Daniel Geery's Open Salon Blog

Why I'm Returning My Eagle Scout Award

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:04:18 -0400

National Council, Boy Scouts of America
1325 West Walnut Hill Lane, Sum 326
P.O. Box 152079
Irving, TX 75038

It is my understanding is that you are considering extending your ban on homosexuals in scouting, effectively making the ban permanent. Having been an Eagle Scout since approximately 1962, when I received that award in Troop 280, Syosset, New York, with great effort and honor, I am dismayed that you are even considering this counter-productive and reactionary response.

It is inconceivable to me that you would continue eliminating the chance for any American youth to have the opportunities for learning and growth that scouting can provide. It appears that you have in effect tossed the Scout Law out the window and lost all sense of direction and leadership yourselves, when you should be providing that very leadership and direction.

Do you even remember the Scout Law, which I memorized and took to heart in the late fifties, like millions of other young men, and can recall to this day, more than half a century later? A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

Not only does this official definition of a scout have absolutely no bearing on a scout’s sexual tendencies, it flies in the face of how you, scouting’s alleged leaders, are now behaving: You are clearly NOT being helpful, friendly, courteous, or kind, particularly to some of our most needy youths. It is a small leap to conclude that you are not being at all brave in standing up for what scouting allegedly stands for: To train youth in responsible citizenship, character development, and self-reliance.

Worse yet, you are ignoring truth if not running away from it: Almost every account from someone proclaiming to be gay, along with the bulk of scientific research, concludes that homosexuality does not develop over time, but is a trait one is born with and can neither be “managed” or “cured.” Given that homosexuals have contributed as much to society as heterosexuals, any argument that homosexuality is a somehow criminal cannot be taken seriously. By wilfully running away from this readily available information, you are not just avoiding bravery, you are setting a flagship example of personal cowardice, turning the fundamental premise and promise of scouting on its head.

Perhaps worse than the above, I fear you are about to take a firm stand that homosexuality is somehow immoral, and that gays are to be shunned, avoided, and—as will be the case—further harassed, bullied, ostracized, and made fun of in every possible way, further advancing the high prevalence of suicide amongst young men.

I do not think that “perverse” is too strong a word to describe whatever infiltration has occurred to scouting in recent decades, nor do I think it is too strong a measure to rest solidly on previously formed and stated goals and purposes of scouting. Seeking out and seriously enforcing penalties for violations of these reasonable and commendable ideals would surely be a boon to the image and reality of scouting, bring a screeching halt to the present hypocrisy and abuses of those who claim to “be scouts,” but who fail miserably to even attempt to live up to the Scout Law.

But I have said enough, if these points are to make any difference at all. I would note, for the record, that I spent twenty years successfully teaching elementary school, more than double that time doing freelance writing, appearing at public hearings on environmental and other major public issues, acquiring two patents, living off the grid for 15 years in a solar-powered home, running for Federal Senate, raising a family, and achieving the status of valedictorian at a military college. This is not to boast but to hopefully demonstrate that I am a productive member of society, who thinks and cares deeply about the direction we are all headed in. And also to state emphatically that these achievements can be traced in large measure to the character building that I was exposed to through several years of scouting experiences.

It is for these reasons that I am returning my Eagle Scout Award to you: Scouting is no longer what was meant to be, but in fact quite the opposite. In the event that the BSA decides to stand on the firm ground of the Scout Law, laid down in essence over a century ago, regarding what a scout is or at least should strive to be, and having held up well since then of its own accord, I would be proud to still consider myself an Eagle Scout, along with what this accolade truly once stood for.

I wish you the best of luck in your upcoming decision, and courteously encourage you to ponder these points, along with the body of scouting and its stated purposes which have been developed and refined over the past century.

Sincerely,

Daniel Geery

What Candidate Would Attempt to Run on No Money?

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 06:07:57 -0400

I would. Here’s why and how.

Americans have long been hollering about getting money out of politics. I attempt to offer that possibility, in my bid for Utah U.S. Senator (if you’re not from Utah, please read on, as help from “the outside” may be especially critical). I also offer other possibilities that have been on my mind and growing over the past four decades or so.

