I began my career as an environmental engineer (U. of Texas, 1974), then went to law school (Harvard Law 1980), and became a patent attorney -- not as a litigator, but in getting patents for inventors, mainly in biochemistry, genetic engineering, medical technology, and pollution control. I'm running for U.S. Senate as a "radical realist" to help spread word (i.e., alarm) re: global warming, climate change, and sea level rise, which are the greatest dangers humanity has ever faced. Outside that issue, I'm a moderate/centrist, and will issue bridge-building proposals which Democrats AND Republicans can support, in each of the most divisive issues tearing apart America today (i.e., abortion; guns; immigration; education; health-care). Nine crucial/critical facts about global warming & sea levels rise, which every voter -- and every candidate for Congress -- should know, are described and illustrated at my website, kelly4senate.net. Briefly, a major mistake climate activists have made, over past 30 years, was demanding huge & expensive programs, before politicians could or would agree on facts. Proposal: during 2022 election cycle, we need to establish some hard and proven facts, and then encourage voters to choose candidates who are smart enough to understand them, and courageous enough to face up to them, squarely and honestly.

• Global warming is a super-massive disaster, coming at us, hard and fast. People need to know the facts.
• There are good and useful brudge-building proposals, which both Democrats AND Republicans should support, in each of the most hate-filled areas that currently are tearing apart the fabric of America.
• I will be issuing a complex, multi-part, calibrated proposal, about what Congress, states, AND COUNTIES, should do, to set up county-by-county votes, for this November, in response to coming Supreme Court abortion decision. Most urban counties will allow; most rural counties will reject; that balance can work, for both.

1. The most divisive, polarizing, hate-generating issues are NOT being solved, because too many politicians today don't try (or want) to solve them. Instead, politicians have learned to exploit, manipulate, and `milk' those issues, to get more publicity, campaign contributions, and campaign volunteers. Just as a steam engine can't run on water (someone must start a fire, then keep it burning, to turn that water into steam, to provide power to that engine), politicans have reached a point where they WANT to keep terrible problems which are tearing us apart, as angry and as divisive as possible, to provide power to their re-election engines. Rather than taking that approach, I will be announcing bridge-building, problem-solving proposals, designed to provoke at least some thought among moderates on both sides, addressing each of the five most divisive, polarizing issues that are tearing America apart, today.

    2. History shows that the strongest, happiest, best, most prosperous & productive period for ANY city-state, empire, or nation, was when it had the largest, strongest, and most stable "middle class". So, our governments at all levels should make "Helping enlarge and stabilize the middle class" a top priority. However, Congress has allowed itself to be corrupted and  degraded in ways which actively pull it in exactly the opposite direction. Instead of helping the middle class, far too many federal laws and policies do the exact opposite.

1. Plutarch, who wrote a set of great but short biographies of the most important Greeks & Romans, in ways that truly helped our Founding Fathers (and mothers) better understand human nature, especially ambition. They wrote a MUCH better Constitution, because of what they had learned about all-too-ambitious men, from "Plutarch's Lives". 2. Edmund Burke, a wise and great political genuis (Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered, by Russell Kirk, is a great short biography). 3. Erasmus, who (from about 1490-1530) tried to find ways to get Catholics and early Protestants to work and reason together (they wouldn't, and ended up slaughtering each other - horribly - for two entire generations, in the Thirty Years War, instead). The reasons he described, for why people should at least try to work and reason together, even if enemies (or, ESPECIALLY if enemies), are still true and valid, today. 4. I think the Roosevelt Monument should be tripled in size, to include each and all of Teddy, Franklin, and Eleanor -- a great Republican, a great Democrat, and a great woman. That would make it a true "Roosevelt Monument", and it might become a center, where people from BOTH major parties (and both/all genders) could get together, and talk seriously with each other. 5. Washington, Franklin, & Madison rank as the greatest Founding Fathers, in my opinion. In contrast, Hamilton was MUCH too willing to betray farmers, laborers, and other honest workers, in his efforts to make money for himself. Jefferson was too secretive and uncommunicative (largely because he was so compromised and vulnerable, in his personal/private life) to accomplish what he could and should have, while President -- plus, he had to be sent abroad, while others negotiated and wrote the Constitution, so that he would not crash the effort on the issue of slavery, before the nation had grown enough to become ready to face up to that issue, without splitting apart.

