Keeping you informed: Scientific Research Investigation Standard in completing federally funded researches into BP pollution of the Gulf of Mexico

British Petroleum (BP) wants to get you informed? Yes they do, but would probably not share information on the level of environmental pollution, chemically, biologically and genetically, of the Gulf Coast ecology, since its huge oil spill in April. BP would want to get you informed, but has the first right of refusal to information and results of investigation into the level of chemical, biological and physiological damage to the star fish, shrimps and other marine wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico. Most scientists, who are working on BP funded research effort into the repercussion of the oil spill in the Gulf, are more likely to share their results and findings with the management of BP than with the general public. This is not that all these investigators would not want to share their findings, but the researchers and investigators are not required to swear before the courts that their results and findings are the truth and nothing but the truth.

In fact, scientists with funded research work from BP can plead the fifth to their findings and the courts can do practically nothing! If you want authentic findings and results from the extent of ecological damage from the oil spill, you will have to wait for federal investigators and or, government funded research effort to determine to what extent the oil spill has damaged our ecological habitat, chemically, biologically and genetically. Even at that, findings from these researches may take a long time, real long time, like a decade or two, before we can objectively say, with certainty; this is what that BP’s oil spill of April 2010, wroth on our ecological habitat.

Rethinking the parameters or standard to adhere to in conducting and completing chemical, biological and genetically assessments of what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico, is a hot topic for good reason. Individual disciplinary researchers collaborate in different ways and on different levels and in cases of multi-disciplinary researches, criteria and standards of investigations expected by the federally funded research work often has the blessing of something like the Rule of the Road to the scientific research investigations from the funding agency. These kinds of research are given something like a moral guide-light, which serves as a barometer of what you can do and not do, with the money allocated to such research effort.

Scientists interested in conducting these kinds of researches work within the guidelines and limitations handed down by funding agencies; and, beneficiaries of the research funds are expected to take care as they go about their investigations; and, many of these researchers are known to have exercised due diligence in completing the investigations, either in the field or in the laboratory. The importance of these guidelines is better appreciated, when some of the findings are presented as evidence in litigation against BP or, its insurers. Under these guidelines, we are able to quickly ascertain the probable causes of why so many ruins of the habitat specie of fishes are attributed to the oil spill. We can either associate the dwindling fish run to the poisoning to their larvae, from the current oil spill. The investigators of federally funded research work understand the implications of their findings and the weight associated to their findings from aggrieved parties. That is why, we as a public, can somewhat depend on these findings as better than others to prove our case. We get the opportunity to depend on the results of these investigations than those funded by BP, the perpetrator of the offense.

Research scientist need and want guidelines regarding how they are supposed to proceed in testing hypothesis associated with probable causes of environmental pollution from BP’s oil spill. The importance of these guidelines is hardly lost to independent peer-review groups, who expect concrete objective assessments of natural resource damages. As a community of knowledge creators, research scientists are expected to remain true and honest with respect to how they conduct investigations to ensure that there is no fraud in the representation of results and findings, or in the literature used to buttress arguments regarding their suspicions of environmental damage. Realizing that if ever, a scientific fraud is suspected in findings and publication, it could have some repercussions on the justification or disputation of damages from the accidental explosion experience at the Deepwater Horizon rig. No one would like to be in the middle of an integrity fiasco, if researchers muddle up their findings, or refuse to self-police, resulting in questionable findings and conclusions regarding what have happened to our ecology and marine habitat since the rig’s collapse, oil leakage and unstable capping of the well.

To prevent any form of collusion or complications as regards the parameters and integrity of data from the ocean floors around the doomed rig, it may be necessary for the federal funding agencies to reiterate, federal regulatory procedures regarding ways and steps to follow in completing investigations into issues and handling potentially disputable results, especially in the wake of NOAA’s declarations that majority of the oil spewed from the Macando well, has been eaten up by bacteria and some apprehensive observers complaining that this is not so. Federally funded researches are expected to be above board and are often so, except in some instances; and, where these have been acrimonious, other independent researchers have been called to authenticate the disputed results of the findings in question.

To avoid duplicity, it is ideal that the rules that scientists and researchers are to follow in exploring chemical, biological and physiological implication of the oil spill, are made explicit, right from the go. It is also important, that the natural resource damage assessments allow for independent referee’s work and where there are deviations in conclusions and implications, addendum attached to disputations to give a balanced assessment of the findings and inferences. Combining multi-disciplinary investigators to work on these investigations will help bring different disciplinary perspectives into evaluating the findings and allow for improvement in results and capability of work completed. Some challenging issues that have brought down some investigations in the past have included, data acquisition process, data analysis, data retention, research methodologies and acrimonious conclusions. These are issues that rules of the road from a federally funded research grant helps to prevent, as it offers some guidelines regarding the does and don'ts of the endeavor.

There are some suspicions in the scientific community that the federal government has been slow to act on releasing the rules and guidelines that investigators seeking federally funded grants for investigating the problem associated with BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, have to follow. However, others in the community maintain that it is not too late and that the rules of the road may actually come at an opportune time, when the oil leaks are said to have ended and there is enough room to assess damage to the ecological habitat. The traditional review process of what is known to have occurred so far, and what is unknown, could actually form the basis for determining the parameters to guide investigators as to what to do and where to go, to find out more information and data regarding what is happening or has happened on the ocean floor.

