This week has left me with a kind of deep exhaustion concerning the state of humanity. It appears that no matter which way I look, or what “rock” I look under, I find decisions driven primary upon emotion and personal greed (I was going to say “stupidity” but perhaps that is unjust). A few of the things that we in the news lately include:

(ITEM) Off shore wind turbine developers claim that they have no environmental impact because there are no birds flying over the off-shore locations – thus this form of impact won’t happen, and therefore neither will any of the others. I think the reason that they don’t find much evidence of bird kills caused off-shore turbines is that the birds fall into the ocean and usually aren’t found – it almost certainly isn’t because of a lack of birds. In addition to the issue of bird kills, there are many other problems with wind turbines, not the least of which is that they provide little (or no) additional power to the overall grid. They do create power at the point of connection to the grid, but when viewed from point of view of overall cumulative production they do nothing. There are solutions to this problem, but so far those solutions have not been forthcoming. There is almost nothing good to be said about the turbines except that they are an exceptionally fine means of funneling trillions of tax dollars into the pockets of a few developers.

(ITEM) The global telecommunications industry is in the process of launching 150,000 new communication satellites into low earth orbit. There are currently no regulations or restrictions on these satellites so it has become a gold-rush by three companies to take control of global communications before regulations or laws put restrictions upon their rush for riches. What could possibly go wrong with Elon Musk having total control over global communications? What could be wrong with Musk (and a few others) inserting so many satellites into orbit to effectively force out other satellites, such as weather satellites and others? What would be the problem with these guys effectively blinding the world’s large astronomical telescopes, totally hundreds of billions of dollars in science investments? People have a very long history of what happens when a few highly motivated, clever, greedy individuals gain control of the commons (those resources that are shared by all). The results are never pretty.

(ITEM) The rate, and overall numbers of mass shootings in the USA is rapidly escalating. It has become very clear that it is no longer a problem with a few crazy people getting access to high powered, rapid fire weapons. These events have clearly become a terrorist activity energized, motivated and supplied by a large group of extremists intent on creating total havoc leading to the collapse of Society for the benefit of nobody. The Republican leaders continue to promote the solution of hardening the targets rather than control those intent on fostering and implementing these terrorist actions. The Buddhists talk about covering the entire world with shoe leather to protect people’s feet, versus covering the soles of their shoes. Hardening all schools, churches, shopping centers, public buildings, private buildings and shared open spaces is hardly a feasible approach – but it is the one that is favored by at least half of those in power in this country. The idea of preventing the hazard seems to be impossible to even contemplate or discuss.

(ITEM) Hundreds of trillions of dollars are used to subsidize new energy sources, but almost none is spent to reduce the amount of power required to meet our needs/desires. There are enough almost free approaches that could immediately cut the use of energy to less than 1/4 of our current use – and achieve better, more comfortable, more effective solutions to what we currently do. It is pretty clear that an additional 50% reduction is well withing reach if funding becomes available for research and development. The overall impact could easily be a 10 fold reduction in the need for energy, which then can be supplied by local renewable sources (including “roof top” solar and others). The only reason we use as much energy as we do is because it is extremely profitable for the suppliers to do so. There is no big profits if they don’t sell lots of power – therefore we stay stuck in a world of increasing energy use and increasing horrible results from that energy use.

(ITEM) I keep hearing people complaining that the government is causing the steep increase in the price of gasoline and they are therefore failing to do their job. How in the heck is the government pushing up the price of gasoline? This is happening because of the decision to NOT control the prices of commodities such as gasoline, it is the effect of an unregulated (or at least under-regulated) critical commodity. The same people that complain that the government is not controlling the price of gasoline are the same exact people that demand that the government stay out of private industry’s business. In addition, these same people are screaming that gas taxes need to be eliminated to lower the price of gas at the pumps. How in the world do they expect the transportation infrastructure to be maintained without charging for it? If not gas taxes, then what kind of taxes would be better? Taxes are going to have to pay for it, unless the roads are all given to private enterprise, in which case the roads will be paid for through tolls.

I could go on for many pages with all of the crazy ideas that are being implemented without any consideration for consequences, costs, benefits or truth. Rather than worrying about how best to help each other and work together we are rapidly becoming a global society, perhaps most evident in the USA, that is focused upon creating strife, chaos, destruction, and the collapse of civil government. These folks promoting this chaos apparently aren’t interested in truth, fairness, what works, value, the future, the future of their children or anything else – they just want to destroy.

