Public education at risk

If you are reading this, you probably know me as a passionate advocate for public education. I went to public school (K-12) in New York. My college days were at public universities (SUNY/Oneonta, UCLA, Oregon State). I've taught as faculty in public sector, too (Oregon Coast CC*, Texas A&M, Florida State, Montana State*, and most recently at Lane CC). I majored in Meteorology/Atmospheric Sciences at each level, and took minors in mathematics, water resources, and then college and university teaching.

I also taught in private higher ed, at Linfield* and Creighton (*denotes adjunct positions). I was a high school math tutor, homeschooling parent, private childbirth educator, and as an academic dean I am still a creator and deliverer of teacher training to educators from the public/private/non-profit sectors. I've done PD across the USA and internationally in Canada, France, Jamaica, Jordan, Scotland, Trinidad & Tobago, with 3 North American tribal teams, and co-led teams that also trained in Mexico and Australia on my projects. I designed and co-taught science education classes for the FSU College of Education, and collaborated with the University of Texas' UTeach program.

I know something about education. Not just science education. Across the US, public education is under attack, and both Democrats and Republicans are complicit. Below you'll find a copy of a post from a friend who is a member of the NY Chapter of BATs (BadAss Teachers Association). Fans of public education should pay attention to them. They are calling out so-called reforms that are nothing more than attempts at privatization support for/larceny of public sector $. Don't believe me? Examine what's happening with state governments doing outside contracting in transportation, health care, prisons, social work, probation and parole, security, in your state, red or blue. There are BATs chapters in every state.

And this disturbing trend is showing signs of gaining traction in Oregon. Under the guise of addressing inequitable access to higher education, some legislators and education leaders are promoting, effectively, substandard versions of college courses by teachers who aren't certified. Sound familiar? Sounds like the for-profit model to me, that failed so many at ITT, Corinthian, Trump U, and others. Are these classes comparable to what is offered by regionally-accredited institutions? I've looked at some, and it is a very uneven landscape. Rural districts are indeed very poorly served in terms of access to college credits for high school students, but wholesale adoption of the limited existing options should be examined carefully. I'm for development of cohort mentorships, fairly compensated to all participants and collaboratively designed rather than imposed, to built up repertoire and experience, for preservice and practicing teachers in underserved areas. Are these articulable and transferable? And is advanced credit something that should be available to all? 

Now, let's hear from the NYBATs:

Standing Up for Teachers NY BATs!!!  

30 September 2017 - From their Facebook Page.  The SUNY Charter School Institute is one of two agencies in New York State that grants and oversees charters at schools. Earlier this summer, the Institute proposed a change to regulations that would allow charter schools to self-certify teachers. It is shocking that a proposal has been presented to the Trustees from within SUNY to abrogate the high standards for some seeking to be teachers. These changes in regulations would undermine the teaching profession throughout New York State. All New York Students deserve a highly qualified and fully certified teacher.

Imagine that we were presented with a complaint that a health care network couldn’t find enough licensed doctors to hire for their urgent care centers. Its solution is to request authority to establish its own training program, which provides substantially less instruction time and dispenses with all the qualifying exams. This is the medical equivalent of the SUNY Charter Schools Institute proposal. It is deleterious, deeply flawed, and unacceptable.

The full SUNY Board of Trustees does not plan to vote on this item, but rather will defer to a vote by only the Charter School Committee. It is our understanding that the committee intends on hearing this item at their October meeting. The public notice and agenda have not yet been posted, but the meeting will be on October 11th, at SUNY Global Center, 116 East 55th Street. 

Meetings are generally in the morning. You can check on the SUNY Board of Trustees website for announcements, or contact my office next week. Please plan to attend to make it clear to the committee that all children deserve a fully and properly certified teacher. There will not be an opportunity for public speaking.

On scientific matters, who's minding the store at the Executive Branch?

Well, it turns out, nobody! Thanks to ongoing work by the Washington Post and the Partnership for Public Policy, the Trump Administration has failed to nominate 354 of 577 Executive Branch positions that require Senate oversight (over 60% of these positions are vacant!). Now Senate oversight has not meant much in the first 200+ days of the administration, but we often hear how President Trump and his supporters lament Congress' slow pace at approving his appointments, with criticism often aimed at the minority party.