I believe in simplicity and operating from principles rather than dogma. This keeps things fluid, yet holds one on an even course--like following the North Star when you’re lost, allowing for a change of course around unforeseen obstacles.

I will not accept money, none whatsoever, for this campaign. We should run our country and state on principles and good ideas, and money must not taint our decisions. Hopefully that small light in the dark will also serve as an example for others in Washington to consider. I suggest that you view the $$$ signs that other politicians boast about as a direct reflection of how far these folks have gone in selling out any principles they may have had--and how far they're willing to go in working against your interests (I realize third party presidential candidates may have little other choice).

I am not looking to persuade, but simply state things as I see them, and, hopefully, offer a genuine vision we will all benefit from. I fail to see similar visions from other politicians.

I don’t like political labels. I find them divisive, misused, and generally unproductive. They are also confusing, meaning different things to different people. However, if you feel a need to label me, I’m comfortable with the word “progressive,” since I believe in progress for humankind. But I am also “ultra conservative,” in that I advocate preserving those things that truly matter for humans everywhere, on this amazing and beautiful planet; likewise, I believe in fiscal responsibility and fiscal realism. My basic principles, summarized in one paragraph, stripped of labels:

Treat your neighbors as you’d want to be treated; help the less fortunate; forgive others; educate youth in a well-rounded curriculum; live in harmony with Nature and within our means; encourage recognition that we are one species on one planet, with many differences but also with the same ultimate fate; push for kindness and fairness as globally accepted norms. Recognize that humanity, not money, is what we are ultimately working for. More specifically:

Put children first. Seriously first, and make decisions in their interest and that of generations to come. The human mind, educated and guided by wisdom, is our greatest resource. Provide free education through four years of college, or the equivalent, as a right to deserving youth. Lower the boom on needless administrative costs in education. Study and strive to emulate the best school systems elsewhere, such as Finland's. Make physical education mandatory, every day of the week. Bring back arts, crafts, shop, and other life-skills classes. Focus on making public schools excellent and eliminate any perceived need for charter schools.

Make America a genuine “shining light on the hill,” leading the world by example. We have already flashed enough “shining gun barrels” around the planet. Bring to life a real vision in the interest of all humans everywhere, starting at home. Prove that democracy works, not by talking about it, but by actively demonstrating it.

Pursue truth and act on what is learned, even when it takes us “out of our comfort zone.” Recognize that humankind exists on one planet and shares the same ultimate fate. Use science to help us make rational decisions. Explore the root causes of problems, such as unemployment, immigration, global imbalances.

Respect reasonable differences of opinion, but penalize outright lying and deception in the political arena, where such things are all too prevalent today, and tantamount to treason of the American people.

Be kind. Bring back civilized talk and actions. Reject willful ignorance; educate when and wherever possible. Bring a permanent end of labeling and name calling of other peoples and countries. With D.C. far worse than junior high in this department, you know that a serious change is needed.

Implement major domestic green jobs and infrastructure programs. Improve public transportation, encourage car-pooling, walking and biking, develop a new rail system, connecting major cities by high speed train, emulate local bus and train systems that work well and that have been established in many cities, both here and around the world.

Create a fair, democratic, transparent financial sector that serves the needs of start-ups, small business and consumers. End incentives for U.S. companies to send jobs and money overseas. Create a vibrant, sustainable economic system, providing meaningful jobs and a decent standard of living for all.

Develop an economy that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. Counterbalance short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations. Look for and activate start-up programs and businesses most likely to produce long-term benefits.

Do not allow any media on the public airwaves if it veers from speaking the truth, or distorts reality for political or financial ends. Establish and safeguard an open internet, accessible to all, with the ability to trace statements or alleged facts to their original source. Harshly penalize internet censors which limit political discussion and free exchange of ideas; indeed, do all we can to eliminate them.

Apply established First Amendment Law to the use of the internet, and society in general. Government censorship of critics is all too prevalent and is a major, deadly gateway to the collapse of democracy. Recognize that First Amendment Rights are ultimately the most important ones we have, from a legal and social standpoint.

Preserve our environment, restore damaged ecosystems, do all we can to live within the means that Nature so generously provides. Operate with the understanding that we are part of Nature, not separate from it. Respect and learn from biomimicry. Live within the resource limits of our communities and our planet. Encourage agricultural practices that replenish the soil. Acknowledge and respect life forms other than our own, and work for the preservation of biodiversity, essential to life on earth.

