WHO GETS MY VOTE?

Author’s note: Trill is a fictional female acquaintance who makes it possible to write in a style that is comfortable for me.

My Dear Trill,


     It is not surprising that you ask about my preferences regarding the coming elections. I am flattered that you will keep my opinions in mind when you make your choices.

     To begin, I don’t have a history of fidelity to any party, whether Democratic, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Tea, Green or Green Tea. (The last is a lame joke, I will admit).

     Throughout the primaries, I favored Bernie Sanders, mainly because he seemed a genuine populace candidate, much in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt, who was the first president I remember and whom I admired greatly. 
     I do not have a high opinion of Hillary Clinton, even though she has experience as a Senator and Secretary of State. With her husband, Bill, the pair used the office of the presidency to gain enormous personal wealth. In contrast, President Harry Truman, who had deep respect for the office,  bought his own postage stamps for his personal letters. Moreover, Bill Clinton’s poor judgement was on full display when president. His deregulation of the banking industry led directly to the near financial collapse of 2008. but he happily disowns any responsibility. Hillary Clinton claims that as president she will not reinstate the Glass Steagall Act, which served the nation well since the Roosevelt administration. She said she will rely on her husband for advice on the economy and other critical issues. That should worry everybody.

      My biggest fear, though, is that a Clinton machine has been created in the form of the Clinton Foundation, which reputedly takes in millions of dollars in contributions by foreign countries and individuals. These contributions can only be construed as being in expectation of future favors. A perversion of the centuries old practice of buying indugencies of the Pope, but in this case the Pope is the US President. A Clinton presidency, in my mind, would only be acceptable with the dissolution of the Foundation, with the money all directed to charity and education.

      Donald Trump, the most unstatesmanlike person imaginable, is best described, in my view, as peripatetic.... a throwback to teachings of Aristotle  which characterized people who are unsettled, who tend to journey hither and thither. A caricature, spiced with absurd observations, bigotry, bias and mis-information.Whether he could lead a nation is doubtful in view of rash promises he has made. A promise to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court is downright frightening, in view of decisions made by the existing Court such as Citizen’s United. This would be reason enough to elect Hillary Clinton, but other factors fail to sway me.

     In my view, it is incumbent on both candidates to divest themselves of all side investments and interests and promise to be full time presidents. There is no indication thus far that either candidate has that intent.

     Trill, I cannot advise you to vote for either candidate. They are both badly flawed, in my opinion. If I decide to vote my conscience, it will be a write-in for Bernie Sanders. 

LETTER FROM SCOTT PETERS

I wrote  to Representative Scott Peters and other  legislators addressing how Obamacare stuck it to the working people and gifted insurance companies  with huge benefits, like allowing them to write policies with large deductibles. Here is Scotts' answer.

Dear Mr. Hujsak,
Thank you for contacting me to share your views on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). I appreciate hearing from you.
I was not in Congress when it passed the ACA, and, like almost everyone, I recognize that the law is flawed in many ways—no law ever is perfect. This is why I am focused on making sure that we do what we can to fix the law where and whenever needed. Like you, I was frustrated
by the rocky roll-out of ACA, and by the cancellation of health care plans that people had been satisfied with. That’s why I crossed party lines and voted to enforce President Obama’s promise – again and again – that if you like your health care, you can keep it.
The ACA is a massively ambitious effort to remake a broken American healthcare system, and
in many ways it is making progress. It’s prevented insurance companies from denying cover-
age because of preexisting conditions and it’s allowed kids to stay on their families’ plans until they’re 26. It’s moving us away from a system where too many people go to the emergency room for their care or lose their homes because of medical bankruptcy. The California exchange has been successful in enrollment, and the federal website has recovered from its early and serious problems. And if, over time, the ACA can move us from a sick-care system focused on treatment and procedures to a health care system focused on health and prevention, we would save taxpay- ers a lot of money.
There is still a lot of work to be done to make health care affordable. And any of us might have come up with a different approach from the ACA. However, it is folly to think that this law will actually be repealed by the whole Congress, or that the President would agree to start again from scratch. Speaker Boehner himself acknowledged that the ACA is ‘the law of the land.’ It is past time to stop the politics of false solutions like repealing the Affordable Care Act and get Congress to work toward solving the problems the law creates for the people of San Diego, and Americans around the country.
That’s why, over the past two years, I have voted for several measures that address the flaws we’ve seen with the rollout, and provide common-sense fixes to the policy. In each of these cases, I have shown a willingness to buck my own party in order to get the law right. I voted to allow Americans to keep their current health plans. I voted to delay the individual mandate tax until the federal website — which is responsible for enrolling people in 36 states — gets it act together. Finally, to help small businesses and their employees, I voted to change a definition in the law that forces companies to provide healthcare to employees working more than 30 hours a week—the bill I supported would change it to 40 hours.
I’m open to any policy idea—Republican or Democrat—that will make the ACA better for employers, employees and families. I’ve received too many messages from San Diegans about how health care is costing them for me to sit idly. I support policies that increase patient access to care, increase quality, and drive down cost. The ACA is a tremendous undertaking and will require more fixes as we continue to work through its implementation. 