It turns out we have real, actual data (truth!) to indicate how things are going with those appointments. I've attempted to identify the remaining appointments that are related to science (including environmental areas) posts from this Washington Post Powerpost, and was astonished to find 75 vacancies with not even a nominee!

75!

I suppose one could argue that it is best not to have Mr. Trump's imprimatur on these positions, since so far he has given us some real scientifically-credible winners like Betsy DeVos, Scott Pruitt, and Rick Perry at the tops of their departments, with even worse picks beneath them in the few science positions that have been filled.  But with important budget and policy decisions looming inside the Beltway, and virtually no-one with scientific expertise advising the high-level administrators and the President, one has to wonder about our present administration's taste for truth in decision-making. I've assembled all of the data for these missing government scientific administrators in a spreadsheet, valid as of 8/8/2017, so far as I can tell. I left out a bunch that have science components, as well, and made notes where appropriate on some I retained on a second pass. And don't get me started on the advisory groups and commissions that are being dismantled, who do the real honest work on reviewing important peer reviewed science on climate, the environment, public health, energy, and nuclear proliferation.

I wonder if one could argue the classic Trump line that these are superfluous and redundant positions, and so government is better off saving these $ and leaving them unfilled, just like all of these non-competitive, redundant, and unnecessary regulations that are being torpedoed that we keep hearing about.  Why, the entire White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has been closed - winning saving$ there!  [You can follow the #OSTP diaspora on Twitter!] This is the same office that under Vice-President Al Gore's leadership helped to create the GLOBE program, an organization I have worked with for nearly 20 years. GLOBE, and my involvement in it, will continue for the time being, thanks to bipartisan support and agencies such as NASA, NSF, and NOAA. But I truly wonder about the health of the public's attitude towards science and science literacy/education at this moment in time in the USA. I feel like going into the kitchen and spatchcocking something.

But before I do, let me thank those hard-working civilians and contractors who carry out the important scientific work regardless of partisanship issues; many have passed through my labs and classes here at Lane, at FSU and elsewhere. And I do get it, and respect, those who opt to leave federal service when the distaste becomes toxic. You are all our heroes!

A hot one!

It was August 8, 1981, and the Willamette Valley was toasty. I was trying to finish up my PhD prospectus at Oregon State, as I recall, and the non-air conditioned Ag Hall was just too hot. I headed home after a long day, and we decided to head up to Silver Falls State Park the next morning with our camping gear and our (then) 3 kids to escape the heat. The campground, and all Cascades-area campgrounds were already full. But a kindly park ranger told us there were some spots open on the coast, so off we went.

By the time we arrived, the coast campsites were full (traffic was awful!) so they were letting valley refugees set up camp at waysides. Tents were everywhere! And it was a glorious 58°F almost round-the-clock. Many non-weather-ready people had no sweatshirts or jackets with them so I imagine the shops did a brisk business.

And they'll do so this week, too, as the exodus occurs. Forecasts are for 3-5 days of 100°F or greater across the lowlands in western Oregon this week, so it will be a nice dry run to see if the east-west highways are ready for the eclipse in 3 weeks.  For those of you in Eugene, here are the observations for that week in August when it was so hot, and which set some records which may fall:

It remains to be seen how competitive this week's event will be across the valley compared to that one. Mainly I post this just to remind people that heat waves are not just occurring due to human-caused global warming. They are not unprecedented. However, they will likely be more commonplace as warming takes hold. And as always, use the National Weather Service for your forecast guidance - no hype, just taxpayer funded forecasts from the professionals.  

Is a NWS Reorganization Coming?

To all my friends and former students in the National Weather Service (NWS), I want to wish you good luck in your negotiations. To NWS management, I hope that negotiations will not be conducted following President Reagan's strategy used with air traffic controllers. According to the Seattle Times, the NWS has canceled its union contract.

Dan Sobien, President of NWSEO, and crew do fine work for this nation. The weather "enterprise" is changing for sure, but you won't be able to replace the human element, and NWS management should be (and probably is) exceptionally mindful of social science research related to high stress (and often rather boring) jobs that require community connections, local and scientific expertise.

Think about triage at a hospital that requires minimal staffing levels. Let's try to be realistic here.

And how's that search for NOAA leadership coming? Seems important at the moment.