The rules for scientist to follow in investigations as these are often based on predetermined goals. The rules of the road are expected to capture those factors that may be obscure in the eye of the researchers that may make the investigations difficult or suspect to a keen eye. They also may reflect current conversations on the actions already taken and the impact that those actions have had on the environment. Where solutions, ideas and expertise are relevant to the goal of the investigation, the rule of the road, may actually direct investigators to the right issues for further investigations, before objective and prudent conclusions are reached.

Many of the long standing rules and regulations of federal agencies funded research work are accolades to the process of finding the truth, regarding what has happened to our ecology from BP oil spill. Research scientists on the proposed investigations are expected to adhere to scientific methodologies that are not controversial for the results to be believable among the general public. In addition, research scientists are expected to pay distinct attention to integrity of the results, for drawn conclusions to have the desired impact for corrective actions. Such conclusions can either make or break a case before a jury hearing the case against British Petroleum on the Deepwater Horizon disaster, in the Gulf of Mexico.

For now, the scientific research investigation standard for completing federal funded research effort with respect to the natural resource assessment damages are probably in one of the agencies or working its way through the usual process of government bureaucracy. However, it is essential that this standard is released in earnest, along with available funding, for work to begin on the long arduous journey to resolving the challenges of the ecological damage to our environment from BP’s mayhem!

FRANKA ESILOKUN WILKIE (1959 - 1986)

FRANKA ESILOKUN PERRIPEYI WILKIE

A day of memorial for one of our best friends that left us twenty-four years ago.

We share the conviction of Lucan, De Bello Civili Book iv, 1. 518

"None but those shadowed by death's approach are suffered to know that death is a blessing; the gods conceal this from those who have life before them in order that they may go on living."

I HOPE WE HAVE DONE JUSTICE TO THE PROMISE!

Each year on August 2, we have celebrated her passing on, because we believe we will still meet again. We will never forget, Never!

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!

YOUR FLAG AND MY FLAG,
AND HOW IT FLIES TODAY
IN YOUR LAND AND MY LAND
AND HALF A WORLD AWAY!

ROSE-RED AND BLOOD-RED
THE STRIPES FOREVER GLEAM;
SNOW-WHITE AND SOUL-WHITE --
THE GOOD FOREFATHERS' DREAM;

SKY-BLUE AND TRUE-BLUE,
WITH STARS TO GLEAM ARIGHT --
THE GLORIFIED GUIDON OF THE DAY,
A SHELTER THROUGH THE NIGHT.

-- courtesy of Wilbur D. Nesbit.

HONORING OUR FALLEN HEROES

The Engine behind our Freedom:
Our Military Personnel;
The Engine behind our Democracy:
Our Constitution;
The Engine behind our Fallen Heroes:
Their Family Members.

To the fallen hero’s families, our heartfelt thank you;
To the fallen hero’s memory our flag and star spangle banner;
You will forever be in our hearts and minds.

Thank you for the Memorial Day!
Thank you for showing courage in forbearance!!
Thank you for the sacrifice and our Freedom!!!

With our highest respect and homage,
- Christopher Adekoya

Accountability and Denials: the Financial Reform and Climate Change Debates

At a time when everyone is wondering what is going to happen to the economy if reform does not come quickly, financial institutions’ executives and bankers are finding numerous ways to deny the obvious: the excesses of their industry nearly brought the economy to a grinding halt. At a time when Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations had began exploring what exactly went wrong two years ago when boggled derivatives, mortgage debacle and felicitous insurance instruments nearly called to question the viability of the US dollar as an international currency, top bankers are denying that they abetted the housing market would fail, played the market by selling sub-prime mortgages, mopped them up, and shuddered the responsibility of their failures to the taxpayers. Finance Executives challenged the allegation around the practices in their industry, retorting, “We are just part of an industry that was doing things that are not necessarily the main reason for the failure of the financial market.” Really?

Ask the petro-chemical and oil industries’ executives similar questions regarding their oil refining and exploration practices and you would probably get similar response: we are not solely responsible for the pollution of the water bodies or the immediate environment in off-shore drilling. Not withstanding the preponderance of evidence against these two industries, both will continue to deny responsibility for their actions. It is not surprising that leaders in industries that have established expectations, who attempt to minimize risk in business decisions, will go to the extent of pleading the fifth, when the question of accountability is raised regarding their business practices. Business executives never accept responsibility, even in the most dire circumstances.

Why do things as these happen? Most executives always underestimate their poor judgment and often shift responsibility for their actions elsewhere. We have all watched our neighbors who were not qualified for home loans offered sweet deals and even handed flat-screen televisions to cover the deadly ARM-loans that are more than toxic, that were sold to them. We all saw brokers and securities firms executives behave like prodigal sons as they squandered the trusts of their clients, selling bundled poor instruments as viable investments products while at the same time insuring against the possibility of these products failing in the market place. Oil and carbon-based fuel executives watch deadly explosions lead to deaths of their employees due to poor safety standards around their mines and drilling platforms and still insist it is not completely atonality to their negligence and ineptitude in monitoring and managing exploration activities.