This is becoming very disheartening. For a time I thought the problem was a fringe group bent on causing the destruction of the world. However, as I look at the numbers I realize those that are trying to avoid chaos and destruction are in the minority, they are the “fringe” group. It sometimes feels like a very big, very destructive tsunami has been detected and is heading our way, arriving before the likely end of my life (and I am 75 years old). People look out over the ocean looking for signs of the tsunami and seeing nothing. They shrug their shoulders and go about their normal lives as if nothing is out there. However, tsunami’s are hard to detect in the open ocean – they are deep waves often reaching to the ocean floor, rather than tall waves reaching toward the sky. There destructive power only becomes evident when it reaches the shore. For decades dedicated scientists have been telling us that the environmental tsunami that is rushing toward us is will hit land fall very soon, perhaps it has already come so far ashore that we can no longer run fast enough to outpace it. We all know it is there and bearing down upon us, we all have a pretty good idea of what will happen when it gets here, but we seem to be whistling in the graveyard – assuming that all the bad things will go away if we deny knowing about them. We have had notification of this destructive future for many years, in enough time to take effective actions to forestall or prevent the bulk of the outcomes, but we just keep whistling in the dark.

I find that I am beginning to dread my daily trips to the trash can. For decades I have just thrown things into the garbage can next to my desk, or under my kitchen sink, whenever I needed something. But now I find I have become plagued with guilt, or maybe just disgust. My life, like those of almost all “modern” lives depends upon using things that come from somewhere else, and made by someone (or something) else. While I have a very large back yard, almost nothing that I use or eat comes from here. It is all shipped to me, or I go get it from a store that collects a lot of stuff from all over the world for me to select and purchase.

The fact that not only am I no even in the slightest way “self-sufficient” but everything that comes my way uses fossil fuels to get here is pretty disturbing. However, not only does it come to me using highly damaging fossil fuel vehicles, but it comes in packages that I immediately throw in the garbage. Much of the things that come in the mail get tossed before they are even glanced at. Many, perhaps most, of the products that I get come in packaging that not only gets tossed as soon as I finish wresting the product out of its package, but that package immediately gets tossed. When I take the garbage out I notice that the “waste” from the actual things that I want is almost zero. All the food gets eaten, the batteries get recycled (I hope), the tools usually stick around for years, almost nothing actually gets thrown out – except for the mountains and mountains of useless packaging.

I have started to feel like a cog in the jaws of some giant machine whose only purpose is to take valuable, and inherently benign, raw materials and transform them into highly polluting and dangerous industrial level garbage. It is a steady flow of good stuff to bad stuff, with me as a part of the bucket brigade taking the junk and passing it along to the next step. Perhaps a tiny bit gets recycled a few times before it finally falls off the end of the chain as waste. The waste comes in many forms that we keep hearing about. The end of the cycle seems to be things like carbon dioxide, tiny particles of plastic filling every space in the water systems (oceans, lakes, rivers), mountains of stuff in landfills slowly (or not so slowly) oozing poisons into the ground and our water, mountains of stuff just sitting in the hopes that someday it will vanish (which is not the case during many lifetimes).

We all know, and lament, the story. We are destroying the world as we knew it 200 years ago (or in my case, seventy years ago). None of us are directly to blame, and none of us has much control over the process. However, lately I have become much more aware of my hands moving good stuff one step closer to useless stuff, bit-by-bit with almost no thought or action in the process. I open a package of batteries and immediately reach down to throw the waste into the trash. I buy a pound of beans at the store and immediately throw the flimsy little plastic bag I put it in while shopping into the garbage. I buy my new shirt, and immediately cut off and throw away tags, labels and packaging. I throw away more packaging from the sausages that I cook for dinner than the contents of the sausage.

Everything is sterile, clean, safe and packaged for easy shipping and display – and then discarded into the waiting mountain of trash. I have come to realize that unless, or until, this conveyor belt of good stuff to trash without a use in the middle comes to an end we are never going to find a solution. I don’t suppose that “the solution” is to stop that process – stopping it will occur because we found a better solution to the entire system of moving things from hither to yon. Perhaps it will entail smaller, closer sources of things so that we can get there under our own power (walking, roller skating, bicycling, etc) and can just bring home what we want, not all of the other stuff that comes with it. I don’t see a clear view of that future, but I can see a clear view of what happens if we don’t find solutions to the every growing stream of valuable resources being turned from good stuff to junk with no value or use along the way.

