis. Hopefully, her courage will encourage others to take their stands for Biblical principles.

The gay lobby has the might of the Fourteenth Amendment behind it, the one about equal protection under the law. Ms. Davis has cited the First Amendment in support of her right to refuse the gay marriage license request on religious grounds.

Indeed, the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In taking her stand, Ms. Davis has chosen to exercise her religious beliefs freely without fear of government interference, intrusion or prohibition.

But now she finds herself in jail, placed there by a judge who has said she will remain in jail until she decides to grant the request for the marriage license.

Right then and there, her right to freely exercise her religious beliefs has been violated and impeded by a man in a black robe who is trying to force her to do something she feels goes against her religion.

And then there is the Ninth Amendment, which states that the rights enumerated by the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people.

It seems as though that the right to equal protection under the law, per the Fourteenth Amendment, is being used to deny or disparage Ms. Davis’s right to follow her religious beliefs without fear of being compelled to go against them.

But where and when does one amendment trump another, how is that decided, and who gets to decide that? The nine black-robed justices of SCOTUS? Do they hold Ms. Davis’ fate in their hands, and that of others who will undoubtedly come to face similar dilemmas?

The incident involving Davis and the gay marriage license is but the first clash between the Fourteenth, First and Ninth Amendments. There will be more, and we must summon the courage to stand our ground on what we believe in.

Do you have the courage to stand your ground if or when you are called upon to do so? Can you do it at the risk of being unpopular? And, are you ready to accept the consequences of your decision?

Courage means standing your ground even when these questions cause you fear.

Ms. Davis has drawn her line in the sand. Are you ready to draw yours?