You see, corporate executives are schooled in the art of substitutions: When accountability fails, lower expectations to accommodate change, substitute alternatives for non-performers and interchange expectations to help you deliver the desired results. Coming from this type of background or philosophy, it is no surprise that you find David Viniar, Goldman Sachs’s Chief Financial Officer telling the Sennate investigative panel: “We share the responsibility for the financial crisis… we care very much about ethic at Goldman Sachs”. This and other statements made all day by the Chief Executive Officer of the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, Lloyd Blankfeindo, fail to speak to the issue of claiming responsibility for the allegation against their firm and or industry; including impropriety in the way their company sold mortgage-linked investments. And if the Chairman of the investigative panel, Senator Levin, was looking for the securities firm executives to fess up to their mistakes and distasteful behavior, he probably did not get much. All he probably came out with are: these men do not think they have a duty to their clients or the American investors, to deal uprightly and prevent the failed financial instruments. For them, in all cases, failure or success of a finacial instrument, they win! They win when they recoup excessive profits, they win when the investment instruments tank, they win when their firm is considered too big to fail and thus shored up with tax payers money; and, they win when they are given millions in severance payments as they move away from Wall street in their golden parachuttes for blissful places over the globe. What a way to go!

You could probably substitute the executives of the financial industries for those of the big oil company, who just had a spill in the Louisiana coast or the coal mining firm executives at Massey Energy of West Virginia denying that their mining safety records are something to look keenly at and that their activities pollute the environment, kill people and wild life; and, probably contribute more to the disproportionate climatic changes that is alluded to by many in the environmental conservation world. Following the denial of responsibility, the executives of the oil and coal firms would maintain their innocence, probably plead the fifth if necessary and engage in double take to ensure that conversations about their practices and executive decisions does not expose them to scrunity in an environment of accountability.

The question of how did these happen, are often met with some cold face, hand-wriggling and sometimes arrogance that continue to baffle many, outside these industries. To the outsider, the question, how do these people go to their beds at night and still sleep peacefully, is justifiable. To these Chief Executives, this is just another day of doing business. We don’t have to take responsibility for our actions, we must not accept negative criticisms of our actions, because we are considered the industry leaders and the best that is, and we must always portray the “Mr. Nice guy” posture associated with our office or profile. Rather than face the reality of their failures, the consequences of their actions or in actions, they always prefer to feign ignorance, deny their predicaments and cite some other issues that have no relevance to the matter at hand, as the reason for the failure of their executive decisions or actions; and, not what is predominantly accepted as the reason(s) among the observers and sometimes, the industries’ insiders, as the causes of the crisis or problems.

To help the Chief executives appreciate the gravity of their respective actions or inaction and the essence of claiming responsibility for the sake of accountability, I will proface the following recommendations in line with the suggestions of one of the executives of a Methodist hospital in Ohio, Ohio Riverside Methodist Church Executive, Mr. Andy Manzer:
1) Acknowledge that your action as an executive does have implications and there is always a need to demonstrate accountability in whatever decisions you make regarding your organization's processes;
2) Always endeavor to find out why your acceptance or denial of responsibility is impacting your sense of accountability and costing many in your industry and those outside, money every time;
3) Address barriers to accountability within your industry and executive suites and fight the ingratitude or arrogance so endemic with your profile or executive office;
4) Get educated about the importance of accountability and develop a common understanding of its relevance to the business enterprise or portfolios in your company;
5) Make clear agreements for accountability and discuss their consequences upfront with all your employees and partners;
6) Commit to "calling out" lack of accountability in all your business and executive processes; and
7) Communicate from top to bottom accountability message and why all in the industry and your company must now take it very seriously.

It is only by doing all of these and more, can we start mending the fences, healing the wounds or making atonement for the sins or in actions that precipitated the last national financial debacle or crises, or the last accident mishaps or the pollution of the environment from oil spills.

HAPPY EARTH DAY!

THIS IS TIME FOR REFLECTION. TIME TO CONSERVE, TO PROTECT, TO PRESERVE AND HAND OVER A BETTER ENVIRONMENT TO THE COMING GENERATION.

THIS IS A TIME TO SEE THE ENVIRONMENT AS A CHILD HANDED TO US BY NATURE FOR UPKEEP.

IT IS TIME TO SHARE A COMMITMENT TO MAKE THIS NATURAL BEAUTY A PRECIOUS GIFT THAT MUST NEVER AGAIN BE SQUANDERED.

TELL YOUR NEIGHBOR, TODAY IS THE EARTH DAY!!!

Succession to the Icelandic Volcanic Eruption: Implications for the Climate Change Bill Experience

Regardless of your position on the Climate Change Bill, HR 2452, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, we will eventually have to deal with the challenge of either passing or not passing the bill. Unless you believe that there is actually nothing like climate change because there is yet no credible data to convince skeptics like you, you would still have to transition from unbelieving to a believer when the impact of this problem actually hits you in the face. I can hear you say: heresy! But look at what just happened in Iceland?