This morning I found myself contemplating the difference between being lonely and being aware that I am alone. “Loneliness” has a yearning aspect to it. When I am lonely that usually means that I am by myself (either physically or emotionally), and don’t like that situation. I want to have someone in my life. This might be a person, a pet, or just a bunch of people as in a party. It “feels” bad, feels like something I would like to “fix”. Sometimes it is a desire to be distracted, sometimes it is a desire to be heard and perhaps understood. Sometimes it is just boredom, not really loneliness at all. In any case, it is usually has very negative experience because it has a large amount of wanting there to be another now. This desire can escalate until it takes on the experience of “panic” – or sometimes claustrophobia. Luckily for me, I am very rarely “lonely” regardless of how many people are around. It turns out that being lonely can happen just as easily, perhaps more easily, when there are people around but I am not “connecting” with them. It has nothing to do with “them” – it is all about me and how I experience the situation.

Being alone, however, can have a very different feel about it. As I have aged, I have come to more clearly understand that we are always alone. At the bottom of it all, we are alone with ourselves in this world. There might be other people (or animals), but they are always “over there” – they are always just fleeting images and experiences. For example, we might be totally engaged with a dear friend, or a lover, for a period of time – but then things change and that person is only a memory. Perhaps they die, perhaps you have a falling out, perhaps they just move away and we never seem to have time to re-connect. In any case, we are still there – as always, by ourselves.

If I am careful to avoid confusing “being alone” with “being lonely” – then I realize that it isn’t a bad thing, or a good thing, it is just life. I actually have no choice. I was born alone, will travel through my life alone, and will die alone. Sure, there will be helpers, lovers, enemies, friends, and others – but I am fundamentally alone all of the time. There is a kind of melancholy that comes with this realization.

I notice the melancholy particularly on those rare occasions when I meet someone that I “resonate” with. Sometimes I meet a person that just “clicks” with me. We like each other, can talk about any topic with glee, and just feels right. At those times I also notice a vague melancholy because I know that it isn’t going to last. There will be a time when that person, or that feeling of connection, will be gone. The moments that I am so thoroughly enjoying will be fleeting memories – that is just how it is.

I am finding that this understanding of being alone is just fine. It is not something to run away from (there is no escape even if I tried). The joyful, and “fun” part of this is the realization that I am in charge, I can chose. There is actually nobody else and I can chose to live however I want. Personally, I like to live in wonder and curiosity – while having fun most of the time. It is my choice – that is how I chose to do it. I want to be silly, but serious, unpredictable but dedicated, I like to work on things that I don’t think I can do – and often don’t ever accomplish. I like living with a lot of contradictions. I like to enjoy life. I see some people who seem to chose to live in misery, and I wonder why. Why would a person chose a path like that?

The California PUC is once again discussing the proposed new billing approach for residential solar that includes many modifications to the current Net Energy Metering rate structure. They had been scheduled to make a decision in January of 2022 (actually, the original schedule was in 2021 but that got changed). There was so many objections to their proposal that the Governor postponed the decision until May. Their stated reason for the delay wasn’t that there were objections, it was because there was a change to the board of commissioners. The delay was to allow the new commissioners to study the situation.

Now it is back on the table for a decision, without any substantive changes – it is still as bad as it was six months ago.

Supposedly the reason for the modification to the rate structure is that under the current system those with solar don’t pay their fair share for the power infrastructure. The reason is that the cost of the infrastructure is bundled with the cost of the power and billed as a single bill. If a residence achieves the goal of “Net Zero” (meaning they make as much power as they use), then they would have a zero energy bill – and therefore a zero contribution to the cost of the grid infrastructure.

This would be the case if the residential solar “power plant” cost nothing, and if the cost of the grid power plants cost nothing. However, that is not the case. A condition of their government sanctioned monopoly is that the utilities must produce enough power to meet the demand. That means that if residential solar power reduces the demand on the grid, and that reduction reduces the cost of the necessary infrastructure, then the investment in the residential solar has value to the grid, and to the non-solar customers on the grid. The PUC’s opinion about this is that it is difficult to determine how much the cost of the utility infrastructure is supplanted by the homeowner’s investment in their system. Since it is a difficult problem, they are not including it into the determination of how much, if any, residential solar adds to the cost of the supporting grid infrastructure. Basically they are taking the position that the homeowner’s investment has zero value, and does nothing to reduce the amount of equipment necessary to meet the utility company’s mandate to meet the need.

It is my belief that just because it is a difficult problem to determine how much grid infrastructure costs are reduced by residential solar, and that it has not been studied because studies have not been funded, is no reason to assume there is no value. What it tells me is that the entire approach to billing for power is faulty and needs to be modified in substantial ways.