I've long been a member of educational unions myself, first in Florida and then in Oregon, but find myself for the last two years a member of middle management. In this role I've been both frustrated by and honored by the role that union management at my institution plays in securing employee rights of both the #LCCEA and #LCCEF.  I grew up in New York, and as a teenager worked for my father and uncle in their non-union sheet metal factory and learned how to appreciate the idea of labor rights by seeing how employees were not necessarily treated well. I still worry about how former Senator Rick Santorum's efforts to largely privatize the NWS a few decades ago, aided by some large private weather corporations, may be back on the table.

I've been a proud supporter of both NWS management and employees over the years, and was proud to work with so many great individuals in collaborative projects involving NWS/NOAA employees in  education, satellite and data services, and line employees in collaborative research projects in Oregon, Colorado, Washington DC, and the Southern Region. The telling situation of nearly 700 vacancies across the NWS puts a strain on workforce. What is the breaking point, I ask as an outsider?

Collaboration is required for unions and management to work together. I hope that these coming negotiations will be good for the NWS, its employees, and the mission of the NWS which is designed to help protect the public. That's all of us.

Sometimes you just lose.

Florida's anti-science education bill became law, decries NCSE, and rightfully so.  "Sometimes you just lose" is what came to mind when I read it this morning.

That is what a FL legislative staffer told me back in 2008 or so when the legislature failed to fully implement our expert panel's recommendations on science education in Florida, which would have strengthened the way in which evolution and climate change (and other subjects) were taught. As a result, Florida got "everyone does Biology" in 9^th grade and that'll do as the de minimas standard. Some districts did fine and still do. See Paul Cottle's Bridge to Tomorrow blog for details on where decent science education across the spectrum takes place (hint - it often involves #physics).

9 years later...I'm saddened to see this. Floridians: sometimes you just lose. @NCSE, 2017 has sure been a tough year. But keep it up and thank you!

Paul Ruscher, PhD
Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Eugene, Oregon
29 June 2017

#POTUS takes out #WOTUS

Mr. Pruitt #EPA Administrator, is fully committed to enacting the President's agenda on environmental destruction, and today's action by the #EPA is no different.  If you go back to the President's Executive Order of February 28, announcing the intent to rescind #WOTUS, it is laughable from both a scientific and legal framework.

In particular, the late Justice Scalia's opinion made claims that silt cannot be washed downstream, and yet §3 of the EO calls for Justice Scalia's interpretation be cited as the controlling interpretation of what is meant by navigable waters and waterways subject to scrutiny under the Clean Water Act.

It is now abundantly clear (shall we say, absent of turbidity?) that when Mr. Trump campaigned to drain the swamp, he meant that we should, forthwith, drain all remaining wetlands in our great nation.  Goodbye migratory birds, dragonflies and butterflies, endangered reptiles and amphibians, beavers, and good luck to the young fish who rest in these wonderful areas that will now be ripe for development of the type that Rapanos and Carabell were known for when Rapanos v. United States was heard by #SCOTUS, but not really decided.

It took 9 years for #EPA and the #USACE to create #WOTUS in 2015, with substantial public input and engagement.  Today's announcement of its undoing is not good news for clean water supporters in this nation.  Looking forward to another opportunity to comment on environmental destruction; this truly is a #watershed moment in our nation's environmental history.

A headline could be:  #POTUS takes out #WOTUS using #SCOTUS non-binding decision to invoke his #modus operandi.

Why I'm not applying to EPA's Boards

The History of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency; born: 1970; expired: 2017)

The EPA was founded to facilitate enactment of federal policy on clean air, water, and lands, as a follow up to important environmental legislation of the 1960s into 1970.  It was created by President Richard Nixon in 1970 and authorized by Congress in a bipartisan manner.

In 2017, President Donald J. Trump, Jr., nominated Scott Pruitt, former Attorney-General of Oklahoma, to be the new EPA Administrator.  His nomination was confirmed by the US Senate.  Pruitt has the distinction of being the person who has sued the EPA more than anyone else (I'm just making this up, but I'd encourage people to make a good list - I bet he's in the top 10!).

By the time 2017 is over, EPA will have been effectively renamed as the Economic Protection Agency, since the GOP power structure is invested in removing any regulation it deems harmful to the economy, and so many of the ones already removed and slated for removal fall under the purview of the EPA.