This past week, meteorologists recorded wind speed of 40 miles an hour with ashes and volcanic waste due to the volcano eruption in that country. The 30,000 foot of volcanic explosion in far away Iceland is resulting in flooding which no one in Iceland or elsewhere, contemplated a month ago. Imagine if someone had informed residents of Iceland three weeks ago that they would experience a volcanic eruption of that magnitude or that three out of every five flights in Europe would be cancelled because the air is so polluted to the extent that pilots and airports’ managers consider it unsafe to fly a plane. They would have probably brushed that thought aside, just the way we are doing regarding climate change. Imagine also having 50,000 passengers on Euro rail an hour because flights in the larger part of Europe are cancelled or there is no flight in Europe until further notice because of the effect of the Icelandic volcanoes. Imagine further that the level of flight cancellations in some of our airlines heading for Europe becomes behemoth to an extent that millions are trapped in American airports and hotels due to the impact of an environmental event as far away as Iceland.  Finally, who could imagine that a volcanic eruption, an act of God in Iceland, can impact such a large number of people, countries, continents and overall world airline businesses? This is the reality of the unexpected, which the challenge of climate change may result into or precipitate, if nothing is done right now in Congress or around the world. The world is really getting smaller than we expect or conceive and the timing of an unexpected climate change can have a ripple effect far away from regions and or continents.

To help America and Americans prepare for the unexpected, which climate change falls under, it is about time we start sharing the development or non-development on the debate on climate change and what exactly is holding the bill behind in Congress. Citizens must seek a full floor consideration of the benefits or non-benefits of HR 2452 - American Clean Energy and Security Act. We must not allow the lawmakers alone to define whether the nation needs to pass a climate change bill or not. We can all be hit by the vagaries of climate change and no congressman can save us, if it happens right today! If we are not paying attention to what takes place in congress around a bill, if we fail to document what is being done and what isn’t, we face the chances of dealing with the impact of inaction and probably have to deal with the trade-offs of inaction on an issue that is important as our climate. The public needs to be asking questions right now about what is exactly holding back HR 2452, American Clean Energy and Security Act, and attempt to facilitate reconsideration of the bill by many lawmakers who have been working against the bill.

One aspect of successions of volcanic eruptions in Iceland is its impact on air quality in most of Europe. If Europeans had been prepared for this unexpected volcanic eruption, maybe they would have gained on time and energy to deal with the repercussion of the behemoth explosion. If some of our lawmakers maintain that we do not have to be worried about the problem of climate change, simply because we do not yet have credible data on the problem, we may want to be cautious, because it is unwise to put all our eggs in one basket when it comes to the unexpected impact of energy shortage or climate change. We must attempt to edge against risk of climate change. We need to make laws that would help us help ourselves, even if we do not have the total information on the problem of climate change.

How do we mobilize the public once again behind the climate change bill? We may want to contemplate multiple things to bring to the table on the issue of climate change and the need to provide some energy security or the need to encourage lawmakers to resuscitate the climate change bill all over again. Here are some suggestions for the public to help resuscitate HR 2452 - American Clean Energy and Security Act in congress:

• Write your congressman describing how you capture the possibility of the impact of climate change or energy insecurity on your immediate environment or the legislator’s constituency and why the lawmaker need to revisit HR 2452 - American Clean Energy and Security Act, again;
• Develop a one-year calendar from the day HR 2452 - American Clean Energy and Security Act was introduced in congress, and your expectation from your congressperson on this bill;
• Create and annotated Rolex of the key events that has taken place since the introduction of the bill in congress and what milestones you want accomplished and which of the milestones have been ignored by congress in the past six months;
• Keep note of what your representative is doing on HR 2452 - American Clean Energy and Security Act, your communication with his or her office on your request for him or her to make a change on the  essential effort to pass the bill and the sequencing of the relegated parliamentary procedure that has been holding the bill back in congress;
• Start a file on tips and tricks to move bills in congress and what has been failing with respect to HR 2452 - American Clean Energy and Security Act. Describe what is expedient for your representative to do, to help demonstrate the importance you place on the issue of climate change and energy security;
• Create a profile of consequences of failing to edge against unexpected environmental events like the volcanoes in Iceland, earthquakes in California, Chile and Haiti; show the deplorable impact on human sufferings, energy security and death when we fail to act;
• Offer to serve as  your precinct contact person  for the congressman regarding the majority feeling about HR 2452 - American Clean Energy and Security Act, and what you are willing to expend to help the congressman feel the tempo of his or her constituency;
• Capture critical personal stories regarding events considered as act of God, which the Climate Change impacts may fall under, and call the attention of your congressman to the benefits of taking some steps to address part of the potential impact of the climate change experience;
• Make notes on what you wished you had known about how congress passes a bill and see what you can change right now, to help you come to speed regarding how to move a bill ahead in congress and work towards your shortcoming to help redirect the fortunes of t HR 2452 - American Clean Energy and Security Act; and
• Invite other members of your precinct or constituency to follow through with similar effort to help bring up the urgency and need to help pass HR 2452 - American Clean Energy and Security Act in the 111^th Congress;