The first modification that is necessary is to de-couple the cost of the infrastructure from the cost of power. Each user should be billed for the cost of the infrastructure required to support their demand (these are called demand changes by almost all rate structures with the exception of residential users). All other service are charged in part by the size of service required to support their maximum load. As the load changes, so does the size and cost of utility transformers, power lines, switching equipment, etc. It makes sense to base the change for this portion of the bill on the size and cost of maintaining the physical distribution infrastructure. It doesn’t matter whether you use a lot of energy over time, or a tiny amount, it costs the same to ensure that the maximum loads can be met (the is measured as power rather than energy). The second part of the utility bill should be for the energy used during a period of time. This represents how much coal is burned, how many gallons of water go through a turbine, etc. If you use a lot of energy during a period of time, you should pay a lot. If you use little, or no energy you should pay very little (or none).

This approach to splitting the bill into what is actually being paid for will solve the NEM conundrum. Solar users, and everyone else, will pay their fair share of the cost of the infrastructure required to support their needs, and solar users and everyone else will pay for the amount of energy that they use. If solar arrays make more electricity than they can use, and the grid has a way to use it for other customers, then the solar based system only used the difference between what they used and what they made (Net Energy).

There is absolutely no valid reason to change solar power plants extra for the connection services, everyone should pay for that part of the bill. The only “reason” for this situation is that the utilities like to own all of the infrastructure so that they can bill for it, including their profit. They are not very interested in allowing customers to invest in their own power plants because they don’t make profit on that investment.

Until a change similar to this is worked out, it is not difficult to find a “fair” solution, it is impossible. It is impossible because they are bundling two very difference services, with very different cost structures in to a single rate. This was a simple solution that sort of worked to achieve a fair rate distribution when everyone purchased power and nobody made their own, or sold their homemade power back to the grid. That situation no longer exists, therefore the entire rate structure needs updating to reflect the new reality.

The leaked opinion of the Supreme Court suggesting that it will eliminate Roe v Wade has caused me to wonder about the institution’s performance in maintaining the “balance of power” between the three elements of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers. My understanding of the philosophy was that the three branches of the Federal Government (Congress, President, and the Supreme Court) have inherently different missions and points of views that create a dynamic that prevents any one point of view from taking over and getting too far out of control.  They specifically set up a system that balanced the three elements in an effort to avoid the ills of previous governments whereby one group gained too much power, control and wealth. It is the push and pull between these three entities that help maintain a fair and balanced government.

The interesting, and innovative, vision behind this three legged power structure was that all of them were created in support of the citizens rather than a special group.  The preamble to the Constitution starts with the words, “We the people in order to … promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity establish this Constitution…”   “The people” refers to all of the people, not just an elite group of powerful wealthy people.  This is the key element behind our idea, and belief, of democracy.  It is OUR government, and it is bound to change from time to time as society changes (hence the inclusion of means for amending modifying the Constitution when needed).

The idea of democracy based upon majority rule is inherent in the Constitution, albeit with varying definitions of how large the majority needs to be.  In some cases a simple majority, in others a larger percentage (for example, 2/3 vote) is required to achieve a “democratic” decision.  However, in all cases it is understood that the majority represents the majority of the citizens of the country – not just the majority opinion of those that happen to be in attendance.  This understanding is the basis of our “representative” form of democracy.  Those in attendance have a responsibility to represent the people in their district while following the Constitution in order to protect the rights of under-represented individuals.  Of course this is an impossible line to tread by the representatives, the best that they can do is attempt to do so, and at least prevent the most egregious violations of the rights of minorities. One of the great problems with our form of government is that it cannot be assumed that even half of the people in a given district agree with their representative. 

There is a great pushing and shoving of opinions within Congress, with enough parties involved that perhaps the dynamics result in something like a “middle way.”  The President’s veto power (and bully pulpit) tend to counterbalance some of the excesses created by the Congress’ attempts to garner favors for their voters (in exchange for votes during the next election).  The President is likewise constrained by their desire to continue to get the support (and votes).  However, the Supreme Court is a very different entity.  Once appointed to the Court, that individual is effectively removed from the vicissitudes of politics.  They aren’t elected, and their term does not expire. 

My understanding of the job of the Supreme Court is to ensure that laws passed by wide variety of law makers are “legal” in the sense of not violating the precepts of the Constitution.  They aren’t there to judge on the truth of any particular situation, they just focus on the legality of the laws involved in the sense of do they violate the terms of the Constitution.  Obviously, the Supreme Court does not limit itself to judging the Constitutionality of a law; rather it is in the business of creating new laws.  The example that first brought this to my attention was when they appointed George Bush President, even though he didn’t win the popular vote or the electoral vote.  They (the Supreme Court) decided that Bush should win, and Gore should lose, regardless of the inconvenient truth that he lost (or at least hadn’t yet been shown to have won).   The whole issue of how Presidents are elected is very archaic and out of agreement with what is generally understood to be “fair” by the public, but in no situation does the Supreme Court have authority to do so – they just “took” the authority and since there is no body higher than them, there is nobody with the authority to call “foul”. 