Enhance environmental protection by strengthening the EPA, putting responsible parties in charge, and at the same time help companies reach reasonable goals over time. A close look at the toxins being poured, puffed, and dumped into our environment shows that we are literally killing ourselves, along with our children. Take aggressive action and leadership on the climate crisis and the environment.

Debate on climate change must be about details, timing, and what to do about it, not whether it’s happening. Clean air is a fundamental human right. Ditto clean water. Every stream, river, pond, and lake should ultimately be clean enough to drink from, as they once were. This won’t happen overnight, but it is the direction we should be headed in, and one reasonable measure of the health of the planet.

There is considerably more on my official political website, www.danielgeery.com. If you like what you see here, I encourage you to visit it and by all means spread the word around, commenting on articles online wherever these principles may apply, freely quoting me and sending folks here.

My Heart Transplant...

Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:11:48 -0500

and why I encourage you to be a donor. This is a short story about how an anonymous heart donor saved my life.

I had always led a reasonably healthy life, exercising, skiing, rollerblading, hiking, biking, eating healthy foods, and very little “junk food.” I worked in elementary school for twenty years, teaching mostly third, fourth, and sixth grades. I wrote articles on education for professional journals and countless letters to the editor on education and other social issues.

Thus it came as quite a shock when, at age 57, I learned I had heart problems. A pacemaker solved them for two years, but then, for reasons still unknown, my heart swelled to the size of a grapefruit. My cardiologist announced that I had “cardiomyopathy,” a general term covering heart disease that is usually chronic and of unknown origin. It took me six months to realize that I had effectively gone from age 57 to age 97, in terms of my physical abilities.

In retrospect, the doctors believe I may have had a viral infection called sarcoidosis, which is quite rare and has different effects for different people (lumps of cells or fibrous tissue appear on the skin or internal organs, sometimes for a short while, sometimes intermittently, sometimes forever).

I was teaching sixth grade in November 2004, when in the middle of a math class, it became apparent that I was unable to remember kids’ names, or to do simple math problems on the board. I realized I was not getting enough oxygen to my brain, and told my principal that I needed to go home or to the hospital. He offered to drive me, I said no, and made it home, where I went to sleep for several hours. Keeping a long story short, that was the last day of my official teaching career.

I had to climb stairs one at a time; I depended on my immediate family in something resembling a vegetative state. I had to struggle for five minutes to get up off the floor after watching a video, one of the few activities I could engage in. I spent hours laying in bed, trying to read (many books were on philosophy, death, and dying). I was seriously contemplating how to end my own life, as I could see no sense in living like this and being a burden to those around me (I believe that my Catholic background and fear of further hurting those around me are about all that kept me from actually acting on my downward spiraling thoughts).

At one point I decided that refusing the beta-blocker which supposedly kept me alive, but that was slowing me down even further, was better than continuing with it. Without telling my doctor, I stopped for close to two weeks, before deciding to consult another cardiologist, who was more attuned to my condition and things I was saying. He tried different beta-blockers, and we found one that diminished side-effects. He also put me in the hospital over the course of two separate weeks, trying drugs that could only be used in a hospital setting.

Finally, however, he announced that he had exhausted all the tricks of the trade he knew, and that I needed a new heart. As he did not perform that operation, he sent me to the LDS Hospital. He introduced me to the doctors there, whom he knew well. In short order, I was checked into that hospital, under the care of remarkably competent nurses and doctors.

But it soon became apparent to them that I was at the end of my life’s rope, and would soon die if I didn’t have a transplant. I recall passing out, and waking up I think days later, with two huge pumps sticking out of my chest (like 90 year-old mammary glands, I told people). My heart had been removed, and I was being kept alive on a heart pump machine, a condition I never would have chosen on my own. But there I was, alive and feeling well for the first time in over a year. I had food and oxygen going to my brain, and of course whatever pain killers they doused me with. I was talking and feeling good in remarkably short order.