It is close to six months that the Climate Change bill has been lying fallow in the House of Representatives. Although the bill is currently being looked over by members of congress, who once proposed the bill and have persistently worked towards helping the bill move along in congress, the difficulty and challenges of oppositions and skepticisms from some lawmakers have been a set back and albatross around the neck of the bill. If we all can talk and highlight our concerns regarding HR 2452 - American Clean Energy and Security Act, if we can share information regarding the potential impact of climate change on the environment and the possible repercussion of not being prepared on our quality of life, we may be able to bring the lawmakers to our side and our wish to see that our lawmakers attend to our concerns on the climate change bill. Many lawmakers search around for ideas and initiatives on many bills and often they do not have all the information necessary to make informed and responsive decision regarding the bill. We must support our congressman to do what is in our interest in congress. It is absolutely fortuitous if our representatives do what we want regarding a bill in congress, however, when they don’t, it is partly because we fail to have our voice known or registered on the issues in consideration on a bill. We can no longer afford that luxury on HR 2452 - American Clean Energy and Security Act. We need to get back to work!

Language Use in political discuss: What the political consultants and Lobbyists are doing to our Democracy

“I love this country”. “We have boundless opportunities.” These are two statements often made by many Americans who subscribe to our Democracy. They are also statements subscribed to by members of the militias spread across the country, tea party members, anti-tax groups and pro tax groups. You might also be surprised that many in the political fringes, including television news and radio personalities, who use infuriating and destabilizing languages, consultants who serve cohorts of political parties’ extremists, and numerous hate groups, will also tell you they love this country. Who then shall we believe? Is it the lawmaker who takes language use notes to kill a bill that is designed to reform the financial upheaval that nearly brought the country to her knees about two years ago? Is it the radio talk-show personality who considers anyone who does not share his opinion on any political issue, a socialist, communist or a bastard that must be voted out of office; or, ‘that one’ that we must take our country from? Is it the lawmakers who are so subjective in their assessments of public policies that they allow politics to becloud their sense of judgment? Is it the politician who rises every morning and sees all issues through the prism of his political affiliation, Democratic or Republican? All these questions we must now answer, in light of our current experience with the tea party, the slow moving financial reform bill and the climate bill that has hit a big bump in congress. Until we are able to provide answers to these series of questions, it may just be difficult to move ahead with many of the domestic agendas that are crucial to the survival of this Democracy under the Obama’s Whitehouse.

It is no secret that many politicians use language consultants in writing their speeches and making comments, even on bills under consideration in congress. What would have been considered as treasonable language in the past, are readily used by some politicians on both aisle of congress? Languages that would have made previous generations of political leaders in this country shriek, has been randomly thrown around by some leaders of political parties in congress of today. Daily, you hear reported that a certain legislator said this or that regarding the President of the United States. Some of those things that are said are not only hurtful; they are languages that are better imagined than said, if we live in a cordial environment. However, it seems what is considered as cordial in some civilized communities, is foreign to some politicians or groups of persons. Interestingly enough, some of these languages are watering down to the general public. For example, how do you explain the comments of a chief executive of a coal mining firm that killed 29 of his workers, saying the President of the United States is uninformed about the laxities on safety issues in his firm?

Literarily, language consultants have put at the finger tips of many politicians what would objectively be considered aggravating discussion of political subjects. Type a key word into your search engine regarding bills before the United States Congress and viola, you see some comments from our politicians that make you wonder, how on earth, this kind of person got to be elected from his or her constituency to congress. I am not making it up, this is real. Try this one on google.com, bing.com or yahoo.com. The downside of using words and languages smitten by consultants that rarely appreciate where you are coming from as a person or politician, is that you end up with comments that to say the least, are embarrassing, even to the most shameless of politicians. Having different or several language consultants working for you as a politician, puts you in the middle of a milieu of comments that are considered sour, even by your spouse. Frankly, current languages accredited to some political leaders on very serious items of national discuss, have the potential of fractionizing our democracy. It is time, that as member of public with some decency, we begin to call lawmakers out on their use of language or words, not only for the sake of harmony in that august body called the United States Congress, but because of the implication of such languages or words to the safety of other lawmakers.

Imagine words as “pull the trigger”, “you’re a liar” “take back our country”, “Nazi”, “Obamacare” and “Commander-in-Thief”, among others. Are these responsible languages from any decent American? These are the types of comments that have come from politicians, Tea Party members and others, protesting public policies on issues of national security, health care, financial reform, taxation and immigration. If you go back thirty years, could you have heard our politicians using such derogative and inciting languages? Many of these languages capture the imagination of our children to the extent that our daughter inquired from us at the dinner table the other night, why are people so demeaning to Obama? We had to offer close to genuine rebuttals that many of those carrying the placards on national news with demeaning or derogative signs, are not necessarily mean to the President, they are just finding a way to express their frustration, which no one with a level of decency, can put a hand on, right away. To some of us, the right to first amendment is now being stretched to the limit and there is a need for us to say: halt, we are all red blooded Americans, would you like this if it was said about your uncle, brother, or father?

To cope with the reality of having to explain to our daughter when adults are not behaving as adults, we have had to draw from grandma’s book of acceptable decorum: “If what you are going to say is not going to add any pleasantries to a discussion, then say nothing! Politicians like citizens need to be watchful of what they say about themselves or about public policies under discussion, either in congress or in our little worlds, called our homes. What you would not ordinarily say to a neighbor, don’t say it at work. For lawmakers, the Congress is their place of work and the presence of the press, as easily misconstrued as a means to get your message out, can be easily abused by politicians and the public, alike. The Press occasionally attempts to capture sensation and the use of words lacking valor are often broadcasted once made by a politician, especially when the politician is considered one of the leaders in his or her party.

Politicians and political action groups who use consultants for speeches and communications, either in congress or public, may want to make sure that the type of language or the form of words advanced by this consultant on an issue of discuss, is one that they effectively subscribe to, because once used, it becomes your language, no one else’s. The language may be used to capture your understanding or reservation on a subject, however, the connotation of the language at that very moment of utterance comes to be yours; both in embodiments and distaste by the average person who appreciates cordiality and decency in the use of language. The tools to capture the essence of your position on a subject do not have to be vulgar to make the necessary impact.

Whether it is public speech or deposition before congress, politicians must reflect rather than continue spinning the wheels on the same position that does not advance any worthiness to the subject at hand. Yes, I want my emotions known on this subject or I want to carry the huge burden of my political affiliation, may be something that is important to you as a politician, but it does not have to be done disparagingly or in explicit vulgarity. There are several tacit tricks used by language consultants just for the razzle-dazzle effect, but not for substance. Don’t be caught in that web of emotions or indecency. Always remember you are a public person in a public arena, always; whether on the floor of congress or in your dentist’s clinic!

Let your language on political and public issues capture the substance of your argument with a decency that your stakeholders (constituency) would be proud of. Crying out with an iota of derogation exposes you to a lot of unkindness that you are attempting to dish out and it portrays you in a very bad light. Learn not to be overtly carried away by the heat of the moment. Your expectation on a subject from other lawmakers or citizens may not just be what you like or feel comfortable with, however; you do not have to submit yourself to baseless crudity! A word is sufficient for the wise.

A THANK YOU NOTE!

To the readers of this blog, the following thank you notes are to those who did the heavy lifting, not me. As the earth shaking health care reform legislation heads to the President's desk, I would rather let the heavy lifters relish in their splendid job. The Notes are from Congressman Adam Smith of the 30th Congressional District in the State of Washington; and, info@barackobama.com on behalf of the President of the United States:

#1

A Message from Congressman Adam Smith

March 22, 2010

Mr. Christopher A. Adekoya
32123 4th Avenue SW
Federal Way, Washington 98023

Dear Christopher,

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on health care reform legislation. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me and would like to take this opportunity to explain my position on this important and complicated issue.

There are far too many people in our country who either do not have insurance or are underinsured, and the cost of insurance is escalating at unacceptable rates. We have to cover more people and get costs under control now.

These are very, very difficult goals to accomplish. For over 75 years, Republicans and Democrats alike have bemoaned the current health care system. It costs too much, covers too few, and often doesn't provide the best results. If we've discovered anything in our pursuit of reform, it is that this is a difficult issue to address - but that is not a reason to avoid the problem. If we are truly committed to addressing these issues, we cannot simply rage against what is wrong; we must do what we can to fix them.

I support this legislation because it is the best available step forward for reform. With health care costs ever increasing, we need action on these tough issues. The option before us is imperfect, but it begins the process in a substantial way.

This bill will cover an estimated 30 million additional Americans and save more than $1 trillion in the long term. These are huge steps forward in the reform process. These two key facts make it imperative that we pass this legislation and move forward now.

The legislation passed in the House on March 21, 2010 is better than the House bill that was passed in November. It does a much better job of getting costs under control. The numbers demonstrate that this legislation will not only help reduce costs in the short term, but also help bend the long term cost curve. The legislation moves forward on rewarding quality of care over quantity. We begin to shift away from the failed fee-for-service model that encourages high levels of utilization without regard to the quality of that care. Instead, it encourages accountable care organizations (ACOs) and many other quality based payment methods, which emphasize overall quality of care over the sheer number of visits, tests, and referrals. We will have to monitor and adjust these policies as we move forward and see how they are implemented, but they will actively work toward controlling costs and improving the quality of health care in this country.

This legislation includes a number of ideas from both sides of the aisle, such as portability, which allows insurance companies to sell insurance over state lines. It also encourages employers to provide incentives for their employees to manage controllable health factors known to lead to long term health issues. These incentives will help create an overall healthier society, and encourage individuals to control their own health care costs.

Americans will be touched directly by the improvement in care. In addition to no longer being denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, Americans will have access to a greater choice of plans at more affordable rates. The quality of care will also improve as doctors are rewarded for quality rather than quantity of care.

Further, this legislation empowers states to be the drivers of reform - not the federal government. States have the ability to set up the exchanges to help individuals find quality health insurance, and states will be the primary regulators of insurance companies, rather than the federal government.

This bill is not by any means the end of Congress' work to improve health care in this country. The months and years ahead will be filled with the continued work to improve upon these ideas, learn from our mistakes, and work toward a system that is sustainable and provides access to quality health care for all Americans.

Health care is an incredibly difficult issue to address, but I believe that I was elected to make difficult decisions, not to hide from them. I have chosen to support this legislation to give Americans the opportunity to have a better health care system.

Over the last year, I have seen an extraordinary level of engagement from the American people about reform. In fact, in all my years a legislator, I have never seen this level of involvement from my constituents. This is a promising sign for the vitality of our civic culture and I hope I continue to see this level participation as we move forward to address the many difficult issues our country faces.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me on this important issue. I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me with any future questions, comments, or concerns you may have.

Sincerely,

Adam Smith
Member of Congress

#2

A Thank you Note from info@barackobama.com un-behalf of the President of United States

Thank you, Christopher

Christopher --

For the first time in our nation's history, Congress has passed comprehensive health care reform. America waited a hundred years and fought for decades to reach this moment. Tonight, thanks to you, we are finally here.

Consider the staggering scope of what you have just accomplished:

Because of you, every American will finally be guaranteed high quality, affordable health care coverage.

Every American will be covered under the toughest patient protections in history. Arbitrary premium hikes, insurance cancellations, and discrimination against pre-existing conditions will now be gone forever.

And we'll finally start reducing the cost of care -- creating millions of jobs, preventing families and businesses from plunging into bankruptcy, and removing over a trillion dollars of debt from the backs of our children.

But the victory that matters most tonight goes beyond the laws and far past the numbers.

It is the peace of mind enjoyed by every American, no longer one injury or illness away from catastrophe.

It is the workers and entrepreneurs who are now freed to pursue their slice of the American dream without fear of losing coverage or facing a crippling bill.

And it is the immeasurable joy of families in every part of this great nation, living happier, healthier lives together because they can finally receive the vital care they need.

This is what change looks like.

My gratitude tonight is profound. I am thankful for those in past generations whose heroic efforts brought this great goal within reach for our times. I am thankful for the members of Congress whose months of effort and brave votes made it possible to take this final step. But most of all, I am thankful for you.

This day is not the end of this journey. Much hard work remains, and we have a solemn responsibility to do it right. But we can face that work together with the confidence of those who have moved mountains.

Our journey began three years ago, driven by a shared belief that fundamental change is indeed still possible. We have worked hard together every day since to deliver on that belief.

We have shared moments of tremendous hope, and we've faced setbacks and doubt. We have all been forced to ask if our politics had simply become too polarized and too short-sighted to meet the pressing challenges of our time. This struggle became a test of whether the American people could still rally together when the cause was right -- and actually create the change we believe in.

Tonight, thanks to your mighty efforts, the answer is indisputable: Yes we can.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Once again thank You.

P.S.

The focus of this blog is going to shift predominantly back to the issue of environment. The debate now is going to take on items of Climate Change, Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. For my readers who were coming back to this blog for the refreshing health care debate, we will re-visit health care reform occasionally in the future, but not at the same depth as we have done in the last eight months.

With all my respect, thank you.

Christopher A Adekoya

A DEDICATION TO A GREAT SOLDIER

A Complete Professional Soldier and a Gentleman


ALEXANDER HAIG
(Former US Secretary of State Alexander Haig has died)


1924 – 2010
One of the few Americans who understand what political and military power mean. He might have goofed during the attempted Reagan’s assassination, but he understood the reason why a vacuum must never exist for a second in leadership. Not even during the cold war era!

Of all the Republicans I have had the privilege of coming in contact, General Alexander Haig gives me a sense of confidence and security that very few leaders who have had the privilege of being in the helms of this nation's affairs, will ever. For whatever people may say about his comment in the event of President Reagan's attempted assassination, General Haig stood in during those very terrible times in our nation's history that many now take for granted, because they never understood the implication of power vacuum during the cold war. Who could discountenance his effort to encourage Mr. Nixon to step down from the Presidency during Watergate? Who can credit anyone else for crafting a better relations between us and China?

For whatever its worth, this was a general of generals. The pundits may criticize, they may haula, but those of us who were immigrants to this country and understand why we came here, would tell the family of General Haig, thank you, thank you, and you are not alone during this trying times. May his strong and humorous soul rest in perfect peace.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

1956 TO 2010: A thought on my fifty-fourth birthday

MAKE ME CONTENT

WITH FADING LIGHT;

GIVE ME A GLORIOUS SUNSET

AND A PEACEFUL NIGHT.

- Courtesy of Norman B. Hall.

2010: Happy New Year ! ! !

Today is the Sabbath of all hard working laborers,
To rest the body and soul.

Today is the Sabbath of all hard working peoples,
To rest the body and savor the soul.

Today is the Sabbath of all Americans, nice or grouchy,
To rest the minds and bones.

Today is the Sabbath of all girls and boys,
To rest their critters and tiny behinds.

Today is the Sabbath of all men and women,
To rest their previous year’s promises and launch a New Year's.

- Christopher Adekoya

COP15 Copenhagen Summit has finally arrived: Are we still going to play ball?

