Political Activism, such as it is.

While the title of this blog includes “Occasional Rants” I haven’t actually done many rants, especially lately.  Partly because rants aren’t nearly as fun as doing fun adventures and writing about them, but mostly because of the fact that since the Fall of 2024 there has been a near-daily barrage of news – both national and local, which many times are inextricably linked – that I consider to be Bad News.  It’s tempting to say something along the lines of “from this to that” to identify the range of bad news items, but there are way too many to choose from, and if you are interested enough in reading this you already know the myriad of things that have gone wrong.  

My primary litmus test of engagement is “can I effect any change to this?”  and if not I see the headline but don’t read the article or watch the video.   I like to think of myself as a Person Of Vast Influence, but the truth is that I am absolutely not, and so many Big Things are so complicated that I can’t even begin to understand them, much less take action.   So I have to acknowledge that – for example – the terrible and protracted wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Iran will likely continue unabated without my efforts.  Sure, I could read up more on the backgrounds of these conflicts and follow daily developments to maintain a fairly healthy amount of knowledge to be able to rant about them with my fellow libs, but…what good does that do?  I doubt any, but I do know that the deeper I’d dive, the more depressed I’d get, partly over the awful details and partly due to my helplessness.  

So what to do, about anything?  Nothing? Something (what?), A lot? (of what?). For whom?  Historically, when it comes to what causes she’d like to support Ashley has said “I care more about the environment than I do about people”, but over time – that included a job that enabled a close connection with people far less fortunate than us – her support theory changed to more human-centric.  This shift is understandable; the closer the connection, the more concern, and the more likely that we will get engaged, and perhaps even involved.  For me, a good example is the extradition effort against Mohsen Madhawi:  a West Bank of Gaza-born guy who came to the US legally, got a green card, graduated from Columbia University, and was targeted by ICE for deportation after speaking out against Israel at protests at Columbia. He also happens to be a glider pilot in Vermont and a friend of our pals across the river, Greg and Sue Hanlon, and Greg is a longtime glider pilot and mainstay of Mohsen’s flying club.  They have gone to protests for him, and have felt good about doing that, even if – at this point – things are not looking good for Mohsen.  However, it was partly due to the protests that brought this case to national news, and at least a couple of gyrations of this case indicate that despite their bellicose talk, there may be cracks in the ICE armor.  If nothing else, the protest is indicative of the power of protest; the many Hispanics getting targeted and whisked away are effectively anonymous and don’t create a stir, but at least a Columbia graduate can shake things up and create a vivid example of the injustice.  

And importantly, this shows the power of protests. I have been a little reluctant to join protests; it’s felt to me like being Just Another Body isn’t very effective.  However, the Hanlons referenced the statistic that I hadn’t heard of but verified here that if 3.5% of the population protests (peacefully!) has been enough to affect big social change, not to mention the positive personal effects that protests can create in an individual.  So I am gonna try to make it to protests, even if my hand-painted signs may be inscrutable!  

The place where the current administration’s environmental degradation and social mayhem plans meet is on public lands where I and millions of others love to recreate.  Yet while we still can, there is the opportunity to protest via comments.  This week and the next couple provides two good opportunities: the little-known  Travel Management Rule is being proposed to switch from a motorized use being closed ‘til it’s open to it’s open ‘til it’s closed (basically opening up virtually all land to any motorized vehicle), not requiring any kind of environmental assessment of the effects of roads and tracks that

would be affected by motor vehicles (think side-by-sides in the desert), and would require each forest to do an annual assessment of all the roads in their district; a particularly-devious strategy because everyone knows that part of the long strategy of the US leadership is to gradually cut the resources for land managers.  

The comment period for the changes to the Travel Management Rule is tomorrow, September 23.  Winter Wildlands has a take-action link here but Ashley pointed out it’s a bit wordy and redundant, and on a lobbying trip to DC I learned that these pre-written things aren’t nearly as powerful as even a very simple “Don’t Do This!” note that’s personal, so it might be better to send an email to them via the website: 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FS-2026-0100-0001

here’s the direct link to the comment https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/24/2026-17211/travel-management-national-forest-system-lands#open-comment

Related is the administration’s evisceration of the 2001 Roadless Rule.  This was a very effective tool that’s been useful and effective for a long time that kept road building in national forests to a minimum because after building 380,000 miles of roads in US forests (?!?!  more than twice that of the entire federal highway system!) they realized that the roads are detrimental to forest health. And while the administration is gamely trying to use the argument that “more roads equals better fire management” by enabling more fuel clearing and easier firefighting access, it’s actually not at all: a study was just released that refutes that “fact”.  It’s even clear to casual forest users like me: if you pay attention to the copious amount of Western fire news, most fires are caused by humans and their unattended campfires, chain dragging, shooting, fireworks, etc.  

Here’s the formal website: https://www.regulationsq.gov/document/FS-2025-0001-223869 docket number FS-2025-0001, and the comment period ends in two weeks on October 6 (but while you’re at it doing the TMR note you might as well do the Roadless Rule comment as well. 

And then there’s another, more painful, but most effective way to affect social/political change:  campaign contributions. We are all aware of and likely disillusioned at best and horrified at worst by the age-old problem of “money in politics” that has been dramatically accelerated in this post-Citizens United decision era where corporations donate to Political Action Committees which in turn donate to candidates, and the megarich have vast influence on elections.   But what is not as well known is that lots of small contributions are very important; all those texts and emails and social media posts asking for $5-$10 are done for a reason; campaigns are expensive and “our” contributions add up to dull the effect of shitheads like Musk, Bezos, etc.  Representatives’ terms last a brief 730 days and some campaigns cost millions of dollars; in addition to their jobs of creating laws they need to raise A LOT of money.  Senate campaigns happen nearly as often, but they are more expensive, so the need is the same, and having gotten to meet a few of these folks, their fragile egos – and subsequent votes – are dependent on their perceived popularity via financial contributions.  

While it pains me to envision my contribution going towards zillions of mailed leaflets that get immediately thrown away and TV ads spinning bullshit in either a bright cheery voice if talking about the candidate or a deep menacing voice talking about the impending social collapse if their opponent prevails, this is how so many people are reached and – apparently – influenced.   So I hold my nose and send money to candidates I want to win.  I haven’t too much to out of state candidates, but given the fragile balance of power in Congress I am gonna send money to swing-state candidates who might be able to win (but I need to do so soon!).  

Many political folks also emphasize the importance of locality; much of what happens at a national level starts locally with districting, policies, and future Big candidates, and with far-cheaper campaigns your modest contributions have a bigger effect.  

I feel pretty strongly that while having strong political beliefs is great, talk is cheap, and a true test of engagement is donating to candidates (and issues, and nonprofits!) you support. So with six weeks to go, respond to those pleas for your dollars, and if you like to recreate,