The Court used a giant hole in the Constitution, and took advantage of it.  The hole that they used is that nobody can stop them from doing anything they would like – THEY are the law of the land, beholden to no one. That opened up a process whereby the party in power at the time of the appointment of SC Judges can load up the court in ways that take the role of government away from the people and give it to a small group of politicians. 

It appears to me that this change in the role of the Court  from being one of determining the legality of laws in a general way to sculpting laws to suit their personal political agendas is taking a very dangerous step toward fascism.   

According to Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus of social science at Columbia University in New York, who is widely considered the father of fascism studies, fascism is “a form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques.” That much of the story is clearly as true today in the 21^st century as it was in the 20^th century.  We are enduring a time of important political decisions being supported by popular enthusiasm generated by sophisticated propaganda techniques.  However, that doesn’t address my concern that we might be marching toward a fascist state.  What is fascism and why is it so dangerous? 

Paxton goes on to posit that fascism includes four characteristics:

•  anti-liberalism, rejecting individual rights, civil liberties, free enterprise and democracy
• anti-socialism, rejecting economic principles based on socialist frameworks
• exclusion of certain groups, often through violence
• nationalism that seeks to expand the nation’s influence and power

He goes on to note that: Fascism is always populist – there is a perceived enemy or oppressor – and elitist. The will of the people is embodied in a select group or supreme leader, from whom total authority proceeds downward.”

The first characteristic is the one that appears to be most at risk at this time.  Currently there is a lot of discussion by the “far right” (I don’t like this designation, but don’t know what else to call them) concerning what is an “individual right” or a “civil liberty”.  I think the 14^th amendment describes the general topic.  Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  Note: Unborn fetuses are not “citizens” and therefore are no subject to this amendment.

Preventing the fair election of a President by interference by the Supreme Court is an example of abridging the privileges (rights) of a vast number of citizens to choose a President by voting.  Hampering (abridging) the ability of some citizens to vote by making the election process too difficult for them to comply with the election process is another issue.  Abridging the privilege of a woman to make decisions about her health and well being by outlawing abortions is another.  There is an ever growing list of SC decisions that instead of unbiasedly determining the legality (Constitutionality) of a law are making judgements based upon their personal religious and/or political values.  Roe v Wade made it very clear that the ability to make personal decisions about abortions is a right that cannot be abridged by any State.  However, now it appears to be something else other than a privilege or a right.  What might that something else be?  Perhaps it is a taboo by a certain segment of the population – that’s fine; nobody is forcing those individuals who consider it taboo to have an abortion.

This change in the Court’s actions from judging the Constitutionality of laws based upon evidence to making rulings based upon political philosophies is a slippery slope where any law can be judged to be Constitutional, or unconstitutional, based upon the whims of five individuals having no oversight or boundaries.  Whatever they say IS the law of the land and nobody can do anything about it.

Apparently the office of the President is very close to this, with the exception that at least they are currently only allowed to stay in office for two terms.  They eventually go away, justices stick around until they decide to quite, or they die.    

I am going to leave the other three characteristics of fascism unexplored for the time being.  However, I don’t think it takes very much consideration to see the growing instances of these other characteristics in the voting behavior, and actions, of law makers at the State and Federal level across America.  Are certain groups being excluded from political and economic opportunities?  Are certain groups treated differently by government agencies (including law enforcement)?  Are we working to ensure economic fairness, or are we mainly supporting certain groups and individuals?  I leave it to you to consider whether or not we are treading the path of something other than the “democracy” in the pursuit of “liberty and justice for all” that we hold so dear to our hearts. 

I had an interesting experience this week. A grandson’s birthday is coming up and “grandma” decided that carpentry tools would be just the right thing for his seventy birthday. I agree, early exposure to basic tools provides a “leg up” for the rest of your life. Of course, that was just the start of the project, she also suggested that I built a tool box! Not just any old tool box, but an old fashioned carpenter tool box – the kind with an open bin, and a long handle over the top.

When I was a carpenter many years ago in the “way back time” – I used a similar box to carry my tools with me during the day. This was before the time of those fifty pound “nail belts” that carpenters lug around these days.

That sounded like a fun project, so I accepted it as a task. However, when I went to my shop and tried to find appropriate wood for the project, I realized that perhaps I had used up most of the scrap wood that I have been saving for a use such as this. Over the years I have been saving aside wood and things for the future when I would find a need for them. It mostly looks like junk, but when I resurrect something that was to be thrown away for a new project, that is part of the fun for me.