With the recent announcement that Scientific Advisors and Counselors are being told that their services are no longer needed, and all advisory board meetings for the summer are canceled (while the environmental deregulation moves apace), there is no scientific oversight of EPA.  We are left to trust the remaining civil servants who are now being offered buy-outs to meet the most severe budget cut of any large (pseudo-cabinet level) administration at the table.

That is why, in spite of several people who have suggested that I do so, I will not nominate myself for BOSC or any other EPA oversight board, since it is apparent from Mr. Pruitt's and Mr. Trump's own words that environmental protection mean nothing other than obstacles to economic growth.  No spin here, just using their own language.

I have an idea or two. For whatever bill comes out of the congressional negotiation process between the House and the Senate, the following amendments shall apply:

Be it resolved that any member of Congress and their staffers shall be required to participate in the new government healthcare system in effect in their home districts, with no exemption, when the new plan goes in effect for all of their constituents.

The second amendment I'm suggesting (oops, 3^rd rail language):

Any citizen of this country who makes more than 25 times the federal poverty level will be ineligible for insurance coverage under this new health care plan. They must pay the full price for any medical care directly to their provider, or arrange for their own private health insurance if they desire it.

Third Amendment:

The maximum contribution to the Social Security Administration and disability program based on income is hereby removed, effective upon adoption of this bill by Congress and signing by the President.

The 200-year History of Anthropogenic Climate Change Science ... in one tweet

It turns out that Sarah Silverman (a very funny lady) and Adam Baldwin (not Alex or William) don't like each other very much.  They recently got in a twitter battle about the evidence for climate change and human impacts.  I tried to help them with their thought process here. 

International Diplomacy and the #ParisAccord - Broader Environmental Policy Implications

People are wondering about DJT's decision to withdraw from the #ParisAccord, and its impact.  It is an international agreement signed by nearly 200 nations, and is not quite a treaty. Its overall impact, and the US decision to abrogate could be considered quite weak as a force for change.  But gravity is also a rather weak force as it turns out. Still impressive and given this discussion of scale, let's continue.

I've been privileged to work twice with the US State Department on science collaborations before (through the GLOBE Program), so I have some respect for international treaties, even if they are not often very effective. I have respect for treaties.  I am a geek when it comes to science and policy as it turns out.  I've been thinking about what it might mean for US diplomacy to withdraw from Paris.  Are there side effects?  There just could be.  I ended up with some unexpected spare time on my hands and so I did a little digging. You see the US is party to many different treaties and agreements that are related to the same types of issues.  Below you'll see a link to a draft document listing some of these that might relate to the USA's status and respect among the international community.  Just a first stab at it, but one that I hope is of interest to some.  There are also a few that the US has not adopted which are widely adopted.

Selected List of US Treaties and Agreements

Summer without Paris

Today, June 1st, marks the start of meteorological summer in the Northern Hemisphere. It also marks the day that President Trump fulfilled one of his campaign promises to withdraw the United States (the most significant greenhouse gas polluter per capita in the world) from the Paris Accord which was agreed to by nearly all parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). We join Syria (which I presume was a little too busy to contemplate participating) and Nicaragua (which may be still trying to figure out how to spend all of that Contra-generated funding from the Reagan era).

But I digress. The Paris Climate Accord has been mischaracterized by so many denialists and critics that it does not make sense for me to dispute their farcical arguments here. They've been sufficiently debunked by so many already. The President's speech was full of "America First" type sentiments, and included a suggestion that we could renegotiate terms. Balderdash!

The terms under the Paris Accord allow nations to set flexible non-binding goals that can be revisited.  The economic doomsday scenario which we would be led to believe is not supportable by any economic argument that has precedent in reality or in validated modeling. There are far too many human factors involved for anyone to predict the consequence of this action today on other nations.

The coal jobs are not coming back in the US. We will continue to rely on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, and nuclear power and less harmful forms of renewable energy are becoming cheaper and more competitive when all costs of production and utilization are factored in, including environmental degradation (which does happen) and environmental restoration (which is often left by the purveyors of the resource extraction to the weak state regulators). But we must move towards a carbon-free energy system, and do so in a generation.  We now have people in charge of EPA, the Department of Interior, and Department of Energy who are implementing presidential directives to remove environmental protections and energy sustainability programs which could accelerate the decarbonization that is required for us to provide for future generations' well-being and yes, even economic and environmental justice.  Environmental education programs are being eliminated across the board.

