Check for web archive captures
Save Our Souls
By lindamuralidharan on 2018-06-22 05:05:37
The term Save Our Souls means different things to different people. Those who profess loyalty to Jesus of Nazareth believe
his preachings or those of clergy who claim to speak in his name. Such beliefs more or less hold that each person has a soul
which needs protecting now and in the after life by various beliefs, proclamations and rituals. Some also believe Holy
Communion is a necessary ritual or that baptism is essential to have a chance at some kind of peaceful after life vs. eternal
damnation. Other religions have varying views of an afterlife, whether there is such a thing as an individual soul, and how to
protect such from evil or negativity or some form of eternal suffering. Those in the world who doubt any concrete deity or
who believe much of religion is metaphorical, often use the term "to save my soul" as a saying, as a metaphor, and as an
expression of an effort toward some kind of ethics, decency or other desired goal. [caption id="attachment_ 11346"
align="alignleft" width="164"] i Scott Pruitt, picture of greed and deception[/caption] When I think
about how many Americans are complacent when the current administration in Washington with the very effective
cabinethood of Tom Pruitt is damaging much of our protective structure that contributes to a healthful environment,
relatively clean air, relatively clean water, minimal poisons used in our crop production, and respect for many natural
resources, I wonder in that metaphorical way how to "save our souls" as a society in the United States. Recently there was a
vote in Congress regarding ways to study and mitigate the social costs of carbon. Republicans have a habit of prohibiting
research or statistical analyses of any subject for which they fear the truth. Thus they have forbidden the use of Federal
funds to be used at the national level to collect statistics regarding gun deaths. Despite the authoritarian winds blowing
through the halls of Congress and the White House, they have not yet directly forbidden such studies at private foundations
or colleges. In the case of carbon, the vote of the majority was to forbid the use of any funds in a particular spending bill
from being used to regulate or give guidance relative to the social costs of carbon. NASA funds that were used to fund
tracking of global carbon emissions were cut by Congress. Interestingly enough, in the same week, an independent study
found that the children of mothers who lived in high carbon pollution zones....such as on or near very busy urban
streets....were more likely to have seriously high blood pressure in childhood than kids born to mothers living in suburban or
tural areas with cleaner air. There are so many areas of environmental respect that have suffered under Cabinet Secretary
Tom Pruitt that I will only add a couple more topics. For example, a lot of research over several years went into deciding
whether or not chlorpyrifos poses a true health risk to the public. Small amounts.....this is a pesticide sprayed on a number
of food products...have been shown to affect the brains of children and lead to learning challenges. Finally the EPA made
the conclusive determination that it is dangerous and needs to be banned. Pruitt overuled that decision and said the research
was somehow questionable. Pretty much Pruitt has had a stance of dismissing with scorn a lot of scientific research. That is
especially true of research results that might threaten the profits of manufacturers or other businesses in fields related to
research results. [caption id="attachment_ 11347" align="alignright" width="110"] Louis Gohmert....this is
our leader?[/caption] The EPA has many ways of overtly or subtly undermining policies that protect people, animals,
wilderness areas, and our climate. When discussing the Congressional refusal to allow any application of useful information
about the social "costs" of carbon, I thought it pretty revealing in a disgusting sort of way when Congressperson Louis
Gohmert, R-Texas, said, when discussing possible tax policies that would be intended to reduce carbon emissions:
"ultimately (such a tax) would be a tax on the nation's poor. The rich, they can handle these added superfluous costs that
come out of the nebulous areas of bureaucrats' minds, but the real ultimate cost is ultimately to the nation's poor." Well, the
costs of renewable energy is coming down, down, down and creating many jobs. Leave that aside, Gohmert is turning the
issue upside down. The true costs to the poor and modestly incomed folks is in the health damage that the polluted environs
cause. It is the poor and people of color who live disproportionately near the industrial sites that spew noxious chemicals
into the air and water, and you will also remember the Love Canal. [caption id="attachment_ 11345" align="aligncenter"
width="600"] where the
buffalo roam....and elk...[/caption] We as a nation elected Donald Trump and the other elected office holders who support
him. Okay, a few of us managed to vote for people who are opposed to the anti-science, pro big business at all costs, anti
people of color approach of he average Republican and of some Democrats. So what of our fellow Americans who think
somehow that white America is necessary and superior? Are you, dear reader one of them? Are you dear reader not one of
them but have failed to work to counter them? I advocate dialogue, voting, and demonstrating in the streets and in the
offices of elected officials. See what is happening in response to the racist abuse of children at the border. There is at least
some retrenchment....however minimal and deceiving....by the White House because so many people have acted out. It is
unfortunately necessary and potentially effective if it is kept up at the present intensity. The really big picture, however, is
that the border drama is one more distraction designed by Trump and his white supremacist, Alt Right advisors. Beyond
each shiny object is the network of damaging actions being performed by the Trump administration in so many areas,
whether in criminal justice, civil rights, consumer protections, or abuse of low income people and people of color. Talk
about the "Deep State"! Pretty much whenever you hear Trump and Republicans condemning some made up accusation
against Democrats or other liberals you are observing "projection" right before your eyes and ears. What they condemn is
what they do or want to do as soon a possible. If we have a soul to save, if we want a mellifluous social milieu in which the
environment and the safety of people is paramount over greed and neglect, we need to act as a society to stop the ravaging of
both children and the environment and the ecosystem. I think a few of the corporations are no longer governed entirely by
the greediest among them. Some of the newer crop of executives seem to have been educated about social and economic
justice. First we had so many unwilling to keep children out of bathrooms of their choice. Now we have airline executives
saying there is zero tolerance for their airlines being used to transport children away from their families. Let's all follow
these examples.