In this case I came up blank. However there were some old shelves that I had saved from my wife’s cabin near Lake Tahoe. Her grandfather and father made the cabin around 1925, and it was the family get away for years. My wife inherited the cabin, but a landslide caused us to tear it down and give the land back to the forest service. While tearing it down, I saved a few pieces of wood and some windows that looked like they might have a future life. I found three old, heavily painted, warped boards from that cabin. I don’t know why I didn’t toss them – they were pretty ugly and useless looking. But… one was the right size to make into the tool carrier.

I decided to see if I could save it, so I cut it into size and planed the wood to get rid of the ugly paint, and get something closer to the thickness that I wanted to use.

What a surprise!!! The wood is Douglas Fir, over 100 years old, and perfect! I have never seen wood that is so beautiful. It is beautiful in all ways. The grain is straight and tight, perfect – no knots, no sap, no nothing wrong – just perfect. The smell is awesome! There is something magical about fresh cut Doug fir that always smells just right. It is light, strong, perfect!

The wood is so great that I became really intimidated to do anything with it. It felt like a huge honor to just be able to see it, touch it, and smell it. Not just wood – but magical, old and mystical wood. Really – I know this sounds silly, but that is the way I felt. So that really put the pressure on to make a “perfect” box – just to honor the wood.

Of course, I didn’t manage to make a perfect box – I made a box that represents my personal skills. It is “okay”, better than amateur, but far from “perfect” in any way. But it is still a magical box for me – I just hope I didn’t dishonor the wood too much.

I have two days to finish the project, I think I can accomplish that. I wonder if my grandson will feel the energy of this box, or if it will just be another “thing”. That doesn’t really matter much – it is special to me. Not the box – that is a simple thing not particularly well done. But the wood, my God, what a special thing. I realize that almost no one will understand what I mean, you can’t until you have spent perhaps hundreds of hours caressing, smelling and listening to wood at this stage of a project. I have done that, and this is really something special.

I have been an active member of the International System Safety Society (ISSS) since about 1984, attending conferences, launching local chapters, serving as an Executive officer (Past President), editor of the journal, contributor in conferences and webinars, etc. I am saying that it is an organization that I am very familiar with – and I have been concerned about its imminent demise the entire time.

For those who might not know anything about the ISSS (just about everyone in the world) a brief introduction might help understand why this is important. System safety (SS) is an engineering practice developed to assist design and development programs minimize safety hazards through a process of identifying potential hazards and designing them out, principally through design decisions. It includes “worker safety” of course, but mostly from the point of view of making safe machines, rather than how to work around unsafe machines. Perhaps it is easiest to think of the profession as “product safety”, although the definition of what the “product” goes well beyond a product on the market, the scope of the effort can, and often does, include everything about the thing being considered – including testing, manufacturing, use, disposal, environment impacts, etc. It is the BIG picture of safety. Because SS is an engineering activity, there is a large body of knowledge and experience required to be efficient, effective and successful. There is a big need for education, but almost no means of obtaining that except through the ISSS and a few consultants that provide specialized courses for a few industries. There are very few university courses covering the profession, or degrees in the field. It is really a profession based upon OJT (On Job Training).

My personal opinion is that SS engineers can, and should, provide critical inputs into ALL design and development programs, both government and general industry, including all types of products. However, with the current worldwide membership of less than 500 members of the society, and perhaps five times that number of active SS engineers, there isn’t much of a chance for that to happen.

When I was elected President in 1990 I found I was taking the reins of an organization that is as close to bankrupted as you can get – the discussions were all about what would happen when we went into the red. My position is that we can’t go into the red because nobody will lend us any money. We pulled together and missed that one by the skin of our teeth, eventually increasing our membership by almost five fold, with money in the bank. That was until 2008 happened and government sequestration took hold and attendance at our conferences was deemed “unnecessary” – cutting our membership and related income to the point were we could just barely break even. Then came covid!

So the ISSS is in a downward financial path. I am wondering what can be done to remedy that situation. Our current sources of income are limited to annual membership fees and income from our annual conferences. Our last two virtual conferences were virtual because of covid, and provided a net loss rather than income. Perhaps there will be a face-to-face conference this year in August, but I am hearing that some of the corporations that traditionally send system safety engineers to the event have eliminated budgets because of their fear about sending anyone to large gatherings of people. Live conferences require hotel rooms and facilities, which require contracts specifying minimum rooms number and other expenses to keep the rates low enough for the conference attendance fees within reason. The contracts are signed up to a year in advance, with the potential for turning a potential money making event into a devastating loss. I am getting very nervous about this year’s conference.