1. Plutarch's Lives 2. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (first 3 volumes) 3. The Worldly Philosophers (by Robert Heilbroner) -- a masterful, beautifully-written, remarkably clear, logical,step-by-step history of the most important economic thinkers who ever lived, and of the principles they discovered, and the theories they wrote and advocated 4. The Religions of Man (by Huston Smith) - he went around the world in the 1950's, to prepare a new public TV series, interviewing people who had devoted their lives to some particular religion. And, he served as an honest scribe, telling the world what they had told him, in words he allowed them to see, critique, and help clarify, restate, and improve. Best (by far) review of the various religions, that I have ever found. However, I would advise anyone to read the three mono-theism chapters first, in chronological order (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), before tackling Hindu, Buddhism, or any of the others. 5. The Denial of Death (by Earnest Becker). Best book I've ever found (and only Pulitzer Prize Winner) on human psychology. Becker had taught psychology for 40 years, at a small college, when he learned he had cancer, and 2 years to live. So, the legacy that he tried to create -- his own effort to create something that would outlast HIS life, and death -- was a summary of what he had learned, from teaching psychology. Best chapter-length summary I have ever found, of Freud's theories, followed by a remarkable analysis of improvements on those theories, created by one of Freud's followers, Otto Rank -- who turned out to be much more insightful, correct, and accurate than Freud ever was. 6. Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered (by Russell Kirk) -- a truly wise politician, during the 1700s

1. A willingness to trust democracy, the public, and the Constitution, more than trying to trust (or to pressure, manipulate, etc) flawed and mortal individuals; 2. Integrity, a long-view sense of history, and a true, genuine, real desire to be remembered for doing what was right, rather than suffering from an endless craving for more power and control over others; 3. Genuine and serious brain-power, intelligence, insight, and an ability to identify, recognize, and use patterns and principles, combined with a willingness to just plain spend the time it takes, to do the work; and, 4. A genuine liking for other people (so long as they are honest), and a willingness and ability to form teams, alliances, and partnerships.

1. A genuine desire to help people, rather than be a parasite, predator, or one who always wants more power. 2. Very strong skills in understanding science, technology, engineering, reality, and nature (e.g., I started college at 16, and graduated with a 3.9 GPA) 3. Combination of science/engineering skills, with legal/writing skills

1. Spend the public's money in ways that are disciplined, insightful, productive, and useful. More than ANYTHING else, ANY government's FIRST AND FOREMOST DUTY AND OBLIGATION is to use the public's money in intelligent, responsible, and limited ways. And, for anyone elected to THIS office (i.e., in the U.S. Senate), we MUST begin finding ways to avert the multiple compounding crises that a $30 TRILLION national debt is going to begin causing -- just as the bills will begin coming due, caused by the . . . not just ordinary, every-year disasters, but mega-catastrophes, which are going to be caused by global warming, and sea-level rise.

A short digression, as just one example: I've created (and am funding) a "teamwork" approach to helping recently-released prisoners find ways to stay out of jail. Briefly, they are put on teams of 4, and each team player gets $50/month, to help pay rent, etc, but only so long as the entire team continues to win -- which is defined as, "NONE of those 4 people gets arrested again, and sent back to jail." That gives all 4 members of each team both a right, and a reason, to get to know each other, and help each other stay out of trouble. And, if the entire team makes it to the 1-year finish line (ideally, shortly before Christmas), they will each get a final bonus of $500. So far, after about 5 teams (hard to be exact, after pandemic juggling), the recidivism rate is ABSOLUTE ZERO. The guys have responded remarkably; for most, it is the first time, in their entire lives, that they have had a chance to join a truly "good" team. That, plus, I teach them games that have no randomizers -- no dice, spinners, cards, etc. Things like chess, checkers, Othello, Twixt, etc. The only way to become a good player, at a game like that, is by learning to think ahead, and plan ahead, and try to anticipate what the OTHER player will do. The basic lesson: thinking ahead is a skill. And, like any other skill, it can be improved, if smeone works at it, practices it, exercises it, and gets some coaching.

