In the news

When I was a kid in school we were taught that there was a system of checks and balances in our country that made sure no one branch of government was too powerful. And we were taught that that’s what made our democracy secure and successful. But I’ve come to find out over the last year+ that what we were led to believe was actually a lie. That in fact a president can wield unchecked power if he/she wants.

A president can do this by appointing people with blind allegiance to them to their cabinet. They can do it by stacking the courts in their favor. They can do it with threats and withholding government support. And they can do it by unleashing so much chaos that people don’t even know where to begin.

But by far the most important thing that needs to happen in order for a president to wield unchecked power is that they need to come into office at a time when their colleagues and opponents are all too weak, incompetent, and chicken shit, to stand up and put a stop to it. Which is a scenario our founding fathers never anticipated. They could’ve never imagined the halls of congress being filled with such levels of ineptitude as we find it today, as to make holding anyone accountable impossible.

Donald Trump and his appointed head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, rescinded a government finding that found, amongst other things, exhaust from cars, trucks, and power plants, is a danger to human health. Their rescission of the finding will eliminate the governments ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, allowing more pollutants into the air. Environmental agencies showed their outrage with respondes like “massive blow,” and “it really hamstrings the governments ability to regulate environmental threats.”

If you’ve ever been to a country where they don’t regulate emissions, then you know that this is not a good thing. And if you don’t know if you’ve ever been to a country that regulates emissions then you probably haven’t. Because it would have been very obvious to you. I remember two distinct times in developing countries on long drives where the exhaust was so bad that it gave me a headache, and burned my throat. I started breathing only through my nose hoping that my nose hairs would act as some type of defense. All I could remember thinking during these drives was this is definitely one way to get cancer. The air was toxic.

Say whatever you want about the idea of climate change and whether or not human disregard for the planet is speeding up the rate at which the planet heats and causes natural disasters. I’m not a scientist. But I know when something doesn’t feel right. And breathing in fumes, whether they are from cars, trucks, wildfires, power plants, or my fireplace, is not good for my health or anyone’s health around me. So why and how could they rescind something so important with the simple stroke of a pen? Where’s the checks and balances? It goes against everything I was raised to believe about our government.

California has sued to challenge the decision in court. But shouldn’t the president and Lee Zeldin be the ones that have to take their case to court before being able to make a change? Shouldn’t a formal process have taken place where evidence was presented to overturn such an important finding? You would think so, but apparently not. And actually, it gets worse.

Because by another stroke of the pen the president, this time through executive order, has ordered an increase in glyphosate production. It comes just days after Bayer settled a lawsuit for $7 billion acknowledging that glyphosate causes cancer. And to understand what I mean about cabinet members and lawmakers complicity, take the response of RFK Jr to the EPA’s rescission and executive order glyphosate. But to fully understand why his response is important requires some background.

RFK Jr. made a name for himself as a defender of the environment and as someone who wasn’t afraid to stand up to large corporations who were using the environment as their dumping ground. He won court cases against ExxonMobil and General Electric for polluting waterways, targeted coal companies, and even sued the EPA for a Bush-era rule that weakened regulations from factory farm pollution. And perhaps most importantly in 2018 he sued Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, for continuing to sell Roundup, who’s main ingredient is glyphosate, even though it causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

So what was his response to these two very important orders?

On the rescission of the endangerment finding, as far as I can tell, mums the word. And on executive order more glyphosate he expressed his support. “Donald Trump’s Executive Order puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply,” Kennedy said. “We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it. When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security. By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families.”

I read this paragraph from a New York Times article the other day.

““The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” The quote comes from Thucydides’ fictionalized account of a negotiation between Athens and the rulers of the island of Melos, in the Peloponnesian War. The Melians, who were no match for the Athenians, wished to remain neutral. They complained that Athens’s demand that they submit to its rule was unjust. The Athenians responded that matters of justice exist only between equals. Between those who are strong and those who are weak there is only force.”

The thing I’ve learned over and over again over the last few years is that actually there are no rules. That the people with the power will do whatever they want. And that is the situation we find ourselves in. With an administration that is willing to exert force and a bunch of law makers willing to let US suffer what we must. One in which good, decent, average people are just asking to be left alone, and our government keeps punishing us and demanding we submit to their rule.

——

What actually changed during the time when Gregory Bovino left Minneapolis and Tom Homan took over? What actually happened that made the situation go from death and chaos, to cooperative and orderly over night? I doubt that Tom Homan got sent in with starkly different orders than Gregory Bovino did. History tells us that willingly backing down is not a trait of the president. I think the only thing that changed was swapping one incompetent person for a competent one.

This is not a comment on Tom Homan the man or his career, because I know little about both, but I can’t help but think that unlike Gregory Bovino, Tom Homan actually had the ability to get in the president’s ear. I think he was actually able to talk some sense into the president and his administration, and explain what a shit show the situation had become, and convince them that he could clean it up, if they let him. That’s what I think.

Because what else makes sense? In one day we are being told by Gregory Bovino and Kristy Noem that officers in Minneapolis are refusing to cooperate, the whole city is protesting, two people are killed, and there’s chaos in the streets. And the next day all I read about is Tom Homan’s appreciation for the officers in Minneapolis and their cooperation. One day the president is threatening to send in troops, and the next day Tom Homan is describing his plans for withdrawal of hundreds of agents from Minneapolis.

I think anyone who’s been paying attention will agree that the president did not all of a sudden have a change of heart. That in fact the difference is in having someone who knows how to be professional versus someone that is in over his head and just looking to make a name for himself through blind allegiance. And that difference, that seems so small, is the difference between life and death, chaos and order.