It seems that much of California is burning again this summer. We have had a spat of really huge, terrible fires for the past few years. They are centered in the two main forest types, conifer forests in the Sierras and oak woodlands mixed with chaparral on the coastal ranges. California has historically had big, hot, fast fires in the oaks and chaparral because it grows in the arid, hot parts of California. Decades of aggressive fire suppression have resulted in the accumulated growth of vast tracts of explosively flammable brush and trees- and when it catches fire now it gets so hot and burns so fast that there isn’t much to but watch it burn. That wouldn’t be too bad if it wasn’t that these areas areas are also so attractive for high value homes.

I learned in grade school that the local California natives were “hunter/gatherers” with little, or no, agricultural efforts. It turns out that is far from the truth. The natives were almost entirely “farmers” but their tools were different. They used fire to manage their lands, and used naturally available habitat. The entire state has been intensively managed for tens of thousands of years using fire to shape and create resources needed by the native population. Many of the trees and plants have evolved to the point where they cannot exist without fire. Because of this, it is my opinion that the oak/chaparral fires are “natural”, expected and necessary. The problem is with the fires, it is with the fire suppression efforts and the location of infrastructure within the fire zones.

The confer forests on the east side of the state are a different story. While it is true that these forests also depend upon fire to survive (many species can’t propagate without fire and would therefore go extinct), they too need many smaller fires burning at ground level. While these forests have also been turned into fire danger zones by the over zealous application of suppression (Smokey the Bear was far too effective), as well as extensive logging and clearing that transformed the forests from mixed habitat to one consisting almost entirely of closely spaced, uniform sized trees suitable for logging.

When global warming is added to that, the rainfall decreases, causing the trees to dry and become less “robust”, allowing millions of acres to become infested with bark beetles, weakening and killing millions of trees. This set the stage for what is happening today. Once those trees catch fire they no longer burn along the ground, they catch fire like giant torches – burning hot, fast and uncontrollably. Instead of crawling along the ground it creates huge winds that launch embers and burning bark high into the sky where it carried by the winds to create new fires miles ahead of the main fire. There is no stopping these fires once the get under way, burning until the rains come. We are in another drought year, meaning that this year will be extremely dry and we will get new fires in areas that haven’t yet burned (or maybe, that were burned a couple of years ago and are now ready to explode again).

This is part of the set up for my story about our cabin. My wife’s grandfather and father build a little, very rustic, cabin in the Sierras on the way to Lake Tahoe at around 1925. The cabin was built on a 99 year lease from the forest service with the understanding that we had a responsibility to maintain it until we either sold it or tore it down. About five years ago we encountered a major problem because cabin was built on a bluff overlooking the river, and changes to the drainage caused a lot of the bluff to slide into the river, threatening our cabin. The forest service said we had to fix it our tear the cabin down and leave. After a lot of money doing geologic surveys, engineering studies and whatnot the forest service decided that it couldn’t be fixed, and there our lease was canceled and we had to clear the property, putting it back to the original condition. We had of course enlarged the cabin, installed concrete foundations, installed a septic tank and leach lines, etc. After spending close to $100,000 we were allowed to go on our way. We took the things that we cared about, purchased another cabin located about 120 miles as the crow flies north. It was very traumatic and sad to have to do this, but “such is life” as my mother used to say.

Then this year of new fires came along. Our new cabin was right in line with the path of the largest fire in California’s history, but luckily (so far) the fire split and went around the part of the lake where we are located. We were lucky this time, the fire spared our cabin and the neighborhood where it is located. At the same time, a huge fire started to the west of the location of our old cabin and roared up the river canyon, totally overtaking the cabin site and all of the cabins in that area. We haven’t heard, but assume that the neighboring cabins have been burned to the ground.

So, I have noticed that it is one of those odd things. If our cabin hadn’t been threatened with sliding off of the hill we would still have been there. It would now all be ash. However, since we were forced to move, we still have a cabin and all of the personal treasures. It seemed bad, but now it seems good. It would have been best to not spend the $100,000 but during that time our new cabin has increased in value by more than that amount (and probably more that it is still standing in the middle of healthy forest that is now surrounded by black trees). So in the long run we got our money back, saved the family treasures, didn’t have to panic over a fire evacuation, and have a nice cabin on the lake. It is certainly hard to know when events are positive or negative, they can turn out either way – and we can’t seem to predict.