The Kennedy-Nixon debates, in 1960, and listening to 2 kids up the street whose parents were strong Republicans, supporting Nixon, even though Kennedy seemed nicer. I was 8 at the time.

I became a dishwasher, at a hotel restaurant, when I turned 16 (and could drive myself there). I worked there all summer, and learned that: (i) I had quick hands, and (ii) if I thought and planned ahead, I could get more done, than anyone else in that kitchen.

"Are You My Mother?" Why? Because I loved reading it to my kids, when they were infants, sitting in my lap. When I got to the page with the line that said, "And the egg JUMPED!," I would stall . . . and delay . . . and string it out. After the first time or two, they KNEW it was coming . . . but they did NOT know WHEN . . . And, for a 15-month old toddler, that kind of thing can become a true thrill-ride. That was a great way to read that book, to a kid. I would highly recommend it, to any parent, or grand-parent.

Instead of idly thinking of who I might want to be, I've actually written a draft of a novel, with 4 such characters, because I identify with 3 of them, and sympathize with the 4th. Two young graduate students in a special, high-powered class begin dating, and then become "special friends" with the professor and his wife . . . who are having severe marital problems. Plenty of opportunities there, for insights re: relationships, and the thoughts and actions of a young man who is falling in love. I would love to share drafts of chapters, with some really good female writers, before I try to get it published, to see if two different women might want to write and publish the two female versions of the same story, at the same time, written from each of the two female points of view.

I write music, mainly for grins, and have had some of my songs demo'd in professional studios, in Nashville. I might find a way to weave one or more of those songs into my campaign, and I hope to get them issued, by some major artists, some day. My personal favorite, so far, is called, "If It Hurts That Much, Get On Up and Dance."

I chewed through an electric wire (on my mother's sewing machine, while she was using it), when I was about 15 months old. It created a severe scar, on my mouth, almost as bad as a cleft palate. So, I had to grow up, being the kid who looked "different" . . . and "unlucky" (just as bad, in its own way). But, on the positive side, I realized, early in life, that I wasn't going to be able to get by on good looks, a cheerful smile, and a steady supply of sales-talk and bull-poop. I was going to have to work at it. So, I did.

1. Global warming. 2. Global warming, and climate change. 3. Global warming, and sea-level rise. In complete seriousness --- and I say this as an environmental engineer who actually understands what is happening, and why it creates such a huge set of catastrophes, coming at us, at high speed -- global warming threatens all of humanity. It threatens all human civilization, and every form of government, anywhere in the world. It is likely to lead to the total collapse of democracy, as a form of government, within the next 100 years or so. And, it will like lead to a total, devastating collapse, and destruction, of the entire state of Florida, NOT during the next 80-100 years, but in the next 20-50 years, due to both (i) rising oceans, and (ii) the ability of water to dissolve limestone, which Florida is built upon. In complete seriousness, we are going to lose, and destroy, an entire state, leading to tens of millions of angry, embittered, hungry, and broke refugees from Florida, trying to push their way into other states, which will push back, strongly. No one can guess how that will end -- or even how it will play out beyond just the first 2-3 years, after it begins happening in earnest.

I would consider, in good faith, any serious proposal, and I would want to know more about how various such efforts have performed, in the states. I've heard that's Missouri term limits have NOT worked well, but I don't claim to know whether that is true. Beyond that, I think every voter in America should know how Newt Gingrich back-stabbed his own term limit promises and pledges, in the "Contract with America" he used, to gain control of the House, in 1994 (Clinton's first mid-term election). After Gingrich and every other Republican candidate promised, swore, and solemnly vowed -- loudly, repeatedly, at every opportunity -- that they would enact term limits if they took control of the House, they actually took control, and then realized that -- oh, my gosh -- if they passed term limits, they might lose that control. So -- in a move I regard as utterly slimy, sleazy, underhanded, and outright dishonest -- Gingrich and the new House leaders ginned up 4 different versions of term limit bills., and then told their troops, "Group A, you vote for version 1; Group B, you vote for version 2; Group C, you vote for version 3; and, Group D, you vote for version D. That way, every one of you can go back home and tell your voters, with complete honesty (if not sincerity), that you did indeed vote for a term limits bill. But, don't worry -- we will make absolutely certain that NONE of those four different versions will actually pass, and become law." I've been told that that political maneuver is actually used fairly often, so that incumbent politicians can claim and pretend that they stood up (with courage and integrity) for what the voters wanted them to do -- while getting secret assurances that those votes would not actually create any real risks, or cost them anything real. I've heard that strategy is called "The Queen For A Day" strategy. If so, I think Newt Gingrich should be given the nickname, Newt `Queen For a Day' Gingrich. For the rest of his life.

