Here Come Da Pope!

Pope Francis has landed in America. That is rightfully a joyous occasion for some 76.7 million Roman Catholics in the country. Popes don’t visit often, only nine times since the first visit of Pope Paul VI in 1965. Seven of those visits were from the late Pope John Paul II.

As Popes go, it was appropriate that John Paul II was canonized a saint. He did much to further and clarify church doctrine. He also epitomized a life of church leadership and did much to show the evils of the socialist regime he grew up under in communist Poland.

Pope Francis (the humble?) talks a good talk and seems to be making changes for the better in church doctrine, or at least church administration of that doctrine. In the US and other countries where abortion is legal and divorce commonplace, he appears to have loosened the reigns on the rigid application of the doctrine. Some say that is progress; to others, it is an abomination.

While I am certain the Pope is a good man with the best of intentions, he is way out of his league criticizing capitalism and preaching the gospel of climate change. For an institution that has for millennia shown contempt for both economics and science, this Pope has scant qualifications to speak credibly to either.

In a world where we are quickly reaching the maximum sustainable capacity for population, the Pope could better use his bully pulpit for solutions to that problem. We currently have some 7 billion people on the face of this planet, with absolutely no way to increase that occupancy limit. We can’t just add on to the planet.

Credible scientists estimate that the earth can support no more than about 10 billion people. We are 70% of the way toward being maxed out, and our population is growing exponentially!

Are radical solutions now necessary? Probably not yet, but if we don’t start talking about it soon, they may become necessary. I’m talking euthanasia, abortion, forced childbirth restrictions… actions no one wants to see or hear about.

Where does the Pope fit into all of this? Well, first, Catholic Church doctrine alone is neither the culprit nor the solution. But the rigid opposition to contraceptives and all abortions does nothing to help the population problem. That is where a truly enlightened Pope might make substantial changes to church doctrine.

But looking at world population statistics, we find that ethnic fertility rates may be what drive the population explosion more than religious doctrine. For example, the fertility rate for Niger is 6.89 children per woman while that of the United States is 2.01 to 1. The lowest fertility rate is in Singapore at 0.8 children per woman. These statistics are provided by the CIA in 2014.

My point here is that if this Pope is to be as revolutionary as he professes to want to be, he should concentrate more on matters he is in a position to change and less on matters he likely does not understand and is not really qualified to tackle. Francis may commendably wash the feet of a few poor people, but has he or the church done much to alleviate the plight of the homeless? The Catholic Church is reportedly the richest organization on earth, but what is it doing directly to help the poor and destitute? For that matter, is there any major religious organization that is truly practicing the religious tenet of charity?

Pope Francis said to Castro, “people are important not ideas.” Okay, Pope. Put your money where your mouth is.

Thank God, I live in America. If I had said this about the Ayatollah in Iran, I would be in great peril.

Fleeing Hell

In the immortal words of Monty Python’s hit movie Spamalot, “Run away! Run Away!” This seems to be the advice being followed by great hordes of the Syrian and Iraqi civilian population. And who can blame them, with the insane conglomeration of warring factions in both countries. When the city where you live is being hit indiscriminately with barrel bombs from your own government, and blown up by artillery from forces opposing the government, as well as occupation by radical fanatics intent on decapitating those they don’t like with a dull butcher knife and burning people alive in cages, it’s time to get out of Dodge!

Just take what’s left of your family, stuff some clean underwear, a toothbrush, some baby formula, and your life savings in a daypack and head out. But where to? That is the big question. You can’t go to Iraq from Syria; it’s no better than where you come from. South? That’s all desert. The chances of making it to civilization are slim in that direction. Israel? Fat chance they would let you stay. North is the sea and Turkey. Beyond lies civilization – or something far more civilized than the war-torn hell back home.

So, they take their chances crossing the Mediterranean in flimsy, overcrowded boats. Some make it, some don’t. The lucky ones arrive in a country that wants nothing to do with them. Other countries, like Germany, welcome them with open arms – and open checkbooks. All they have to do is get there. That turns out to be a major obstacle. Most of the countries along the way don’t want the refugees to pass. Why is anybody’s guess.

I read and hear comments all the time like, “most of the refugees look like able-bodied young men. Why don’t they fight for their own homeland?” Also, “why should we allow more Muslims in our country? They will just bring their conflict here!”

Maybe those who have never fled wars, tyranny, and oppression will never understand the situation. It is far too easy to sit on our easy chairs in front of our flat screen TVs watching the plight of these people and go “tisk-tisk, too bad” or form easy opinions.

Those who have, or have family who has fled their homeland at one time know the heart-wrenching choice that is made. It is no easy decision to leave everything they have and everything they know just to wind up where everything is foreign – the customs, the money, the religion, the language, the people, and even the cities – and arrive with nothing only to be at the mercy of complete strangers and a strange government.

But is it fair to expect only a select few countries to accept these refugees? The numbers I have seen are on the order of some 50,000 to England, and France, 10,000 to Norway, 800,000 to Germany…. There is even a push for the US to take in refugees.

Why has Europe and now the US been singled out to receive these people? Why not countries closer to their homeland, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Kuwait, Oman, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, or the Sudan? Why are Asian and South American countries not taking in any of these refugees? What about Australia, and Japan? Can’t the Russian Federation take any? Why must Europe be the snake that swallows the cow?

Make no mistake about it; I know well why these people are fleeing and how desperate they are to settle in a stable place. What I can’t understand is why the one global agency that purports to represent all the governments of the planet, and increasingly sticks its nose in the sovereignty of other countries has done nothing to alleviate the refugee problem. Why can’t the United Nations create a program to equitably distribute the refugees around the globe? With all the money we give the UN to waste propping up dictatorships and sending aid to countries that only confiscate it and sell it on the black market, why can’t the UN do something that is well within its charter and help the refugees? Can anyone tell me just what the United Nations is good for?