President Trump says that he is responding to the voters in Pittsburgh, not Paris.  He apparently did not check the election results very carefully.  Allegheny County voted 56% for Hilary Clinton and 40% for Donald Trump.  Oh, that's right - data mean nothing to our president and his party.  Pittsburgh has transformed into a very dynamic place from the place I first visited when I went to a ballgame there at Forbes Field in the early 1970s.  That was a time when the plants and mills were running full force, polluting air and water and soil at unprecedented levels as the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Acts were beginning to have full force of law.  Republicans and Democrats worked together to ensure that the Cuyahoga River would not catch fire any more and that places like Love Canal in New York would not happen again and could eventually get cleaned up.  I grew up in New York and developed a love for the rivers in Westchester County (where I grew up) and Orange County (where my family moved when I was finishing high school).  The Hudson River was where I first met Pete Seeger and the Delaware River was a more wild place that was incredible.  The Susquehanna ran through Oneonta where I first went to college, and then, eventually I got to Oregon, where the rivers (now) run clean and reliably, for now.

Scientists proved that acidic rainfall in New England had its origins in large part in the factories in the Ohio Valley. This provided an opportunity to list (now) six pollutants to be regulated to protect air quality. Many did not believe that human activity could change atmospheric composition.  But the reduction of source pollutants led to improved air quality.

Then scientists (including some in Oregon) found out that stratospheric ozone (O3, yes, one of those greenhouse gases but also essential to reduce harmful ultraviolet rays reaching the surface) was depleted by human-produced gases used in aerosols and cooling systems.  The chemicals used were creating significant ozone depletion once the polar night was over and by international agreement, the Montréal Protocol was established to remove these harmful chlorofluorocarbons from further production (albeit way too slowly).  As a result, the rather poorly named ozone hole is finally showing signs of recovery. Another example that manmade composition changes that create negative consequences can be reversed.

The anthropogenic greenhouse gas problem is more difficult, but scientists have known about its dangers for a long time. Some of these gases are naturally occurring. Some are also very long-lived (like carbon dioxide, CO2). Even the US Supreme Court has ruled that EPA has the authority to regulate it.  But, like mercury, another harmful element in the atmosphere (much of it has origins in smelting and burning coal), industry groups keep fighting rational controls.  And temperature rises, because greenhouse gases absorb energy in the infrared, effectively trapping heat in the atmosphere. Ocean absorption leads to increased acidity. Land use patterns change to more intense human activity that reduces the biosphere's ability to remove carbon.

Basic science related to climate involves physics, chemistry, biology, meteorology, oceanography, and pedology for a complete picture.  There are so many so-called experts out there who claim to know the climate system, but it is indeed a complex beast.  Scientists don't have all of the answers.  We do work to build and validate models which can both reproduce past climates based on observations, and then produce future projections that can provide some measure of confidence.  There are also economists who understand the basic science problem enough to know, with some ability to guide us in terms of costs and human behavior to guide a methodology which includes building different scenarios.  The models are not perfect, but they typically underestimate the negative climate impacts.  And the consensus governmental reports coming from the IPCC typically aver quite conservative and get adjusted every five years or so, to provide even more problematic impacts, guided by actual science. The scare tactics used by industry groups resort to economic forecasts that have no basis in reality and aren't subjected to the same kind of forecast verification rigor used in the climate science community.

The American public supports rational action on sustainable energy development and climate change. The Grand Old Party has devolved into a selfish group of corporate-sponsored anti-regulation anti-science hypocrites who yell "states rights" when it comes to protection from government overreach, but are happy to develop federal policy that tromps on other individual citizen's constitutional protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  I hope that the lawsuit filed related to the public trust doctrine by Our Children's Trust is successful.  It will play out right here in Eugene.  I'll be there.

But with people like Donald Trump, Ryan Zinke, Scott Pruitt, James Inhofe, Ted Cruz, Lamar Smith, and our own Greg Walden in charge of government policy on science, energy and the environment, I've lost my ability to be rationally optimistic about the future. But before I put out a call for action, I'd like to express my displeasure with those on the fringes of the environmental movement who claim all kinds of impacts that are not (at least not yet) attributable to human-caused climate change.  By shouting at the wind every time there is an unusual weather event (and weather ≠ climate) and blaming it on climate change, you put doubt in the minds of your own rationality and lend credence to the denialists out there who don't accept the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change.  Not all climate change is attributable to us.  But a lot, in fact, most of it, is.  Fortune 500 companies get it.  Our own Department of Defense gets it as a realistic threat.