HERE'S AN IDEA

          News of progress with molten salt reactors (MSR’s) frequently appears in industrial journals, in news clips on the internet, as well as in other media that are concerned with energy in all its aspects. Interest in development of thorium reactors is worldwide, mainly because they promise better safety than uranium reactors, and because thorium is far more plentiful than uranium. Reactors would be more economical to build and operate. According to the World Nuclear Association, five nuclear energy companies in Canada and the United States are developing molten salt reactors: Terrestrial Energy (Canada), Thorcon Power (Florida), Terrapower (Washington), Flibe Energy (Alabama), and Transatomic Power (Massachusetts).

           The idea is this: The nuclear powered merchant ship Savannah, now inactive, docked at Pier 13 in Baltimore, MD. What better place to showcase a MSR, producing an ability to demonstrate the technology worldwide?

            Research and development will eventually result in a demonstrator reactor, typically in a building on the back lot of development laboratory. More spectacular and appealing would be a real application that would rapidly gain public appeal and support. The Savannah offers a way to do this.
            The Merchant ship Savannah had its origin in 1955 in President Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” program. The ship was designed by NY architect George C. Sharp Inc. Construction was funded by Government agencies; The Maritime Administration (MARAD), The Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Commerce. It was launched in 1959 and was then fitted with a nuclear power plant by Babcock & Wilcox Corporation.

           The ship carried passengers and cargo between 1962 and 1965, then later only cargo until it was decommissioned in 1971. It had sailed a total of 450,000 miles. The reactor fuel was removed but the reactor remains in place. The Savannah was subsequently towed from port to port for exhibition and maintenance. Finally in 2008 it was towed to pier 13 in Baltimore, where it awaits an unknown future in dry dock.

                Savannah rests in drydock in Baltimore, MD

           Will it be just another maritime museum or will it have a new life, powered by a MSR?

           The fifty thousand or so world merchant fleet represents a fertile area for gains in cimate change abatement. Ships are heavy fuel consumers and in the aggregate, substantial contributers of carbon dioxide emissions. Merchant ships consume from 140 to 150 tons of fuel for a seven day excursion. Taking the lower number, every day, per thousand ships at sea, total carbon dioxide emission is calculated to be over 60,000 tons (a hundred and twenty million pounds). Thus, conversion of the merchant fleet to nuclear power could contribute measurably toward abatement of global warming.

          President Eisenhower could as well have had a vision for use of atomic power for abatement of global warming, but in those times there was only an awareness of pollution, which appeared to be regional. The Keeling curve, which warned of rising carbon dioxide concentration and ensiung climate studies that confirm an onset of global warming, were still in the future. 
          Savannah operating on Thorium……..could be as world-shaking as Watts' improvement on the steam engine.

MAGNOLIA

I have this thing about trees, as I'm certain others do….it borders on reverence.

Gray hared woman,
the scent of my outrageous blooms
has drawn you here, hasn't it?
Or has a long past lover's tryst
awakened need to place your hands
on something more than memory?

I see you searching for the heart
you outlined with your fingers,
then watched its carving by his hand,
so deft; you couldn't know the trail
of broken hearts he'd left behind.

You will not find it now.
Like you, I'm scarred with age.
But sit, together we'll remember
gas lights lit around the garden,
soft laughter, clinks of crystal goblets,
strains of Straussian waltzes.

- E. Hujsak