It seems to be heavily and deeply infused with a sad and melancholy realization -- which its current members can only TRY to cover up, and not acknowledge, using constant displays of anger and hatred for their enemies and adversaries as a cover, and as an excuse for not doing their jobs -- that for well over a century, it was indeed, "the greatest deliberative body, in the world." It is so sad to see how far it has fallen, since the days when it actually deserved that phrase. Frankly, I suspect that that realization, among its current members -- i.e., of how horribly, terribly far the entire Senate, as a `deliberative body', has fallen, since the days when Republican Senators and Democratic Senators could (AND WOULD, AND DID!!) actually work together, talk respectfully with and too each other, bargain and negotiate with each other in good faith, and actually solve problems, for the good of the entire nation -- is part of what makes it so terribly dysfunctional, today. How can any member of the Senate truly concentrate, and focus, while being so terribly weighed down by the heavy, heavy realization of how bad the Senate, as a group, has become? My instincts tell me, in complete seriousness, that THAT is one of the main problems the current U.S. Senate is wrestling and struggling with (unsuccessfully), and unable to find any answers to. That, plus -- INSTEAD OF doing the jobs they were actually elected to do -- most U.S. Senators, today, have to go through tunnels to get to a different building, and then spend hours, each day, at a phone bank in a building which is not government-owned, "dialing for dollars" and trying to squeeze contributions from donors. That surely is a deeply frustrating and unhappy way to have to spend one's time, especially for someone who thought s/he would be in a position of true power, if s/he got elected. And, I suspect THAT drain on their time, is a major part of why Congress is NOT getting its actual work done.

Beneficial? Yes; of course; how could it be totally otherwise? HOWEVER -- the drawbacks, and accompanying problems, very likely outweigh those benefits, in OTHER ways, in MOST cases.

I think it was absolutely & totally wrong -- as in, aggressively UN-patriotic, ANTI-patriotic, UN-American, short-sighted, and self-destructive -- when Mitch McConnell in specific, and the Republicans in both the House and Senate, decided that they would oppose Barack Obama, in ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that Obama TRIED to do, to be the best President he could be, after he was elected and put into that position, fair and square, by the voters. The Republicans took the position, "We must do EVERYTHING we possibly can, to block and thwart him, in ANYTHING he even TRIES to do. We will try to deprive him from ANY victory or accomplishment, of ANY sort -- EVEN IF IT MEANS WE, AS REPUBLICANS, MUST REVERSE OUR PRIOR POSITIONS, AND BEGIN OPPOSING THINGS WE HAVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED UP UNTIL NOW". That was an utter, severe, extremely destructive failure of leadership; the duty of EVERY elected official should be, to try to do what is best for the country, at all times -- rather than hiding behind rationalizations such as, "Well, first, we have to do so much damage to the Democrats, that they will not be able to govern competently. And THEN, once WE have taken over, we will begin saying how terribly unfair it is, if the Democrats try to do those same things to us, that we did to them." Okay . . . "the filibuster". As wielded and used by the current Congress, I would say, "It seems to be bent, and broken." But, how should it be fixed? The best way I can think of, is by electing better politicians, and then reminding them constantly that they are not the true power -- the people are. And, what should those of us outside the Beltway think of that new name for Washington's football team -- "The Washington COMMANDERS"? Gosh, did they even CONSIDER possibly calling them, "The Washingon Public Servants"? If not, then why not? Isn't that what the folks in DC are supposed to be doing, for the rest of the nation?

