We have met the enemy

“Stabilizing our climate brings us together. We have the opportunity to end our shooting wars, to put down our weapons and pick up the struggle to stabilize Our climate. War has been obsolete for quite some time and it is just old men, for the most part, who rattled their Sabres and attack each other. 

The way to come together is to take on bigger struggles. Our economic machine is so obsolete that shutting it down and re-tooling a new model that enhances life is the obvious choice. 
We create our economy, and we can reshape it into a life of affirming garden. The mass extinction will end in the same retooling, and the difference will be an effort that gives anyone wanting to work a job worth doing and taking pride in. 
Drawing down our greenhouse gases from the absurd peak we have reached is a way to collaborate with those we held as adversaries because the struggle to reverse our catastrophic destabilizing of our climate shows up the real enemy. 
The real enemy is ourselves.
Making change in ourselves together as one human organism will allow everyone to win as our struggle matures. We are moving toward adulthood and leaving the juvenile stage because stabilizing our climate brings us together.
Voting in the August primary elections and then in the November election gives us a chance to support representatives that will take on this struggle and help to stabilize our climate.”
Every action matters.
Christopher LaForge
IREC Certified Master Trainer
Photovoltaic Technologies
Great Northern Solar
Port Wing, Wisconsin

Why all the hatred between both sides?

In a recent phone conversation with a relative who agreed with me that Hillary shouldn’t have chosen to describe Trumpers as a basket of deplorables, I responded by saying, that maybe she was right on the mark. When I allow myself to listen to the commentary on Fox News, I usually cannot survive for more than a few minutes of their smug and insulting views that often bring to mind a phrase from “I Am The Walrus” by John Lennon as he witnessed the surreal presence of riot policemen; If I remember correctly some of the lyrics were, “See the policemen, pretty little policemen in a row. See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they snide!” Although describing the police as pigs has never been OK to me, the word “snide,” seems pretty descriptive of the attitudes displayed by the commentators on Fox who deliver “catty put-downs, pity soundbites, simple-minded straw men and mindless mantras” – as you observed.

During the 60s while participating in a state speech contest, I left my motel room to witness a long line of menacing riot police dressed in dark black helmets and dark black clothing, Their billy clubs in hand. The entire spectacle was quite surrealistic and unnerving. They were there to contain rioters and students at our state’s capitol. However, Robinson is right when he notes that no one likes to be called stupid for holding certain ideas that they passionately believe, (both confimred conservatives and dedicated liberals). So today, in a letter I sent to the opinion page of a local newspaper, I tried to tone it down and not be so aggressive when responding to an older writer who is dismayed by liberals and the permissive and sinful attitudes that she believes we have all created. Here is a copy of the letter I wrote:

I have recently discovered the work of Nathan J. Robinson who wrote a book titled Responding to the Right, in which Robinson dissects some of the common reasons liberals and conservatives are locked into endless debates that characterize each other as being stupid or evil.
I believe that Mitchell’s views make personal sense to her and that she is not just using them lightly. But why does she condemn liberals who accept Transgenders and gays? To her, those terms seem to be associated with evil things that make no sense to her. Thus If asked why she wants to “save” gays and Transgenders, she might respond “Why should I be criticized for not condoning evil? What’s wrong with that?” But many liberals are also upset about being insulted. So though she can believe anything she wants, unfortunately, that seems to include rejecting the objective research of MDs, psychiatrists and psychologists, as evil? However, dedicated people who accept science do not hate children or want to perform “sadistic surgery” intended to “mutilate their genitals.” So, why do many religious people believe such absurd things? Teachers aren’t plotting to make all our children gay – That’s bizarre disinformation used to justify religious dogma. Democrats don’t believe that the Obamas and the Clintons ran a child sex trafficking ring, and for that matter, that Trump too would never do such a thing! and we are also angered by how false the claims of conservatives are. So can Mitchell tell us why she entertains such extreme beliefs – blaming those of us who hold liberal views of condoning evil? Like her, liberals use our beliefs as ways to help those who are suffering. So please, Will you explain yourself, Rosemarie?

Another thing I have noted is that at times I get so passionate about trying to rebut the comments of global warming deniers and contrarians, that I don’t choose my words well, and begin to feel like the struggle is about who is the most moral or who is the better person. However, what I have noticed is that climate scientists do not want to engage in petty debates with deniers, because of course, they are not happy about needing to report the immensity of the climate disruption we all face. If anyone found a better way to lower C02 without drastically cutting dangerous amounts of man-made C02, climate scientists would be overjoyed because that would mean that millions of species would survive, as well as ourselves. So, If climate scientists want to keep their vital information “pure” why shouldn’t I? Climate change (is) a threat that is all too real, and wealthy oil executives are still attempting to distort the message as an issue of who is morally right and who is morally wrong. But it’s not a theological debate and no matter who wins, if C02 is not kept at prudent levels, all of us will suffer, and yelling “WE TOLD YOU SO” will not change a thing!
Peter W. Johnson
Superior Wisconsin

Trying to humanize a clueless 
billionaire is pointless

Robin Washington’s Kathy Cargill article (April 18 Reader) cast a wide net in search of humanizing tidbits about Kathy, aka “Karen Mclaren” (in reference to the million-dollar sports cars she collects.)  We get it – she used to be normal. But now she’s not. She married into an oligarch family with the most billionaires of any family on earth, and her wealth, selfishness and cluelessness now threaten the authentic community existing on Park Point. According to the Mpls Star Tribune Kathy is suing her own brother over $175,00 of their father’s money. She is also suing her own sister. Her husband’s 4+ billion-dollar fortune comes from his stake in the Cargill corporation, which has been called “The worst company on earth.” Duluth does not need Cargill’s noblesse oblige in the form of pickleball courts. We need more affordable housing, and less income inequality. Kathy Cargill should build a short pier on Park Point, and take a long walk on it.
David A Sorensen
Duluth, Minnesota

Please protest peacefully

With all the pro-Palestinian protests going on now the protesters seem to have forgotten that it was Hamas that started everything by kidnapping and killing people in Israel. Unfortunately the Palestinians are the ones who are caught in the middle. I also understand how people feel one way or the other but you also shouldn’t blame the Jewish American citizens – they are innocent bystanders. If you want to protest that’s fine but be peaceful and remember that there’s two sides in this war. Hamas and Israel.
Cecilia Hill
Duluth, Minnesota