Now I'll make the call - please, whether you are a scientist, educator, or just someone interested.  Don't disengage - keep trying.  It may feel like you are butting your head up against the wall.  Be respectful.  Find out where the confusion lies with people you talk to and try to encourage them.  Don't proselytize, rather, engage respectfully.  We won't convert everyone.  We will convert some, and maybe people important enough to vote, or teach, or write, or research.  After all, it worked on me over 25 years ago.

Silence is not an option...

I am an atheist. But I respect people regardless of their own religious beliefs. My faith in humanity was shattered last night when I saw that feed on my social media about the fatal stabbings on a Tri-met train in Portland. A white male, the most likely type of American terrorist according to data, spouted hateful things to two women, one of whom was wearing a hijab. Strangers came to their defense and sacrificed their lives for her freedom of expression. A right guaranteed by our Constitution.

I have a daughter who is a nurse, who converted to Islam a long time ago, lives in Portland with her wonderful family, and works in a hospital nearby that location. I could not reach her. I panicked. Finally she got back to me told me she was safe and she and others are organizing a vigil to honor the victims tonight in Portland.

The face of terrorism does not reside in a single religion. It resides in the hearts of, largely, men in power. I cannot abide this any longer. I will not remain silent any longer. It is time to end the perception that terror is purveyed within one religion and it is time to end support for those nations and organizations that do so. It is also time to call out those extremist sects in any religion that purvey radicalism in the name of faith.

Unlike others, I will not blame our president solely for this reality. I have had the privilege of knowing some wonderful priests, pastors, rabbis and imams in my life. But I have also witnessed personally others from the bloody pulpit spew hateful messages that have created this problem in our societies.

This tragedy in Portland also hit me hard at this time because I was just asked by the Lane Community College Islamic Student Association to help them with a video about Ramadan. I was honored to have been asked to participate as Science Dean. I hope that I didn't embarrass myself on their video.

America, your broader paternalistic flaws and white male privilege is being exposed. I've been a beneficiary of that WMP, but I've owned up to that and have been trying, I think somewhat effectively, to make amends throughout my life on behalf of others who have been less fortunate.

Let's pay the positive forward, not the hatred and vitriol.

Inauguration Day and the Forgetful Five

The Forgetful Five

Paul Ruscher, Eugene, Oregon, 20 January 2017 updated 9 January 2021

Updates 30 September 2017--its down to 1½ as Price is out, and Sessions' impact on Russia probe is crippled.

Updates 9 January 2021 - what the heck happened to Trump's first Cabinet?

It's Inauguration Day!

As a responsible scientist and science educator, and politically interested and independent person (I register for a political party only when required to participate in my state's primary system, and have not done so uniformly), I am always fascinated by the intersection between public acceptance and understanding of science, and government policy invocation practices.  The United States Senate holds a reputation and history, and Constitutional expectation, that it serves as the deliberative conscience of the people,  having the authority to advise and consent on the powers of the Executive Branch.  I am not convinced that, under the leadership of Senator McConnell, it will carry out this important function in a meaningful way.  Nothing to do about that, however.

The US Senate is in the process of carrying out what are appearing to be pro-forma confirmation hearings on a number of candidates for Executive office who have not completed ethics oversight, and for individuals who are, on their face, wholly unqualified to hold office for their selected department.  As examples, I present five cases in which any objective determination of fitness for duty would fail.  Four of my five picks have significant tie-ins to education or science policy, so I feel fully qualified to comment here.  The other ties in to basic social justice principles, and everyone should have an opportunity to reflect on this. I also briefly mention some of his picks for which I am mildly and surprisingly supportive, from what I can tell about their records. 

1)   Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education resigned January 7,2021 after the day the Capitol was breached by insurrection fomented by Trump

Shame on Senator Lamar Alexander for scheduling a single round of 5-minute question times for Senators, and prior to full ethical oversight was completed for this candidate.  Ms. DeVos is on the record as an ally of public funding for religious and for-profit schools to replace public education, and without necessary financial or educational experience oversight required of the public schools they are designed to replace or improve over.  And with no evidence that collectively these schools improve educational access or outcomes for students, and plentiful evidence that they actually provide less service and poorer outcomes, an advocate like this for our federal public educational system has me baffled.   The public's right to know her record is now squarely in the hands of the 4^th Estate (the press), which unfortunately has been so maligned that many GOP supporters of Mr. Trump's nominees will never get to read the truthful examination of her record, because they are so blind to it. 