Four weeks later, I was to go home with a suitcase such as you might tote around an airport, the purpose of which was to carry the batteries that would keep my pumps going and my blood flowing. I was not to shower, needed someone to spend about an hour a day putting sterilized bandages around the pump entrances and exits to my chest cavity, and, in the event my batteries ran down, I was to pick up some hand pumps that looked like bulbs on cooking syringes, and squeeze those to keep the blood flowing, while the paramedics raced to take over—one of which might well have been my oldest son, who is a paramedic.

Panic began to set in, as the implications of all this filtered into my brain. Then, two days before I was to go home with my new suitcase, to await a call that I might never get, or wait for a year or more to get, advising me that a heart was available and being rushed on ice from somewhere to the LDS Hospital, I received a call at 9:30 p.m., while I was still in the hospital.

“Is this Dan?” “Yes.” “This is Dr. Long, and I’m in California. I have a heart that I think will be an excellent match for you. Do you want me to come and put it in?”

I was too stunned to respond, as my chest filled with powerful emotions, my eyes with tears. “Should I come and put it in?” he repeated. “Y-Yes,” I stammered, hardly able to talk.

“Ok, the nurses will start getting you ready, and I’ll meet you at 2:30 a.m. in the operating room. Ok?” “Yes,” I managed to squeak out again.

And thus it was that the unfathomable sorrow of someone else’s death gave new life to me. I don’t know the details of that person’s death, whether it was a he or she, old or young, black or white or any other color, Democrat or Republican or apolitical. I have no idea what religion he or she may have been, or their outlook on life. All I know is that that person was a human being, a Homo sapien, the same species as are we. And, most importantly, that that person’s family agreed to allow their loved one’s heart to go on in the body of an unknown person, namely me. To them, though I have no idea who they are, I am eternally grateful.

I have done more teaching, worked out two inventions that are now in the marketplace (one will be useful for national security, humanitarian and scientific uses, while the other is a water toy that you may have purchased for your own child or children). I have written articles, finished a novel that I’m now trying to turn into a screen play, made new friends, continued my physical activities, and married a wonderful woman I am remarkably compatible with; in return for all this, I take a small number of drugs twice a day and make bi-annual visits to the hospital for check-ups.

Based on the real life experience I described here, I “heartily” encourage you to become an organ and tissue donor. The joy of a healthy life, or sight, or viable organs, or working tissue, any number of other benefits that you can bring to someone else, in the event you die and cannot use those parts yourself, cannot be measured in words—a part of you will indeed live on, helping another, or others, in ways you cannot begin to fathom. There is absolutely no downside that I am aware of to becoming an organ and tissue donor.

I pass along the following more specific information, which comes from the Intermountain Donor Service Website. There is a remarkably long list of suffering fellow humans waiting for what you may one day have to offer; and likewise, you may find yourself on that same long waiting list, as I did, wishing that someone else had taken the fraction of a second it takes to check the little box on their driver’s license form, saying “Yes” to being an organ donor.

Heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, and pancreas, called “organ donation” can only be done when a donor has been declared brain dead or sometimes after cardiac death. Strict death criteria must be met, so viable organ donors are rare. Tissue donation, meaning eyes, bone, skin, veins, heart valves, tendons, etc., can occur even after the heart has ceased beating.

When a donated organ becomes available, a list is generated from United Network of Organ Sharing, which ranks recipients based on proximity to donor (due to time constraints on donated organs), blood type, length of time on waiting list, severity of illness, size, compatibility of organs, tissue types, etc. Organs are placed based on these criteria.

The first priority for medical personnel is to save the lives of patients. Organ and tissue donation is not even discussed until every life saving option is exhausted and death has been declared or is imminent. The doctors and nurses at the medical center are completely separate from those who work for Intermountain Donor Services. IDS is the only agency that has access to the information on the donor registry. Its staff manages care of the donor with dignity and respect and explains the donation process with the family.

Organs are recovered in a sterile operating room using qualified surgical personnel and protocols. Tissues are often recovered in operating rooms but can also be recovered in sterile surgical facilities at medical examiners' offices or at some mortuaries.

As a final note, I encourage you to watch the video, "Return to Me," a beautiful tale of a an organ donation similar to my own, extremely well done yet realistic regarding what it's like to need a heart, and also to be in a situation where you might wish you made arrangements to pass life on. One small word of caution: I had to put a blanket over my head like a shawl, so no one could see my tears while I was watching it!