Their skills, qualifications, experience, etc., plus whatever hints I can pick up, from their testimony, on whether they intend to serve the nation and the Constitution, or whether they want to either (i) gain favor, from some higher person, or (ii) impose their own personal idealogy on whatever decisions they make.

The main Environment committee, and the main Transportation committee

I'm willing to tell it, but not write it. I've got several all-time favorites. But, with me being a patent attorney, they're all pretty much "long-form" humor, and need a build, and some time to grow, and develop, before one gets to the punchline. Here's a hint re: three of my favorites: 1. A pig with a wooden leg; 2. A needle-phobic man whose jaw is wired shut, after a bad auto accident, but who cannot take intravenous nutrition, because of his neuro-pathic reaction to needles; and 3. A ____ transplant (involving boiled onions . . .)

Partly based on history; partly based on what I perceive to be his/her agenda, goals, biases, and desire to impose how own belief system on others (especially on others who will not accept it willingly). Having been a patent attorney, working with inventors for more than 40 years, I am consistently put off by the short-comings, blind spots, and self-imposed limits I see, in people who want to push either a liberal or a conservative agenda. By contrast, I am impressed by those who can and will bring new and useful insights, and thoughts on possible new types of connections, networks, systems, and structures, to the task of actually solving problems.

Re: the current talk about Biden trying to "pack the Supreme Court" -- 1. Most people don't realize that FDR's threat to do so actually succeeded, rather than failed, because it successfully pressured the Supreme Court to completely reverse its old doctines (represented by "The Lochner case", issued in 1905, which cemented various prior precedents together, and struck down and prohibited -- under asserted "freedom of contract" provisions in the U.S. Constitution -- ANY state laws regulating working conditions, minimum wages, commodity prices, etc.). In 1937 -- DEEP and LATE in The Great Depression -- the Supreme finally reversed the Lochner doctrine, and allowed states to regulate things, in the case of West Coast v. Parrish. They almost certainly would NOT have done so, EXCEPT FOR the pressure they felt, from Roosevelt's court-packing proposals. 2. I think that, under todays's circumstances, a BETTER proposal should -- rather than adding more Supreme Court Justices -- threaten to inject one or more historians, as witnesses, into the chambers of the Supreme Court, during their deliberations, when they decide how they are going to vote on some case they have heard arguments on.

1. Teams, partnerships, etc., based on honesty & candor. I will turn 70 years old in June 2022, and I regard 76 as just plain too old, to run for re-election, 6 years later. So, my goal, plain and simple, will be to do thebest I can, and create as much progress and good as I can, during those 6 years, knowing they will not stretch out beyond those 6 years. 2. If elected, I will actively introduce (and lobby for, and seek co-sponsors for) bills which would create about 6 or 8 "Super-Chairman"-type positons, in the Senate, for Senators who would be: (i) chosen for those positions, by their peers IN THE SENATE; and, (ii) moved out of their role in representing a single state, and required, instead, to pledge to do their best to serve the entire nation, instead of just their home state. Those positions would include: (i) both a Democratic and Republican chair, for the main tax-writing committee in the Senate; (ii) both a Democratic and Republican chair, for the main spending committee in the Senate. I think that restructuring those two committees, in that way, might actually help create some genuine, serious, and real progress, in trying to bring our utterly out-of-control yearly deficits back under control. And, if I can play a prominent role in trying to help create half a dozen or so EXTRA spots like that, for Senators who could then move to even higher positions, I suspect that at least some of the potential candidates, for those spots, would treat me with surprisingly good and generous cordiality, and cooperation . . . at least, to my face, whenever I'm in the same room as one of them. For more about who I am, and how I think, see this website, which I wrote: www.tetraheed.net

Absolutely; 100% For more, see another website I wrote: 2partyparty.org That website is all about the need for: (i) BOTH main parties to begin working (and bargaining, and negotiating) with each other, again, and (ii) BOTH main parties to begin nominating more moderates, centrists, respectable and respectful problem-solvers who have had good careers and raised good children, and `work-horses', rather than aggressive and obnoxious `culture warriors', `show-ponies', and `camera-whores.'