I do not think that we must necessarily have an advocate for teacher's unions, or Common Core, or NGSS in place to lead.  But we must have an individual who actually knows something about education from a non-political perspective, and one who did not receive her training through advocacy of making more money off the government to run shoddy schools that line deep pockets for her millionaire friends.  My hope here is that Republican Senators like Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Lindsay Graham will join with the Democrats and Independents to vote "no" on her nomination and restore some civility to this process, and demand a fair hearing for the next candidate that President-Elect Trump nominates.

2)   Scott Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

As Attorney General for the state of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt led numerous efforts to derail any rational effort at improving environmental legislation and regulation promulgated by the EPA and other federal agencies.  These efforts have been spotty in their success, at best, and many have failed spectacularly.  Updates to environmental regulations to protect soil, air, water, and wildlife quality are mandated by scientific understanding of environmental change, including, yes, the human influence on Earth's climate.  And Mr. Pruitt personifies the classic case of the fox being in charge of the hen house.  As Rick Scott and other GOP governors have done in their respective states, leaders have dismantled state regulations and compliance with federal environmental regulations in an unbridled manner in the last decade or so.  There is no discerning individual in politics today who can say with a straight face that Scott Pruitt will embody the foundational principles of environmental protection in this nation; principles which were embodied first in Republican presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon (yes, that President Nixon), who worked in bipartisan ways to provide environmental protection mechanisms that could blunt what had been aggressive campaigns to ignore environmental degradation by selfish personal and commercial interests.

As an environmental scientist myself, I cannot in good conscience support Scott Pruitt for EPA, and believe he should be resoundingly defeated at the full Senate level by a large number of Senators.  If the Senators act according to their Constitutional duty and not party loyalty, Scott Pruitt should be able to amass no more than a dozen affirmative votes, largely from those states whose Senators applaud their own Governor's policies of institutional environmental degradation.

3)   Rick Perry, Secretary of the Department whose name he couldn't remember

The presidential candidate who could not remember the name of the Energy Department (which he proposed to abolish) is being picked to lead it.  President-Elect Trump has taken a page from President Reagan here in picking individuals who proposed elimination of cabinet level departments (in his case it was Education that got my attention back in 1980, as I worked for the former Oregon State University faculty member [as his TA] who was picked as Undersecretary in Charge of Dismantling the Department).  But his only experience in energy appears to be reaping the benefits of oil and gas extraction for his state coffers and his spirit of environmental degradation and profit over sensible natural resource extraction.  Energy is a department more embodied in the science of physics than any other, perhaps, with the majority of its budget involved in nuclear weapons programs and other tough concepts.  Not much to say here, except that to ask a question.  Should this department be led by an individual with no scientific background in any of the areas for which it has responsibility, and for which his only reaction to not knowing about is was "Oops!"?

     4) Tom Price, Secretary of Health and HumanServices gone as of 9/29/17

A physician in charge of a medically-oriented department!  Wow, a proper pick, right?  Well, no.  You see, first of all as a Congressman he apparently made money off private stock purchases in industries where he was pushing legislation and changes that would benefit these companies.  He has been a staunch opponent to the health care law of the land, the Affordable Care Act, and will likely be in charge of dismantling whatever components the new Congress and President decide are no good.   In any event - hearings on two committees are proceeding without the candidate having completed external ethical oversight and there will little time for questioning by any Senators in any event. 

Rep. Price has advocated segregating sick patients into high risk pools and eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood, an organization who provides many individuals with their only access to care from cancer screening to prenatal care.  He's an advocate for more privatization (read as profit incentives) for insurers and health-related businesses.  Bad choice, but at least it is not Gov. Rick Scott who Mr. Trump chose here.  Nevertheless, the selection of Mr. Price raises serious ethical considerations, for his financial history and his lack of sensitivity regarding individuals who are most in need of health services, and his lack of commitment to public health generally. 