I think this means that there just isn’t much point in judging it one way or other – there is no point in celebrating “good luck” or agonizing over “bad luck” – we are probably wrong and just don’t know it yet. Best to follow my mother’s advice and realize that is just the way things are … “such is life.”

Last weekend my wife and I were “invited” to attend a fund raiser for a local elementary (K-6) public school. It just happens that this school is where all of our grandchildren attended, as some still do. It is kind of difficult to turn down such an offer.

The purpose of the fundraiser was not to provide money for the “normal” costs of schooling (teachers, buildings, maintenance, etc), but rather to provide funding for “extras” that the children enjoy. I am not sure what the “extras” consist of, but I suspect it is things like art supplies, musical instruments, perhaps some field trips – you know, just some fun things for the kids. We all know that these things are intended to be “fun” – they are intended to enrich the education of the kids.

This school is an interesting one because it is located out in “the country”, away from any towns or population centers. It is surrounded by thousands of acres of farm land – some of the most productive farm land in the world. It is a very old school by California standards, having been started in 1861 (just twelve years after the beginning of the ’49ers gold rush in California. The current school buildings appear to have been built in the 1950’s as part of the rapid ramp up in schools required to accommodate the flood of baby boomers. It is in the iconic California style of almost flat roofs, walls of glass, few or no indoor corridors, access to the school rooms is from wide covered walkways. It is not possible to attend school there without a lot of exposure to “the outside.” The school is old, but appears to be well maintained and is fully functional.

One of the great features of this school is that it is highly integrated, being about 40% white, 40% Hispanic and the rest a mix. It looks like it fairly represents the mix of the community. It also has a nice mix of kids from a range of economic backgrounds. Just from looking, with no data to support this opinion, it appears to be mainly made up of a mix of farm workers and farm owners.

The fund raiser was clearly not composed of a representative mix, it was heavily skewed toward the upper income brackets – enforced by costs that were probably pretty much out reach for many of the parents and grandparents. It ended up feeling like a social mixer of the landed and well-to-do. Because it was for an elementary school most of the parents were what I now call “young” and probably not even fully aware of their future legacy. The are making do, living modest lives, taking care of their kids – but they have support, and they will soon be handed “the reins of power” in the community.

As an interested observer, I couldn’t help but notice that this event was creating the “good old boys” that eventually make the decisions and make the money. I fantasized about how much wealth was concentrated in that room, and came up with billions, not just millions. Billions because a few were children of families that own and farm huge farms in the middle of California. I don’t know how much this land is worth, but it is a LOT! That doesn’t necessarily mean they can spend it, they are “land poor” like most farmers, but it sure helps.

The fund raiser required purchasing tickets, sold drinks once inside, and included a “raffle” of things that had been donated. Pies, cakes, ice chests – that sort of thing. About 150 people were in attendance in a really neat old barn on one of the biggest farms in the area. It felt very “special” to me, and I suspect to others as well. The rumors that I heard indicate that they made something like $45,000 from the fund raiser. Not bad from a crowd of 150!

That has caused me to really wonder about these kinds of events from a Society point of view. I assume they decided to do this because they believe the school is underfunded and thus unable to purchase the “extras” required to create a fulfilling education. That implies that ALL schools are similarly underfunded. The State (and perhaps voters) have decided to provide the absolute minimum funding to schools necessary to meet the legal requirements. Schools in poorer areas have to live with that, they don’t have the necessary resources required to “extend” the offerings. Schools in more well-to-do areas get significant extra help from things such as this fund raiser. In addition to that, the amount of taxes raised for a school district is based upon local property taxes, and those are based upon the value of the homes and businesses in the area. More expensive homes result in higher taxes, that result in more income per student.

It seems reasonable to assume that all of this means that “equality” in schools just plain doesn’t happen. Even if the State provides equal funding per student, and even if they were to mandate limits from local property taxes, there will always be very large funding differences because things like fundraisers and private donations. I don’t think teachers benefit directly from this because I think their income is based upon State standards, but what happens in the schools must certainly reflect this extra, private, funding.

It seems to me that all schools “private or public” should be held to the same funding standards, including the effects of fundraisers and whatnot. All schools should be adequately funded, through taxes, to have all that is required to provide a good quality education. There shouldn’t be spots of excellence because of extra funding. If we are ever to get out of many of the problems facing society today, it has to start with high quality education for all.

As a rather radical idea, I think all private donations and fund raisers should be banned. There should be no ‘outside’ source for money for the schools. It should all be equal, all be fair, and all be enough to provide a high quality education – including paying teachers enough to make the job attractive from a job point of view, not just attractive to those that are willing to sacrifice because they have a calling.