Did the Wright Brothers Make a Wrong Turn?

Wed, 4 Aug 2010 16:08:23 -0400

Based on the title of this article, any reader of sound mind might promptly conclude the writer is a lunatic. But wait, I beseech you! Hear me out, at least for a few paragraphs! After all, Salon did make an “all call” for Things You Made.

A brief synopsis first: I taught elementary school for twenty years, and did a lot of science with kids. I majored in biology, and I’ve been inventing things since I was a kid; I also happen to have two valid patents and trademarks. One of the patents involves the contraption that I hope will demonstrate that the Wright Brothers might have made a wrong turn. Well, ok, I would not honestly call theirs a “wrong turn” for the time those boys took to the air, but I am about to argue that their fundamental method of flight is wrong for today’s world.

I am talking about the difference between heavier-than-air flight (henceforth “HTA”) and lighter-than-air flight (henceforth “LTA”). The former is the flight you make when you hop a plane to another city, or several cities, or wherever you’re off to; LTA typically conjures up that notorious image of the Hindenburg ablaze, the German rigid frame dirigible (roughly meaning “steerable-balloon”) that made the news on early tv. Dirigibles in their day, like blimps--their stubby, bulbous cousins--were usually filled with helium (the Hindenburg being an exception, filled with flammable hydrogen). I prefer to use the more general term “airship,” since it sounds more dignified.

But let’s cut to the basics. Flying HTA is something like trying to fly a rock; LTA is more like flying a balloon. The former uses the vast majority of its energy to keep itself aloft, fighting the eternal pull of gravity. HTA craft have improved greatly in recent years in regards to efficiency, due to new shapes, better understanding of aerodynamics, and miraculous lightweight, strong materials, not to mention better engine technology. It’s hard to directly measure efficiency given the variables involved, but in the end you are still spending a lot of energy to hold that rock aloft.

LTA craft basically float in the air, like a balloon at a party. The problem with flying them is they take so much volume to hold the equivalent of that rock aloft. Roughly speaking, you need 15 cubic feet of helium to float one pound of rock, or anything else, off the ground.

But consider a fish in an aquarium. At least the faster ones look quite streamlined, and it’s easy to visualize how they slide through the water (which is about 700 times denser, and a whole lot heavier, than air). Most fish have a “gas bladder” that enables them to adjust their overall density, taking gas from the blood or putting it back, which enables them to stay about the same density as water. This is what allows them to swim about with little or no energy “staying afloat.” Some fish, like sharks, are slightly heavier than water and thus must keep swimming, or else sink.

Airships typically have a similar ability to change density, using “ballonets” or internal air bladders. They need to do this as external temperature or pressure changes, to adjust to neutral buoyancy, so they remain afloat in the air.

Consider: What if you were able to take a kid’s balloon and change it’s shape, so that it were more streamlined, say something like a fish? Would it slide better though the air, when you pushed it in one direction?

Yes, it would. And the more you streamline it, the easier it will slip through the air. This is in contrast to the traditional blimps you see at football games, wafting about in large gymnasiums, or sometimes cruising a coastline. Those bulbous shapes were designed to give the lift needed for heavy motors, various equipment, and sometimes people, along with whatever support systems are needed for the people.

What has changed greatly in the last decade or two, however, are materials that can be used in LTA vehicles. We now have lighter envelopes, batteries, motors, and materials for structural supports, such as carbon fiber; we have barriers for better helium retention; reinforceable foam, for lightweight components; and better, lighter electronics generally. The latter in particular is huge in airship development, for it means we can jettison even the pilot beforehand, and fly remotely. This also eliminates the paraphernalia needed to keep a person up there, such as water, food, and accessories for bodily functions. It also means we can fly airships long distances with very little, or relatively little, energy. We are not flying a rock, but floating a streamlined balloon and slipping it through the air.