5)   Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, ½ effective, as Russian situation has him partly neutered

This individual has a documented history of being what I would call a reformed racist.  These folks grew up in the south within a culture of white supremacy, and responded, at least in some cases, which grudging acceptance that members of their African-American communities are in fact equals and deserve equal protection.  This past would disqualify many a Republican and Democrat from office if it were the only criticism brought forward.  But Senator Sessions' denial of environmental justice in the face of public health and housing, discrimination, and in other areas has been well-documented.  His opposition to voting rights is legendary, and his adherance to false-news related to voter fraud has led him to bring cases unsuccessfully in his home state.  He does not understand rights for disabled individuals, either, apparently.  His omission of key points of fact on his own record in his candidacy statement for Attorney-General are problematic.  If he was not deemed qualified to serve as a Federal judge by the Senate, that really does raise some red flags that all should pay attention to.  

Several people came forward to support Senator Sessions as an individual who does not have a racist bone in his body.  He may be intelligent, he may no longer be a racist.  Those characterizations are distracting from a more more comprehensive assessment for someone who will serve, not as the President's lawyer, but our lawyer — the lawyer for the nation. 

President-Elect Trump has made some picks that are creative, I think, and I could support, if only full vetting was available.   But the process seems to be so rushed because of the delays in naming nominees and the ethical tangled webs that so many of these candidates bring to the table, that it is hard to know if they are supportable or not.  I am cautiously optimistic with regard to the picks of Elaine Chao (Transportation), Wilbur Ross (Commerce I wish I had more time to air my grievances about his tenure), Nikki Haley (UN Representaitve), Mad-Dog Mattis (Defense), and David Shulkin for VA Secretary. 

I await formal nominations for NASA, NOAA, Fish & Wildlife, National Park Service, and Geologic Survey leaders, all of whom have significant scientific responsibilities and are likely to be promulgated by GOP operatives not interested in advancing scientifically-informed public policy.  Once these nominations are made - there may be a follow-up analysis here; stay tuned.  The nominations of Michael Flynn (National Security Advisor), Rex Tillerson (State Department), Linda McMahon (Small Business Administration and known for WWE), Ben Carson (Housing and Urban Development) and Mike Pompeo* (CIA Director but gets an * for other appointments) are also problematic for me on so many levels, as a progressive person. [Such an astounding record of Cabinet departures in such a brief stint as President goes into the books, and replacements now sitting at Cabinet surely protect him from #25A (25th Amendment) discussion, don't you think?]

Finally, I do wish to publicly offer my congratulations to President-Elect Trump on being sworn in today as our 45^th President.  You will now be our President, yea, verily, my President.  I hope that you have a successful term as President, and that you truly are interested in being a President of all the people.  You enter office with approval ratings that are very low, but probably higher than those of President Abraham Lincoln, who started out with the second-lowest popular vote percentage (39.7% in 1860) of any, and ended up being one of our greatest ever (but that took a Civil War and other significant historical events).  You (and your messengers) must not continue to tout that your were elected in some sort of sweeping mandate, however, given that your election is notable for the votes that you did not receive (with a turnout less than 60%, and 54% of eligible voters not voting for you and Mr. Pence), and winning an election with one of the historically lowest percentage of votes of any president. 

Mr. Trump, to what do you aspire?  Is it more than just shaking things up and "draining the swamp" and replacing our governance structure with a Billionaire's Club?  You need to address this issue to the people who you will lead.  There is tremendous distrust apparently across the nation now.  Will you truly find a way to govern all of the people, and from the White House and not Trump Tower?  Are you just going to implement the Heritage Foundation's playbook, as exemplified by the recent article in The Hill?  I hope not; the future of our Republic is at least in part, in your hands. 

Further reading recommendations:

•  https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/11/18/statement-splc-president-richard-cohen-nomination-senator-jeff-sessions-attorney-general
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/civil-rights-justice-department-donald-trump.html
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/01/04/why-health-insurers-worry-about-trumps-hhs-pick-tom-price/#65a71605123c
• https://www.lcv.org/article/re-oppose-scott-pruitt-administrator-environmental-protection-agency/
• http://nstacommunities.org/blog/2017/01/12/legislative-update-unions-and-civil-rights-groups-strongly-oppose-devos-nomination/
• http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/10-questions-rick-perry-trumps-pick-energy-secretary
• http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314991-trump-team-prepares-dramatic-cuts
•  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin