Investing in Invasives

 I recently wrote a paper for a Climate Law class. I wanted to write about invasive species, as I find this to be intriguing. The consequences of cultural exchange, global trade, and colonialism are another sort of devastating conquest, an ecological invasion. This is an old problem, dating back to ancient times, and yet, it appears to be even more of an issue lately. I wanted to study this in depth. Has climate change played a role in making invasive species more prevalent, and more dangerous? Below is my abstract, followed by a summary of my paper. 

Abstract: Invasive species have been a harmful issue to both ecosystems and economies for hundreds of years. Invasives can both take advantage of and cause stress to environments. Climate change is one of the biggest stressors to ecosystems in the last 30 years and has been accelerating invasive species behavior, exasperating the issue. It became clear, through research, that many of the goals for combating invasives mirror those of combating climate change. This is good news, as policy can be built together that will solve both issues. 

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), invasive species and climate change are two of the four driving forces behind biodiversity loss. Since climate change and invasive species population surges have been linked, both driving forces, as described by the USDA, can be seen as one larger connected driving force. This paper will explore this idea and analyze the legal underpinnings of invasive species regulation and determine if United States law is adequate to meet this challenge to our ecosystems and reliant economies during this climate change crisis. 

Climate Change, while not a new phenomenon, is at the moment an important global issue. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) not only specifies that climate change effects are causing consequences right now in water, energy, transportation, agriculture, and human health, but ecosystems are also experiencing shifts in seasonal timing due to unusually warmer summer seasons and shorter, warmer autumn and winter seasons.

Warmer seasons make extreme heat waves more likely. Studies in 2018 concluded the likelihood of an extreme heat wave will increase from 1 every 20 years to 1 in 4 by 2050. Winters, by comparison, will continue to warm, and produce up to 12 times fewer extreme cold days. This temperature disparity will impact snowpacks, reduce soil moisture, and greatly increase severity of droughts.  These droughts can then lead to perfect conditions for wildfires. 

Not only are the seasons changing, and extreme weather becoming more likely, but the composition of ocean water has changed acid levels. This affects marine ecosystems. In addition, rising sea levels increases risk of shore erosion, and surges in salt content to inland waterways. This affects wetlands ecosystems. 

All of this, due to manmade increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the ocean water acidity, the salt, the rise in temperatures, the increase in probability of extreme weather events, shifting in seasons all contributes to stress on ecosystems. 

Ecosystem stress is discussed in a paper published by The American Naturalist. “The ecosystem-level distress syndrome is manifest through changes in nutrient cycling, productivity, the size of dominant species, species diversity, and a shift in species dominance to opportunistic shorter-lived forms [. . .] Inability to cope leads to further dysfunctions and, perhaps, to irreversible ecosystem breakdown"  This paper was published in 1985, and included over harvesting, pollution, and extreme weather events as major contributors to ecosystem stress. No doubt, if this paper were published recently, climate change would be at the top of the list. Although climate change is absent, invasive species is on the paper’s list of known stressors. 

Invasive Species are defined as being a non-native species introduced to an ecosystem with the ability to cause harm. Because the existing ecosystems are unfamiliar with the invading species, there are often no natural defenses ready to keep the balance, and control the populations and growth of these alien species. Instead, the new species contribute to system stress, ravage host food sources, outcompete similar species, and alter soil and water compositions.

Invasives can cause harm in three ways: biodiversity loss, disruptions to agriculture leading to food insecurity, and disruptions to infrastructure and sustainability which can harm economies and quality of life. 

Biodiversity is key to sustainable ecosystems. Why is this important to people? Ecosystems are not limited to Natural systems. Biodiversity affects economics, health, and water resources. Therefore, Biodiversity loss will impact poverty, hunger, health and water, and according to the UN, will undermine programs aimed at development targets to fight these issues globally. 

A paper published in Nature Communications studied forest disturbance regimes in Europe. The paper concluded that even though wildfires and windfalls cause more damage, insect damage is on the rise and due to climate warming. 

Stressors reduce ecosystems’ resiliency. Both climate warming and pest populations are high stressors. Ecosystems haven’t high resiliency with alien pests to begin with, and combined with climate stress, invasive insects and plants could damage systems beyond repair. Once established, these alien species then challenge the native ecosystem, creating more stress and more biodiversity loss. 

In fact, according to another paper published in Nature, not only are insect pests positively affected by climate warming, “plant invasion is expected to be boosted by climate change” as well. Up until recently, invasive plant species were kept out of colder climates where frosts and temperate zone winters controlled spread. But warming has drastically altered the range for many plant and insect species.

Agriculture is tied to food security. Those "No Farms No Food" bumper stickers aren't just a clever slogan. Agriculture focuses on reproducing certain cultivars in large volumes for higher yields. Not only that, but we’ve spent thousands of years breeding crops with reduced defense systems, and higher tolerances of being planted in high volumes in close proximities. 

The rise of industrial farming has made monocultures very popular. The monoculture, or single mass reproduced species, is beneficial to commercial agriculture. It is easier and cheaper to plant, manage, and harvest single varieties of a product, especially at the quantities required in an industrial business. By removing the complexities of a variety of cultivated species, the business is able to speed up the planting and harvesting process, identify and correct problems in the growth cycle earlier and quicker, and continue to utilize the same land repeatedly for the same product. There is no need for crop rotations, or resting acreage. There are drawbacks, and invasives pose a real threat to this model.

Infrastructure is more than roads. The Invasive Species Advisory Committee published a white paper in 2016 that studied invasives’ impacts on infrastructure. The paper highlights a few species that cause damage to four major categories of infrastructure: Power, Water, Housing, and Transportation. Some of the species highlighted include zebra mussels, which are so damaging, we created an entire Act of Congress to deal with it, a few other mussel species that behave very much like zebra mussels, giant land snails, comb jellyfish, and bufflegrass. These species alone contribute to billions of dollars in infrastructure damage and property loss. 

Speaking of Acts of Congress, since this isn't a new phenomenon, what has the US government done for ecosystem  protections, and non-indigenous species invasions? 

The Lacey Act

The Lacey Act is the first federal mandate on environmental protection, drafted and introduced by John F Lacey, Republican from Iowa, and signed into law by President McKinley. Since its adoption, the act was amended several times since to incorporate more species. This act was originally a response to declines in game populations due to commercial hunting, and built to address this issue.  

The original purpose of the act was to prohibit the poaching of certain species with the intent to trade or sell. The Lacey Act makes it unlawful to “import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife, or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold” in two ways: if in violation of U.S. or tribal law, or in violation of state or foreign law in interstate or foreign commerce. The act regulates in two ways. Not only does it protect native species from being moved within the country’s borders by limiting interstate trafficking, but it also regulates international trafficking. 

Over time, this act has been used successfully to restrict the trafficking of wildlife across borders, mislabel imports and exports, and cut down on introducing harmful species. It can be used to limit the exotic pet trade, like pythons introduced to the Florida everglades. However, it does nothing to address accidental introductions, like the wooly adelgid, the emerald ash borer, or zebra mussels. 

The National Invasive Species Act

In 1990, the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) was introduced into the House by Dennis M Hertel from Michigan’s 14^th district. Initially, the act gave powers to the Secretary of the Coast Guard to prevent further spread of aquatic nuisance pests into the Great Lakes region. In addition, it set up an Aquatic Nuisance Task Force to study ballast exchange, determine the effects of species introduction on the economy, and “determine need for controls”. The task force includes the Coast Guard and the EPA, but also Fish and Wildlife, NOAA, the Army Corp of Engineers, the Forest Service, the National Parks Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The act also mandates the secretary to confer with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for international cooperation.

The NANPCA was amended in 1996 as the National Invasive Species Act (NISA). This amendment included more aquatic species, and several other key waterways, including the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, and Hawaiian and Floridian inland waters. 

NISA does have its drawbacks. Coordinating all those federal agencies into one cohesive group is difficult. Coast Guard funding for ballast control has to be reauthorized every year. But most importantly, NISA has no targets or goals to meet. There are no reduction goals, or a timeline, or even the appropriate population numbers for pest species. They release guidelines, but have no measurable policy objectives. 

In contrast, the IMO does have certifiable standards of enforcement, with achievable benchmarks. But the US has decided to go it alone instead of join the IMO ballast exchange treaty, which has been signed by 78 other nations. 

The Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act was meant to replace the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. The 1973 edition, signed by Nixon, combined the endangered list created by the 1966 act with comprehensive coverage for habitats, and ecosystems, with a much expanded definition of protected species and classes of fish and wildlife. 

In addition, there were some other new features created within the act that changed pest management. The act created the Office of Pesticide Management within the EPA. This office uses the endangered species list, and protected ecosystems to determine pesticide label restrictions. The 1973 act, therefore, promotes integrated pest management approaches, and reduces reliance on chemical controls. 

Legislation can only go so far. The law can only be as strong as its enforcement. This brings us to a brief history of Executive Orders pertaining to invasive species enforcement and management. 

Executive Orders

In 1999, President Clinton signed Order #13112, which used the Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NISA, the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act to create the Invasive Species Council within the Cabinet. This body authorized the creation of the Invasive Species Monitoring Plan, and created federal policy authorizing action needed to identify, and respond to invasive species threats.

The Clinton Order revoked an earlier President Carter Order #11987. This earlier order attempted to address invasive species threats by ordering the DOI and USDA to "restrict introduction of exotic species". The order failed miserably, mostly due to the Reagan Administration failing to enforce it. 

Barack Obama signed Order #13751 in 2016. This order, unlike Clinton's, bolstered the older order, strengthening it, instead of revoking it and attempting to rewrite it. The Obama Order clarified department duties, strengthened cooperation, and most importantly, included provisions for public safety, and climate change. 

With both legislation and executive policy in sync, enforcement of the laws and policy need to be examined. What exactly are we doing to limit invasive species population growth?

Management Tactics: What are we Doing?

The prevailing wisdom for invasive species management is a three-fold response. To effectively manage pest populations, the vectors for entry must be closed, the pest population must be lowered to acceptable, healthy levels, and the environment must be rebuilt to withstand future infestations.

The legal backbone for the management plan and its initiatives appears to be strong enough combined to give the executive branch power to create the policy. A big drawback seems to be how these initiatives go from recommendations and coordinated plans to actual action on the ground. As discussed previously, Executive Order 13751 allows for the task force to set up a fund, and make recommendations on how that fund is used, but doesn’t actually have the power to fund the recommendations. The funding has to come through Congress, and budgets need to be reallocated every year, also as previously discussed in Coast Guard ballast water enforcement.

Real working policy on climate change is going to require investment, global cooperation, and longterm strategies across multiple departments and agencies. This sounds very much like the same requirements needed for invasive species management. The big difference between climate change policy and invasive species policy, is the government framework already exists. We already have coordinated, cooperating agencies mandated through executive orders and supported by settled legislation. The Invasive Species and Endangered Species Acts already give government authorities to adequately combat these problems, both domestically and with foreign cooperation. 

So, then, what is missing? How can we best invest and act on these existing legal frameworks? Recently, Congress introduced a resolution pledging investment, restructuring, and longterm strategies aimed at combating climate change. This resolution should also include invasive species management.

What Exactly is The Green New Deal Anyway?

In 2019, the 116^th Congress submitted the Green New Deal in House Resolution 109. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced this resolution to Congress. The idea for a Green New Deal actually dates back to 2007 when Thomas Freidman coined the term as a solution to Climate Change. He realized that this issue could only be solved with money, effort, and upsetting of norms not seen since Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Depression. Since then, the term Green New Deal has been discussed by Barack Obama, Jill Stein, and Howie Hawkins. The Green New Deal was the centerpiece of Ocasio-Cortez’s run for the New York’s 14^th district. It is now a reality.

            

But what is in this resolution? The non-binding Green New Deal is not legislation. It acts more as a framework going forward, guiding principles and goals for future legislation and policy. The resolved contains four conclusions, containing goals for a sustainable future. It calls for achieving net-zero emissions, building economic security for all, building infrastructure to sustain a 21^st century economy, securing clean air, water, providing climate and community resiliency, and access to healthy food, nature, and a sustainable environment.
            

Some of the ways the Green New Deal will do this include investing in sustainable agriculture, restoring ecosystems through afforestation and land preservation, and working with the international community on climate change solutions. These are all also the goals of invasive species management. I propose adding invasive species management as a critical step in achieving Green New Deal aspirations.
            

Currently, in Europe, a similar strategy is being implemented. The European Union proposed its own Green Deal in 2019. Inside this deal is the Biodiversity Strategy. The targets for this strategy include reforestation, recreating free flowing rivers, and diversifying agriculture. There is also a provision for funding, calling for €20 billion a year earmarked for biodiversity, the same biodiversity threatened by invasive species. By collaborating with this European New Deal, the US can start to fulfill the international community outreach provision in the resolution. It is also a provision seemingly ignored in NISA.
           

 By folding invasive species management into the Green New Deal, we can better realize our goals for harmonizing the many enforcement agencies participating in the Invasive Species Management Plan. Shoring up discrepancies between agencies like we saw between the EPA and Coast Guard with regards to ballast exchange will make it more difficult for agencies to issue exemptions, or make deals based on adjacent legislation. In fact, by collaborating with the EU Green Deal, the US can honor its pledge to collaborate with ballast water exchange by joining the IMO’s ballast water treaty.  This would allow the Coast Guard to enforce NISA with real goals and targets, and universally approved systems and standards that align with the rest of the maritime community.  
            

The Green New Deal will be able to provide funding for crucial habitat restoration projects, repairing areas damaged by invasives, and strengthening systems at risk of being overrun. Biodiversity is crucial to withstanding invasive species degradation, and is also at the heart of the Green New Deal. Ocasio-Cortez has proposed a Climate Corps, a plan to resurrect the FDR era Civilian Conservation Corp using Clinton’s AmeriCorps model, to provide the labor resources for rehabilitation projects. The newly proposed corps would hit many of the Green New Deal goals by providing jobs to complete projects aimed at rebuilding sustainable ecosystems, creating community resiliency, and building infrastructure for reliable clean energy.
            

In addition to civilian jobs corps, there have been, in recent Congresses, proposed legislation to bolster invasive species response. For example, Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming introduced the Federal Land Invasive Species Control, Prevention, and Management Act in 2017. This bill would have mandated the Secretary of the Interior to draw up plans and set management goals to curb invasive species populations on federal lands in coordination with states, and also set annual funding requirements.
           

Peter Welch, Congressman at Large from Vermont, introduced a bill recently to combine eradication efforts with forest restoration. The aptly named Invasive Species Prevention and Forest Restoration Act seeks to amend the Plant Protection Act, expand emergency authorities for invasive species management, and create grants for forest reclamation. 
           

Both of these introduced pieces of legislation are seeking to strengthen environmental protections, introduced by members of both parties. Framed within the Green New Deal, this could be a chance to bring bi-partisan support to solving long lasting problems.

In Order to Summarize

To sum up, both climate change and invasive species create stress to planet-wide systems. Together they compound the stressors and make recovery much more difficult. They go hand in hand and are causing harm to both industry and quality of life. The estimated damage to infrastructure, economic yields, ecosystems, and contributions to flood and fire disasters is priced in the billions of dollars annually. My policy recommendations are to use the Green New Deal resolution and our already existing legal frameworks to harmonize our enforcement. Our agencies need clear goals, and benchmarks to hit with regards to enforcement. Regulation is meaningless without clear expectations.

Because climate change and invasives are so intertwined, policy must also be intertwined. Biodiversity, economic diversity, sustainability, reducing ecosystem stressors, and reducing economic harm are all goals of the Green New Deal and invasive species management, it makes sense to connect them.

I recommend planting Invasive Species Management firmly in the context of a system stressor influenced by climate change and empowered to do more damage because of climate change. If the Green New Deal recognizes invasive species management as a goal that will help reach other goals in the resolution, policy will benefit from already existing legal and enforcement frameworks created for invasive species management. Invasive task forces and management plans, after all, are blueprints for combating environmental stressors and have bipartisan support, which is something the Green New Deal desperately needs.

The Green New Deal resolution can provide long lasting funding packages allowing the new conservation core the ability to support sustainability programs and ecosystem rehabilitation. The philosophy of the IPM plan can be modified and implemented for climate change rehabilitation.

The Green New Deal can make joining the IMO’s ballast water treaty an executive priority. Both climate change and invasive species are global issues. As a global trade hub, the United States must put itself in a leadership role. The Green New Deal resolves to reach out for international support. Joining an already existing treaty meant to decrease global ecosystem harms seems like a good first step. The two predominant executive orders discussed above make invasive species management priorities across all executive branch departments and agencies. Joining a treaty resolved to uphold these same values should also be an executive priority in keeping with those already existing orders.

Impeached Presidentially

Unless you're been living in a box in the middle of Nowhere for the last year, we've all had a very big share of impeachment news recently. Predictably, there has been a lot of misinformation and general confusion about the process, mostly because, Presidentially, we've only had 3.

Impeachment is the act of impeaching someone. Where does the word come from, and what does it mean? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, to impeach means, in law, at first in a broad sense, "to accuse, bring charges against"; more specifically, of the king or the House of Commons, "to bring formal accusation of treason or other high crime against (someone)". The word evolves from the broad term in the 14th century, to the more specific "accusing a public officer of misconduct" by the 1560s.

Breaking this definition down, impeachment then is the process by which a legislating body, the people's representation in government, can indict a sitting executive for abuses of the power of the office they hold. The US Constitution defines these abuses as "high crimes and misdemeanors". Impeachment, then, is not a trial that will remove a governing official from office, necessarily. Usually it is a first step in that process, and this is true in the United States. 

Speaking of the US Constitution, obviously the idea of impeachment predates the United States. The Constitution borrows this concept from the UK's parliamentary system. This idea of impeachment is also shared by several other sovereign governments. There are 29 other countries with impeachment as part of their constitutions. Both Brazil and South Korea impeached and removed their presidents recently, in 2016.

Impeachment in the United States is not only for presidents. In the Constitution, the president, vice president and "all civil officers" can be subject to impeachment and removal. Civil officers, in this case, means people in government not necessarily elected to office. This has basically meant justices, but also any executively appointed position. In addition to our three presidents, we have also impeached 1 senator (William Blount), 1 Secretary of War (William Belknap), and 15 federal judges. 15 of these 20 officials were then removed from office by the Senate. Both Bucchanen and Nixon had impeachment proceedings started, but not completed. Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment, and Bucchanen was found to not be responsible for the rampant corruption in his administration, and therefore not impeachable.

Our current president has a list of actions that could be deemed impeachable. Let's compare these accusations with historic charges that ended in impeachment.

1: Obstructing Justice

By blocking federal access to information important to an investigation into the president, firing federal prosecutors tasked with investigating the president, intimidating and influencing witnesses through speeches, press releases, and twitter.

Three other cases included obstruction of justice. Two were the presidents Nixon and Clinton, the third was Samuel Kent, a judge.

2: Ignoring the Emoluments Clause

Refusing to step away from businesses and business interests while in office, Trump had opened himself up to scrutiny whether he'd be able to govern in a fair and balanced manner without personal bias. There are many instances of Trump properties and business contacts getting preferential treatment.

There have been 5 impeachment cases due to corruption. Robert Woodrow Archibald was impeached specifically for accepting gifts in exchange for rulings.

3: Soliciting Foreign Interference in US Elections

This one is a bit specific, and as such unprecedented. However, there have been two impeachments that dealt with treason. William Blount was impeached for making deals to take Spanish territory on behalf of Britain. And the US judge West Hughes Humphries was impeached for supporting the Confederacy. In addition to the treasonous argument, this one is connected to the Obstruction of Justice charge.

4: Abuse of Power

This one seems to be a catch-all for just about everything else. In addition to the above charges, which can also be categorized as abusing power, Trump has called for violence and insurrection, engaged in reckless conduct as a diplomat, called for the prosecution and persecution of political opponents, attacked the free press, and violated campaign finance laws.

Four other impeachments were made using the Abuse of Power charge. Nixon was also accused of Abuse of Power.

Utilitarianism: A Primer

Sometimes I am accused of being, or lumped into a box called The Left. While it may be true that I am Left leaning on the political spectrum, I think it is important to distinguish how, like the Right, there are many different philosophical groups within the Left.

I like to think of myself as a Utilitarian mostly because A: for it's flaws, it mostly makes sense to me as a broad plan to make decisions B: the over arching theme spells a death for individual exceptionalism. No one is special. C: It's basics are echoed by many other Leftist philosophies. So what is it exactly?

Utilitarianism: 

A branch of Consequential Philosophy declaring that consequences of utility should be the basis for decision making. Basically, actions should produce the most utility for the largest group of people. Utility in this case means "good". Also, to clarify, the philosophy as a whole considers all human beings to be people and to be equal. There is no special determinations made for wealth, gender, or age. As Utilitarianism has evolved, it has merged with deontological ethics, bridging the two philosophies.

In 1780, Jeremy Bentham published the first ideas of utility as a basis for morality. As a consequentialist philosophy, Bentham argued that "the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people" is the measurement for morality, right and wrong. Instead of rules and laws laid down ahead of time that can be very black and white, consequentialism views the outcome as the indicator of morality, not the actions that lead to the outcome. In Utilitarianism, if the outcome benefits more people, than the actions are justified.

Bentham

Bentham was more interested in earlier Hedonism, popularized by Aristipuss and Epicuris, but Utilitarianism evolved under John Stuart Mill, who moved the definition of utility from "utility=pleasure" to "utility=well-being". Mill was pretty clear to separate Utilitarianism from Hedonism. Hastings Rashdall and G.E. Moore continued to separate the two ideas at the turn of the 20th century. Ideal Utilitarianism is a rejection of Bentham and focuses on promoting beneficial experiences, and relationships, and limiting pain, hatred and contempt.

One of the biggest challenges to early Utilitarianism was the rejection of rule/law. Mill wrestled with this, as did Richard Brandt and Brad Hooker. Act and Rule Utilitarianism attempts to mitigate the problems that arise from attempting to weigh consequences for each and every decision. The probability of choosing less than the best utility are high. So... Act Theory states that an act is right if it maximizes utility. Rule Theory maintains that an act is right if it adheres to a rule/law meant to maximize utility.

John Stuart Mill

Robert Merrihew Adams then took Act/Rule theory in 1976 and rolled it all into Motive Theory, which posits that Utilitarianism should be used to create motive and disposition which would then dictate choice of action and applied rules/laws. This allowed Utilitarianism to shed its Consequential Hedonist past and merge with Kantian ethics.

The biggest issue with Utilitarianism is the definition of utility. How do we quantify it? If we use the earliest, most vague notion of utility as happiness/pleasure, than this criticism has weight. Hedonistic happiness seems to be short term, individualist, and subjective. But, when the idea of utility changes to well-being, the ability to measure that on a grand scale becomes easier, and it evolves from a short-term consequence, into a longterm, more objective, more group-based happiness.

There are definitely parallels to Socialism here. Many Socialist ideals hinge on the greater good for the most number of people (the working class population far exceeds management/shareholders). However, Utilitarianism is not without casualties. The ideal is the "Greatest Good for Greatest Number" after all, not "Greatest good for Everyone". Realistically there will be losers, the plan is to minimize the losers, but still acknowledge that reducing that number to zero is not always possible.

There are plenty of ethical scenarios that play with this idea. Grim scenarios abound, like, "If you have to sacrifice one child to save the lives of millions, do you do it"? Utilitarianism would say yes, by the way, if that is the only, best option. This makes Utilitarianism out to look unfeeling, robotic in the way it weighs consequence, turning people/populations into equations rather than appealing to lives as more significant. I don't believe it does this at all. I think the fact that the end goal is to lift up majorities is enough to prove Utilitarianism does in fact value human life as significant, far more significant than any one single individual.

It seems to me that Democratic Socialism, or as they used to say, Democracy, as a form of government would be the best way to govern through Utilitarianism. If everyone has a voice and vote, it is an easy way to calculate what most of the society wants. At this point, it is pretty easy to study society and figure out best practices to be used to best defend our welfare, maximize social capital, and promote healthy lifestyles on a grande scale, without limiting liberty.

Utilitarianism does not place anyone's own personal ambitions above others, which is why it isn't really a Capitalist philosophy. If the consequence of the actions leaves one person rich, and many others scrambling to survive, that isn't maximizing group utility. If laws protect and serve only one groups' utility and undermine the utility of minority groups, than that doesn't fit into this philosophy.

By framing my thinking this way, like Adams said, I have changed my motivations, which has led to changing my opinions about many political issues. Utilitarianism, at its core, ignores systemic groupings like race, culture, religion, and class. It ignores the ambitions, and desires of the individual for the betterment of the welfare of the group. This appeals to me.

The Ministry of Truth is Real Life

I'm sure by now, everyone is quite familiar with the term "fake news".

While I was experiencing the 2016 campaign, a thought occurred to me. No matter what happens on November 4 (spoiler alert: Clinton lost, somehow), Trump has already made a mark on American culture, probably in the worst way. Terms that he coined during the election are going to become buzzwords. Fake news, bigly, convfefe (whatever the fuck that is), and even actual phrases like "some people say", and "believe me", and "its gonna be huge" are all worming their way into the American linguistic culture, and I hate it. Even people who use the terms in jest are helping to feed the Trump influence on our society.

But, let's go back to Fake News.

Back in 1951, after Fascism in Europe was defeated, and the Red Scare and Cold War were ramping up, Hannah Arendt wrote that the Nazis and Communists were not the "ideal subjects of totalitarian rule". She argued that the targets of these regimes are people "for whom reality of experience, and the standards of thought" no longer can be distinguished. Example: people who would be unable to grasp the concept of a stapler painted red, even though we have the technology to paint other things red, because they've only ever seen black staplers. Basically, people who discount facts, reason, and logic, and rely instead on personal anecdotes, and real life experiences put themselves in a position to be easily manipulated by demagogues, cults, and conspiracy theories.

totally made-up bullshit

Humans have figured out how to manipulate Truth thousands of years ago. Mostly through omitting facts, banning things, and limiting educational resources. There is a reason the Catholic Church banned translating the Bible from Greek and Latin into domestic languages. We as a species are not new at this sort of thing. The lie can be very powerful. The idea that a lie, when repeated enough, will eventually be accepted by the masses as Truth has been echoed by many throughout history. Lenin, Goebbels, Willie Brown, Ron Amundson, Laurence Blair all have said similar things regarding fabricating the truth. I find this amazing that after all these centuries, we still get fooled.

A good example of fabrication of Truth can be seen in the "fact" that people swallow on average 8 spiders a year while sleeping. In 1993 Lisa Holst published an article in PC Professional, which included this bit about spider swallowing. Her plan was to see how long it would take to circulate a myth. Not only did we get to see how long it would take for made up "facts" to be accepted as real, but how long those accepted "facts" would remain within the culture even after being debunked. Search "swallowing 8 spiders a year" and see how many recent hits come up.

Getting people to believe they swallow spiders in their sleep is pretty harmless. But what about things that are far less harmless? What about stories and ideas that cause irrational fear, and promote negativity towards entire groups of people?

There are plenty of examples of poor research, fabricated evidence, and outright urban myth lies that resulted in people believing in crazy things. When the AIDS epidemic took off in the 80's someone spread the fear of catching AIDS from toilet seats. It seems pretty ridiculous now, if someone tried to convince you that a sexually transmitted disease can be caught be touching an inanimate object, but back then your average person had no clue. AIDS was scary, and because it was prevalent within the gay community, any misinformation helped fuel homophobic rhetoric. It took years of PSAs, and a generation of public school health classes to educate and overturn this, and other similar misinformation. There are still groups out there though, that believe "the homosexual lifestyle" is unclean, dirty, and prone to diseases and health risks. Some even go as far as to claim AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality, which is nonsense. AIDS isn't sexuality specific.

this helped too

Anti-vaxxers too still cling to evidence from a 1997 paper published by Andrew Wakefield. This paper has been throughly debunked, Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine, and The Lancet Journal wrote a retraction. And yet, people still claim vaccines cause autism. Far more effort was put into debunking these fake stories than was used to create them, which is the dangerous part. Once out there, it can be nearly impossible to truly delete it.

At this moment, the term Fake News is being thrown around a lot, politically. It is used to discredit actual news, and actual inquiry aimed at keeping the powerful accountable. Questioning the Truth of stories has always been important, but now it has been weaponized, and by the very people that need to be held accountable and be questioned.

I believe this started as a backlash to justifiable claims that unabashedly Right wing news outlets were, in fact, Reactionary Right wing biased. As a countermeasure, every other news outlet not espousing toxic conservative sentiment was labeled as liberally biased. This actually grows out of a decades long conspiracy theory that the media is controlled by Jews, and Jews are liberally biased. The actual truth, aside from a few obvious outliers, is that most news sources are not polar opposites of Fox News, Breitbart, and the Blaze. Eventually, this turned into every media outlet who didn't agree with Alt Right sentiment was labeled liberally biased and discounted by the very people most susceptible to Fake News. There are plenty of credible myth busting assets out there, but they are useless when falsely framed as Leftist.

Don't fall for that "both sides do the same thing" nonsense either. It is a false equivalency, and it's used as a weapon to discredit good journalism and inquiries of accountability. CNN, the AP, Reuters, and NPR are not partisan, or deal in politically biased coverage like Fox News and Breitbart have. There is no Leftwing equivalency to the Alt Right.

During the 2016 election, I said it would be impossible to convince a group of the actual Truth using facts and news, history and Reason, when the group believes in none of those things. And so here we are, halfway through a Trump presidency, already witnessing our cultural language change, with no good answer for how we fix the damage done to the confidence in what is True. Just like with AIDS toilet seats, and swallowing spiders, and anti-vaxxers, it will take so much more time and effort to reverse the damage done to the trust in our journalism, and the changes made to our language.

Cultural Appropriation: What is it exactly?

Recently, and by that I mean in the last 10 years or so, there has been this trend toward social consciousness, a progressive reformation fueled by the internet's ability to bring people closer together and give voices to the previously ignored. One of the great things about social media platforms and the media that reflects that social media back at us as newsworthy, is the ability for the minority to be heard. While I think this is great, giving a voice to the voiceless, sometimes I am surprised by our ability as human beings to take everything a little too far.

Cultural Appropriation is the idea, best put, that dominant cultures, because they are the strong, majority culture, are able to take aspects of minority, oppressed cultures, and use them for nefarious means, often without the consent of the minority culture, and also often without adequate compensation. In short, Cultural Appropriation is an offshoot of Colonialist bully tactics and is inherently evil and should be called out and condemned.

I found this explanation somewhere too... "taking something from a culture that you do not belong to, and use it outside of that cultural context – usually without understanding its cultural significance, and often times changing its original meaning”

I wanted to give credit to the cartoonist. but no one seems to know

Already, with this definition, I have questions, and problems. My first question? What are these nefarious means? 

In many online articles from sites like The Huffington Post, Salon, Gawker (if it still existed), and other "liberal media" publications, the nefarious means are explained as using the cherry picked minority culture for monetary gain. Obvious examples of this include white musicians learning "black" music and then becoming rich off producing those styles, or fashion designers ripping off minority fashion and turning it into expensive high fashion products. Or the alternate medicine industry that often mines non-Western cultures for homeopathic remedies.

Less obvious, however, would be the underhanded scheme of borrowing minority culture and turning it into a fad which then serializes and undermines the appropriated culture turning it into no more than a caricature. The entire crux of the Anti-Indian Sports Mascot movement is built on this premise.  This is also the problem with ethnic themed Halloween costumes. My second definition above is important in this context. A dismissal of original context in favor of brand recognition, or profiteering is totally an appropriation as opposed to appreciation.

Typically, however, the Left, even with the best intentions of supporting the struggles of the less fortunate, and the oppressed minority, took this idea of Cultural Appropriation and over policed it to the point of madness. At times, it seems, the goal for some people is to completely shut out everyone who is of a different culture and revert back to a cultural isolationism. This cultural possessiveness doesn't appear to be a very progressive goal.

this is probably anti-Left propaganda. 

Which brings me to my second question: What cultures do we, as Americans, belong to, or not belong to, and who gets to make those decisions?

The United States of America is in a very unique place as far as culture is concerned. Everyone is welcome here, despite what fervent anti-immigration 'Mericans may say. And, because of that, the US, unlike every other country with stricter immigration policies (or no immigration policies), is a very interesting place culturally. This country has pockets of cultural influence that mirror every place on the globe. And in those pockets reside customs, cuisine, religious practice, fashion from everywhere. I think that is pretty remarkable, that one nation houses all of the diversity of the rest of the world. There are cultures here in the US that otherwise may never meet, and probably never meet under good terms.

Music, I think, gets a particularly bad rep for Cultural Appropriation. Music, the USA's greatest export, is steeped in cultural mixing and matching. All the great pop genres are rhythms and cords borrowed from "minority" cultures in America. Gospel, Blue Grass, and the Blues helped form Country, Rock n Roll, Reggae, Funk, Soul, and Hip Hop. It is almost impossible, however, to look at the history of modern music and not realize that, in every genre, there is a disproportionate number of minority innovators who died penniless while Eurocentric musicians often found exorbitant amounts of wealth and fame by playing "minority" music. At this point, however, I think the power structure in the music industry has shifted enough that all creators and innovators receive their due regardless of cultural identity. I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure contemporary Black and Latino artists are no longer largely ignored in favor of White copycats (award shows still have problems). And, on top of that, at this point, I think we, as a society, are informed enough to look back and recognize the primary contributions and importance of minority musicians and artists. I know, personally, I'd rather hear Fats Domino and BB King, and Big Mama Thornton than Elvis.

Speaking of receiving their due... anti-cultural appropriation groups don't seem to take into consideration the market for cultural appreciation, especially when lead by that particular culture. Basically, I'm pointing out the viability for minority cultures to sell themselves. Tourism is one of the biggest, sometimes the only, industry in developing nations. Caribbean nations are good examples. Hawaii and Puerto Rico are also good examples of American cultures outsourcing themselves to the rest of American culture.

Any ethnic specific cuisine is basically a business opportunity to sell a cultural experience. As a non-member of any of these cultures, am I supposed to not give my business? Should my mother return all those amazingly crafted ponchos and wraps? My point is this discussion could get off the rails real fast depending on how far down the hole you want to go.

Is it worth highlighting a fashion company's obvious appropriation of Native art to sell jewelry to college kids? Yes. Especially since there is a Federal law prohibiting the sale of falsely marketed Native American made products. But is it worth shaming that 8 year old who went on a Caribbean trip with her family and got her hair braided and wrapped? Probably not, now you're just an asshole.

And I think that is where the line of Cultural Appropriation and Cultural Appreciation lies... are you being an asshole? Is there really any harm in college aged idiots drinking tequila and wearing hats on May 5? Is there harm in a Mexican restaurant chain selling tequila and hats every day of the year? I think this really comes down to personal judgement all around. With some common sense woven in. This whole thing comes down to judgement: People judging others' lifestyle choices, other people making judgements about what is and isn't respectful and responsible. Is there really harm being done? What is the goal here?

So... no Karen, that white chick with the dreads is not trying to trivialize the struggles of the Rasta. And no, Chad, it's not ok to wear that headdress to Coachella. And yes, Linda, I can make sticky rice in my house and eat with chopsticks whenever I want. But also, ethnic themed Halloween costumes are never acceptable.

There is this myth in America that has been prevalent since my grandparents' day that cultural diversity should be celebrated. But instead of trying to live this myth, we use it as a way to further divide and spread hostility. Please, share the cultures, be open, be understanding, teach, learn, experience, be respectful, don't be an asshole.

Purple Hairy Elephants!

Awhile ago, I wrote about Amherst College, and their recently solved dilemma regarding their problematic namesake, Lord Jeffery Amherst. The college had publicly severed ties with the unofficial mascot, and adopted their first official mascot, the mammoth.

On October 20, 2017, they announced their official mascot design/logo. It's pretty cool. I posted it below. This is a follow up to this blog post right here.

Political Science for Beginners as Taught by a Beginner

The political/social climate in the United States has taken a turn in the last 20 years to a very strange and dangerous place. I have come to a few conclusions about this whole mess, and have posted about a few things awhile ago that I realize, looking back at it now, foreshadowed what was to happen in our 2016 election. 

I find myself having discussions with people in bars, or on the Facebook (I can't help it) and have come to the conclusion that Trump supporters either A: have attempted to place Trump into a political box where he doesn't fit, or B: behave like politics is a sport like football. 

I understand Republicans who voted with the party and expected Trump to align with party platforms and agendas and at least attempt to be a competent administrator. After all, he ran a campaign based on the incompetency of government while holding up a record of business success as proof he could do better than everyone else. However, based on what I have seen from this guy, his public appearances, speeches, tweets, I see no evidence that he knows or understands his job requirements. Attempting to pin any sort of political strategy to this guy seems like a folly. As Occum's Razor states, the simplest explanation is probably the truth, and based on everything we've seen since Trump started campaigning should lead us to believe he, in fact, is not some kind of political mastermind with any sort of plan, strategy, or anything resembling competence.

There are some very smart conservative economics, political science, and business people out there who have attempted to explain their support for the guy, but it all sounds like they're talking about a different guy. This isn't Nixon, or Reagan, or even Barry Goldwater, he is singularly unique, and we should probably frame him as such, instead of trying to box him up in any sort of political/economic/social platform. 

Recently, I, like many people, have attempted to understand rabid Trump supporters who refuse to take in all of what has happened since the election campaigns began, and form the seemingly obvious opinion that this dude was not fit for office. I think I have some kind of grasp on it, and it comes down to two things: 

1: Not having a clear understanding of what government does and how it operates. Government, contrary to what Fox News says, does not and should not operate like a business. But I hear many people make comments about how the private sector runs similar government ventures far more smoothly. Trying to run a government like a business, however, becomes a problem when tax money is seen as available profit to be reaped by private contractors, instead of money to be used to budget for what the taxpayers need. As an example, read all about private prisons. 

2: Treating politics like a competition. I figured out, while trying and failing to use reason with Trump supporters, that they are not interested at all in eventual outcomes due to Trump-led policies. Actually, they don't seem interested in politics. This is partly due to a disillusionment with modern politics, but also a short-term historic memory, ignorance of political history, and probably just an inability to understand politics in general. But they understand winning a competition, and an election sure looks like a competition. It appears that winning an election is more important than the consequences of that win.

I think, because of an inability to grasp what politics is, how government works, and what the political parties stand for has led these people to just pick a side. The liberal Left has been seen as this elitist, out of touch group of know-it-all arrogant rich kids, who all seem to be Democrats. If one feels like they have to pick a side, and the Democrats are all snobs, perhaps picking the party which appears to be all about the hard working, no nonsense, proud patriot bible carrying Americans is a good choice. And so, instead of a Trump victory signifying more of the same graft and corruption with a lean towards Facism, it signifies to these people as a win over the arrogant Left.

This attitude of glorifying success and reveling in the other side's demise reminds me so very much of athletic competition. Trump supporters talk about the election in the same way American hockey fans talk about the 1980 Olympics, or Red Sox fans talk about the 2004 ALCS and World Series. It isn't about the policies and legislation Trump will bring to American politics, but more about defeating the Evil Empire of Obama/Hillary Democrats. 

That all aside, I think this country needs to revisit civics. Professor Murdaco posted a very lengthy lecture on The American Political System. It's very well done.

I do think it is very interesting how people perceive our system, and how very easily the terms Left and Right get interchanged with Democrat and Republican. Above is a graphic that illuminates the political spectrum, and has laid American political groups along that line.

According to Marx, the spectrum goes from the Radical Left, to the Reactionary Right, those being the two extremes. Lately the term Reactionary has fallen out of favor and Radical is used to describe both extremes. Ideally, the middle of the spectrum is where the Independents lie. I find this to be disingenuous. Technically, an Independent voter doesn't subscribe to either major political party, but is more often than not allied politically along the spectrum, not truly balanced in the middle. For example, I am registered as an Independent, but politically I lean to the Left. I know others that are also Independent voters but are far more conservative.

The terms Liberal and Conservative come to mean a few things. Liberal can mean using resources generously. It also can mean a progressive view open to new ideas, behaviors, and changes. Liberal, then, in a nutshell, is the idea that we have new information that can show us how to change to be better.

In contrast, conservative can mean preserving, saving, and protecting resources, cautiously using them over time in planned, deliberate ways. It can also mean preserving traditional values, and the status quo. Conservative, then, in a nutshell, is the idea that we already know how to do things, it's all been working well, why change?

In addition, our political party system is not mutually exclusive to the political spectrum. The Democratic Party has not always been on the Left of center. Dixiecrats, a southern sect of the Democratic Party, are responsible for seceding from the Union, Jim Crow, the Klan, and a host of other racially charged legislation. Republicans also have not always been where they lie now on the political spectrum. Lincoln was a Republican, and a Progressive.

It becomes apparent, from this last election, and going forward, the people all want change, and the status quo just is not working for anyone except large GOP donors. The Democrats tried to run a conventional campaign in a country that is fed up with convention. The GOP was unprepared for Trump hijacking their primary and running on Nationalism wrapped up in a false promise of political change.

Perhaps, if we all start to educate each other on what this all means, as Americans, and stop trying to pick sides, we'll be able to all get the change we want.

Symbols Mean Things

As human beings, I think personal identity is an important thing. It is why religion is so important and why we create exclusive clubs, and put so much importance in professional sports and local high school athletics. In the United States, this idea of personal identity, answering the question "who am I?" is wound up in the dual question of "what is America?"

We tend to answer these questions with a variety of easily accessible categories with easily displayable symbols and themes. For example, an Irish Catholic American hockey fan from Boston may display shamrocks, rosaries and crosses, Boston Bruins logos, and American flags to show pride in his identity. The definition of a person, therefore, can be displayed in a series of recognizable logos, designs, colors, and symbols.

The one problem with summing up personal identity through symbols is when anti-intellectualism begins to blur the lines between what the signifier wants to say about himself, and what the symbols are actually signifying. A very good example is the redneck culture clinging to the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of freedom, good ole boy country living, and Southern Pride, when in fact it is a symbol of armed treason against the United States in response to northern states pushing for an end to slavery.

In response to this, I often find myself saying things like "that doesn't mean what you think it means", mostly to myself when I see stupid memes, or bumper stickers and flags hung from houses (or the backs of pick-ups). Here are some other examples...

Before I start, and before I get a large amount of hate mail from keyboard cowboys, I do understand how difficult being a police officer can be, or any public authority figure, for that matter. Most police officers are good people, I'm sure. Realistically, not every cop out there is a terrible person. Generalizations are indefensible. This isn't a police-bashing post.

This particular flag is used, presumably, to show support for law enforcement. Lately, it has been popping up probably in response to the Black Lives Matter movement. I personally do not see why it would be necessary unless you feel the need to show how much you don't support Black Lives Matter. But, let's just assume the person flying this flag really does support the police with no other agenda or desire to signify something else entirely.

The symbol, as shown above, is a combination of the flag of the United States of America, and the Thin Blue Line. The Blue Line is an analogy coined in the UK. Specifically, the police are the thin blue line separating civilization from anarchy.

On the surface, combining the two symbols together appears to be an homage to American law enforcement. However, I would argue it is a symbol advocating for martial law, one nation under the thin blue line. The American flag is a symbol of the Republic. and the Thin Blue Line is a symbol of Law and Order. Put them together and you have a symbol for a Law and Order Republic.

The emergence of the popularity of this symbol in conjunction with the Black Lives Matter movement aimed at police reform, ending racial profiling, and holding the police accountable seems more than mere coincidence. If the response to the goals of Black Lives Matter is to throw blind support behind law enforcement, the only conclusion that can be made is they support an untethered, self regulating law and order establishment, in short, an America ruled by an overbearing authority.

It's either that, or just plain old American racism.

I hate this symbol. I have a problem with any home made sign or bumper sticker telling me what to do. But this one I find extremely problematic. Perhaps it is just a cute way for parents to show everyone else driving behind them that they just had a baby, and they're super proud of it. I suppose that is a weird way to show narcissism. 

What I see, though, is a yellow street sign. Diamond shaped yellow traffic signs designate caution. They are posted to give warning to drivers with the expectation of slower, more cautious driving. So, this placard then would mean "there is a baby in my backseat, you all need to drive more careful". 

I call bullshit. First of all, don't tell me what to do, you aren't the traffic commision. Second of all, I didn't decide to have a kid, you did. it's your responsibility to keep it safe, not everyone else's. No one should be expected to modify their lives because you wanted a family. Third, your choice to procreate is a terrible reason for me to want to drive safe. I already figured out while driving I can only control my own driving, and no one else's. I have my own reasons to not drive like an idiot, I don't need your reasons also. 

Just as an aside, I also hate those "drive like your kids live here" signs, or those neon plastic children that look like they're about to jump into traffic. I am driving like your kids live there, like a normal driver not worrying about stupid little people running into traffic. Be a parent, keep them out of the street. Also, those plastic children are a distraction. 

This is a pile of poo. Let's get that out of the way real quick. It's not whipped chocolate frosting, or soft serve ice cream. This emoji is the shit. Literally. Like all things seized by pop culture, this thing has been put on all sorts of merchandise, including plush hats. I don't just mean the emoji is embroidered or reproduced on a hat. The hat is a giant poop that you can put on your head. I've seen kids wearing them. This means they probably got them from their parents, who either don't know what it is (plausible), or are okay with their kids walking around as literal shit-heads (actually, that is pretty hilarious). 