Such a vehicle can carry cameras, sensors of all sorts, mapping equipment, hydrometers to look for water (or wholly mammoths under the ice, for example); they can carry instruments to measure local gravity, find minerals, meteorites, or radioactive materials; they can find people lost in the wilderness or crossing borders when they aren’t supposed to; they can quickly examine crime scenes, highway wrecks, fires, and present prompt aerial shots of your typical nightly news; they can monitor farm fields or rangelands, study wildlife, venture into wilderness areas, study glaciers, marshlands, or coastlines; they can find heat losses with infrared cameras; they can serve as first responders in natural emergencies; they can carry medicine, food, and water in roadless or frozen areas; and… well, you get the idea.

LTAs, properly designed, could carry small supplies over small distances; they could later advance to carrying medium cargo over medium distances; and progress from there to hauling large cargo over large distances. They can travel straight from point A to point B, without diverting to countless terminals called airports; they can land in a field or on water, or even a temporarily closed road. For that matter, they needn’t land, but float above trees or rooftops and lower cargo by ropes or wires. And indeed, in the twenties and thirties, large airships did carry passengers and cargo, routinely and successfully, from continent to continent, though that seems to be a lesser known fact of history.

Environmental tourism might well become a billion dollar industry. I haven’t mentioned communications, but these ships, tethered, could pop up like mushrooms, serving as cell towers in areas that are hard to reach. They could come down in minutes if bad weather were coming. If someone worked out a handful of technical issues, airships could serve as low level satellites, ideal for communication, at a small fraction of the cost of satellites (which often fail on or shortly after takeoff). Indeed, low altitude airships (by that I mean around 60,000 feet, above the jet streams) are the Holy Grail of many folks working in this area.

I should perhaps note here that there is substantial evidence that the Hindenburg disaster (where 36 people were killed, a tragedy for sure, though negligible to the number of kids who die each day from lack of clean water), was not caused by hydrogen, but rather the covering that the envelope was coated with. Perhaps more importantly, helium is a limited resource, trapped in limited pockets underground, like natural gas or petroleum. Hydrogen, on the other hand, is renewable, has 10% more lift than helium, and is roughly a third the cost of it. Plus we’ve learned a lot about handling helium safely since 1937.

I got many of these ideas in 1995, after reading The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed, by that writer supreme, John McPhee. The day after reading that amazing little book, I was out in the pond on our property in southeast Idaho, experimenting with a wooden yardstick I stole from my son, to see for myself if, indeed, things might “glide up” laterally. We all know things glide down: birds, seeds, leaves, paper, parachutes, and hanggliders, for example. But can things really glide up, as this book was suggesting, and the Aereon Company in New Jersey was trying to accomplish? McPhee’s book covers the topic well, and I highly recommend reading it, even if only for McPhee’s exemplary research and writing style (which is why I was reading it!).

Long story short: 5,000 tries and two years later, literally, I learned that you can indeed make a shape that glides up, as the Aereon Corporation had tried valiantly to accomplish. The creation I came up with is called an Aquaglider, an upward-gliding pool toy, which you can Google easily enough, or even find in Toys R Us or a number of other stores.

In any event, it turned out that, another five or six hundred tries later(!), and working with helium to build a functioning model airship, that with the new batteries, motors, and remote control equipment now available, it was more feasible to work with cigar shapes than the fish-like Aquaglider. I also realized that airship envelopes could be held taut by internal helium pressure. In recent years, I teamed up with other individuals, more knowledgeable than I in many areas, such as electronics, video transmission, reinforced foam, carbon fiber, electronics, control systems, and so on, all of which greatly accelerated the development of my streamlined airships. I call these contraptions Hyperblimps and you can also find them online, watch videos of and from them, and read more about them.

So there are two things I’ve made, and offer this essay in response to Salon’s recent call for “Things You’ve Made.” Maybe you’ll be using one of these inventions in the not-so distant future. (Hey, I can’t help myself! Google “Aquaglider” while there’s still some summer left, with this one caveat: Dads, let your kids use the dang thing too!).

And, finally, an obligatory P.S., and thank you to those who have helped get the Hyperblimp to where it is today, and a footnote that takes us back to the title of this essay: We recently won a Charles Lindbergh Award to study right whales off Argentina, with biologists from the University of Utah. So even if the Wright Brothers DIDN’T make a wrong turn, we believe we have the right aerial vehicle to study the right whales. Hopefully we’ll prove it before long!