In my past blog on August 29, 2009 on the current Copenhagen summit, I asked two poignant questions: Is America ready to play ball? Can we afford to continue to ignore the problem of climate change and global warming? Answers to these two questions would probably come to the surface in the current 15th Conference of Parties (COP 15), holding in the city center of Bella, Copenhagen, Denmark.

As we speak, delegates from 193 countries are talking over cups of coffee on the issue of carbon emission, rising sea levels in Island states and many parts of the poorest areas of the world. The concern in the following two weeks, December 6 -18th, was summarized in the opening speech of the United Nation’s Climate Chief, Yvo de Boer, that global warming does not discriminate against any nation, and it affects all of us. In his humble opinion, it is important that advanced countries and societies like United States establish emissions reduction targets and have a financial commitment to help many developing countries address the problem of climate change. This is hardly a high bar of expectation, considering that most countries that bear the greatest burden of carbon emissions, have a GDP that puts majority of their populace living on under $1 a day.

My rhetoric second question about three and a half months ago was answered this morning by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Ms. Linda Jackson, that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to the public’s health and welfare. This statement probably lays down the groundwork for an economy-wide carbon caps initiative, even if congress fails to enact a climate legislation that has been working its way through congress in the past ten months. With this proclamation, it is safe to believe that the US does not intend to continue ignoring the issue of climate change and global warming.

With the horrendous problems associated with climate change, including rising sea levels that is pushing people away from their only known residences, hotter than usual summers and warmer winters that has been speeding up the melting of glacier ice in the mountains, it is just not normal to continue to look away or deny the obvious. Whether it is true or not that scientists are not in unison with the concept of global warming, it is probably safe to default on the assumption that the problem exists and provide some possible answers to ameliorate the problem, before it becomes a disaster. Now, if in the long run, we were wrong, it is also safe to say, we would have reaped some benefits from learning how to cope with adverse weather condition(s) or curbing excessive carbon emission that could destroy our ozone layers.

The Associated Press reported that President Obama is likely going to commit the US to substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. Although the Congress is worried about what this proclamation can do to production processes in our industries, hence business performance during this very trying economic time, activist environmentalists say, it is about time the US shows some leadership in the area of finding solution to the problem of global warming and curbing of carbon emissions and industrial pollutants.

The President, who has been careful in discussing the issue of climate change, and whose EPA has showed some spine in arranging two national conference or summits around the country has indicated some concurrence with the possible impact of excessive carbon waste emmissions and possible impact on global warming. To this effect, the President intends to attend the Copenhagen conference on his way from Oslo to collect his Noble Peace Prize. When he speaks at the conference on Tuesday, December 8, 2009, he is likely to make reference to the new order of choice which America may be coming to, to help combat global warming and carbon emissions. With this step, one can safely assume that the United States is ready to play ball. That despite all the relegation of the importance of this problem by the Bush’s administration, it is now probable that the environmentally conscious world is ready to hear from the big giant in the room, whose support and commitment to reduce carbon emission, is rather essential to the total effort around the globe.

One of the central questions of this conference is how to share responsibilities between developed and developing nation, regarding the cost of carbon emissions. The United States, European Union, China and India have all announced targets for reducing their emissions of carbon dioxide. It is estimated that if US can cut its carbon emissions by about one-sixth in the next ten years it may just be possible to cut down on the global warming experience. However the nation will have to confront other problems like increased cost of energy generation by utility companies, increased gasoline prices and increased cost of building more-fuel efficient automobiles if it totally subscribes to this notion.

While a country like the US is able to manage the challenges of its global contribution of carbon waste, many smaller countries around the world are not so privileged. Connie Hildegard, the Danish minister for the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen, has admonished countries as the US and European Union to pony up some money to help our poorer neighbors curbing global warming. Such money would be needed for “mitigation, adaptation, technology, and capacity-building in developing countries.” As surmised by Ms Hedegaard. Whether the richer countries are going to live up to this pledge is another issue entirely. Currently, there are some debates regarding how much the poorer countries will need to address these concerns. The European Union is said to have estimated $150 billion and have asked their member countries voluntarily contribute $10 billion annually from 2010 to 2012 on a fast-track basis. Potentially, if the European Union Countries are able to reach an agreement on this pledge, the US would probably have to pony up a similar size in amount for the goal of assisting the less privileged countries combat the problem of global warming in the next decade.

The intricate commitment of the US to this laudable effort may not be buttressed by the ultimate resolution that will come out of this conference. In the recent past, it had become rather obvious that the original goal of the conference, to produce a new global climate change treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto protocol, may not be feasible. There are just too many “Ifs” and “buts” about the goal of the conference and it seems that the largest polluters are not willing to subscribe to curbing carbon emissions. Countries like China, Japan and some European countries, whose economy are now growing at exponential levels, are not willing to compromise to a larger degree to put a dent in the problem. Russia, which has a lot of carbon emission caps to sell, because it has not exceeded its carbon emissions limits under the Kyoto protocols, is probably going to be shopping for buyers of its unexpired caps. The toughest issue is building trust among the biggest polluters: China, USA and Japan, among others. The convolution of these problems and other issue that has to do with national interest as against collective international interest has made the goal of the current conference, probably unattainable during this two-week conference.