As a recap, conclusion, closing, or whatever, I'd like to see more people take time to understand the things they are trying to say, or advertising with the symbols they choose to promote, as unambiguously as possible. It's probably too much to ask at this point, but a little time and research into things could save a few dirty looks from the public. We don't all have to be Professor Langdon to understand symbolism, just take a few minutes to Google some things. 

Another Win for American Indians and Prehistoric Mammals!

The other day Amherst College announced a change to their school mascot. Previously, the college apparently had no official mascot, but Lord Jeffrey Amherst was considered an unofficial mascot. Amherst College claims to have the oldest collegiate athletics department in the United States, and competes in the NCAA division III as part of the Little Three in the New England Small College College Athletic Conference.

The college, founded in 1821 in Amherst, Massachusetts, was technically named after the town. However, the town was named for Lord Jeffrey Amherst, First Baron Amherst, hero of the Seven Years War, known in the United States as the French and Indian War. Afterward, he was appointed Governor-General of British North America.

As Governor-General, Lord Jeff oversaw the defense against Pontiac's Rebellion. The controversy stems from his suggestion in 1763 to use smallpox as a biological weapon against Pontiac's allies. This has been historically preserved through a letter chain between him and his subordinate Colonel Henry Bouquet. The letters express not just a desire to eliminate combatants, but to "extirpate this execrable race".

The town of Amherst has also wrestled with its namesake, and there have been petitions to change the town's name as well. Even though Lord Jeff had put his stamp on the region (Amherst, MA is not the only place to bear his name in the Northeast), his legacy as a war hero is tarnished by his participation in passive genocide.

Amherst College, however, has indeed decided to take steps to distance themselves from Lord Jeff and his history with Indian extermination. There is a hotel on campus that bore Lord Jeff's name, and that too will be renamed, according to Cullen Murphy of the Amherst board.

As before there appears to not have been an official Amherst College mascot, now the school has adopted one. The Beneski Museum of Natural History on campus has a complete mammoth skeleton, unearthed by Amherst professor Fredrick Loomis in 1913. And so, Amherst begins a new chapter, with a new official mascot, the Amherst Mammoth. Congratulations!

A quick google search for "mammoth mascot logos" proves mammoths could be potentially terrifying. There are a few mammoth mascots already. The Colorado club from the National Lacrosse League and HC Ugra from the KHL both use the Mammoth, and also the Omaha franchise from the now defunct FXFL were the Mammoths. Both Tufts and Alabama have elephant mascots, which are almost the same thing. All of these examples lead me to believe the newly chosen mascot has potential. I look forward to seeing Amherst College's new identity unfold in the coming months.

Alternative Facts: Presidents' Edition

It is Presidents' Day! Happy Presidents' Day. It's a pretty useless holiday that borders very nearly on Nationalism. The fact that this country, founded on the principle that aristocracy and royalty shall no longer hold sway in a country built by and for all men, observes the birthday of our first and fifteenth presidents is pretty weird.

In honor of this weird tradition, and in honor of our newest president, The Marmalade Mussolini, #45, Comrade Trumpovich, I made a list of the best presidents we never had. My top five fictional presidents. These are the very best fake United States Presidents, which means good ole President Skroob, President Laura Roslin, and President Business aren't included.

President Merkin Muffley
35th President of the United States
film: Doctor Strangelove. Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
actor: Peter Sellers

To begin our list, I chose the Trumanesque, Adelai Stevenson sponsored naive Commander in Chief, Mr. President Muffley, our last president before the great nuclear holocaust of 1964, and named after the pubic wig, the greatest cosmetic invention ever! This honest, sincere, open diplomat, who, despite being completely unprepared, and with all the circumstances and luck going against him, almost stopped nuclear Armageddon. Still a better a president under stress than our real life #45, the Short Fingered Vulgarian.

President Francis J (Frank) Underwood
46th President of the United States
series: House of Cards
actor: Kevin Spacey

President Underwood is the second president, after Gerald Ford, to not be elected by the people of the United States, but appointed through a series of resignations and appointments. This man is a ruthless machiavellian psychopath, a master manipulator, and a killer. And yet, still better than the actual real life 45th president, the failed mail-order meat salesmen, we have now, in reality. At least this guy knows how the system works, what the job means, and how to get stuff done without looking like a Kindergartener.

President David Palmer
43rd President of the United States
series: 24
actor: Dennis Hayspert

Not only is President Palmer the first black president, a Democrat that ran on a platform of integrity and the welfare of the American People, he survived an assassination attempt before securing his party's nomination enroute to becoming president. This of course happened 4 years before Barack Obama won his Senate seat. President Palmer served for one term, opting out of re-election due to personal trauma, and clandestine anti-terrorism actions, as is the modis operandi for the show 24. And who could blame him? There are crazy terrorists with even crazier Bond-esque plots around every corner in the 24 universe. In fact, he did serve briefly as an advisor in the next administration, but was assassinated in what is probably the only ex-presidential assassination. Overall, a much better National Security president than our current Cheeto-dust Czar.

President James Marshall
42nd, or 43rd President of the United States
film: Air Force One
actor: Harrison Ford

Not much is known of this president's career, or platform, or anything really, except he has a military record (Medal of Honor recipient), doesn't negotiate with terrorists (except when he does) and can certainly hand down some beat downs when his Secret Service loses their grip. President Marshall makes the list simply for being the most manly president since Teddy Roosevelt. Certainly a tougher, more physical presence than our newly inaugurated Tangerine Tornado

President Josiah (Jed) Bartlet

42nd or 43rd President of the United States

series: West Wing

actor: Martin Sheen

Probably the most in-depth, realistically written fake president on the list (although I still don't understand the timeline. Why are the presidential elections held during mid-term election years?), President Jed Bartlet's administration is portrayed in a detail unlike any other in fake presidential history. The Right ridiculed his administration by calling it the Left Wing. But realistically, Bartlet was a great diplomat and negotiator, kept America safe from threats foreign and domestic, and was a champion of the American working class. The man knew his Constitution, knew his Bible, surrounded himself with experts to help him with things he wasn't strong in, like foreign policy, and defense, and had the courage to come clean about his uncertain health problems (he has MS). 

Mike Curry, the press secretary for real life president Bill Clinton said Bartlet was a patchwork of the perfect president combining "the compassion and integrity of Jimmy Carter... that shrewd decision-making and hard-nosed realism of a Richard Nixon... the warmth and amiability and the throw-the-arm-around-the-shoulder of a Bill Clinton; and... the liberal passion of a Kennedy". Basically the exact opposite of our current sitting Commander-in-Chief, Lord Fuck-face von Clownstick.