A Not So Rare (Earth) Dilemma

Rare earth production in the United States just got much rarer. California’s Mountain Pass mine owned by Molycorp – the country’s only active rare earth mine – just announced it would close in October.

Why should we care? Well, besides the loss of some 490 jobs in that remote section off I-15, it means that raw materials used in such every-day devices as your flat screen TV, cell phone, catalytic converter, and rechargeable batteries will now rely exclusively on the whims of mines in China.

More importantly, many industries rely on rare earths for computer memory; DVDs, rechargeable batteries, fluorescent lighting and much more will be impacted. The “Green Energy” jobs in the wind turbine industry need rare earths. Even our nation’s military uses rare earth in night-vision goggles, precision-guided weapons, communications equipment, GPS equipment, batteries, and other defense electronics. They are key ingredients for making the very hard alloys used in armored vehicles and projectiles that shatter upon impact.

Yes, that’s right, while rare earths are abundant in the US, Canada, and Australia, as well as Russia, Brazil, India and a few south Asian countries; China overwhelmingly controls the market … and the prices.

The ore containing rare earth elements was discovered in the 1940s, mining for the ore only began in earnest at Mountain Pass in 1952. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the Mountain Pass mine was reported to be the dominant source of rare earth metals in the world. In 2002, the EPA closed the mine for “environmental” reasons. Molycorp got a mine permit in 2004, but mining didn’t resume until they obtained 1.5 billion dollar investment in 2012.

If you were a regular traveler on I-15 to and from Las Vegas, you probably watched the mountain of tailings to the north grow the last few years.

It is hard to compete with Chinese operations that don’t have to comply with environmental regulations. Molycorp filed chapter 11 bankruptcy in June of this year, saying they simply could not produce the metals profitably while being undercut by China.

Well, in a capitalist society, competition is the name of the game. An entity that can turn out a product for a lower price will nearly always dominate. Now inject government regulation into the equation and you no longer have a level playing field. I would not dare imply that capitalism or even, in this instance, environmental regulation is wrong. I’m just saying that every player deserves a fair shot. Monopolistic practices by environmentally unregulated Chinese mines cannot be in the best interest of this nation.

It is ironic that we depend on communist China for minerals essential to national defense and much of our lifestyles – especially since there is an abundance of these minerals right under our own feet. Maybe next we could have our bombers and bombs built in Syria and Afghanistan. Wouldn’t that be a fine idea?

‘Dumb and Dumber’ is Real in Sacramento

How much fuel do you use on a weekly basis? How much is used simply to get to work? If you were told you must cut your fuel use by half—that’s right 50% -- how would that affect you? If the price of fuel was taxed, so the total was around $10 per gallon – while the rest of the nation paid about $2.50 per gallon – how you feel about that? If you were rationed only enough gas to make it to work three days a week, what would you do? If you were limited by mileage police to drive only an arbitrary number of miles-per-week, what would you do?

If you are okay with any of the above, then you will love SB350 now circulating in the California Assembly. The author, State Senate President pro-Tem, Kevin De Leon and Governor Jerry Brown love the idea. So do Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer. The Pope loves it too.

Following Jerry Brown’s meeting with the Pope, he got the religion of climate change and is proselytizing it throughout government. De Leon converted, but then again he seems to have never seen a goofy idea he wasn’t for.

Now we are stuck with two State Senate bills, SB32 and SB350 intended to make a big dent in the 2 percent of the overall greenhouse gasses generated by California. This is akin to a little boy peeing in the ocean being told to hold it because it might raise the level and flood Topeka, Kansas.

Is the climate changing? Well, duh, it has since the beginning of time, and will continue to change long after the climate zealots are long gone. The Sahara desert was once a lush, verdant, area with species of creatures now long extinct. Was California air the cause? Was any human activity the cause of this phenomenon? I seriously doubt it.

Is the greenhouse effect real? Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, making Californians or even all Americans unilaterally bear the burden and painfully sacrificing to reduce a miniscule amount of greenhouse gas is not merely unjust, it is unwarranted.

SB32 will give the California Air Resources Board unlimited authority to require Californians to do whatever the CARB feels is necessary to meet the arbitrary quotas for greenhouse gas reduction. SB350 will require Californians to reduce use of vehicle fuel by a flat 50%. While the mechanism to enforce that reduction is nowhere spelled out in SB350, SB32 gives the CARB full authority to do whatever it wants to make that happen. You can bet it will result in draconian measures for all of us.

Of course, we could all simply go out and buy electric vehicles – at some $100,000+ a pop. Or we could all carpool, but only on days when the driver can buy gas.

There are good ideas and there are bad ones. On a scale of one to ten (ten being euphoric, and one being horrible) SB32 and SB 350 is a minus-ten. I am convinced that the intent of the Democrats in Sacramento is to reduce the population of this state to zero – zero jobs and zero people. These bills will go a long way toward accomplishing that goal.

Take Responsibility

In the wake of yet another tragic shooting, I thought it might be worthwhile to look at the cause or causes of these events. First, I decided to look up a word that we should all be familiar with in the New Oxford American Dictionary:

Responsibility | noun

the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone: women bear children and take responsibility for child care.

• the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something: the group has claimed responsibility for a string of murders.

• the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization: we would expect individuals lower down the organization to take on more responsibility.

• (often responsibilities) a thing that one is required to do as part of a job, role, or legal obligation: he will take over the responsibilities of overseas director.

• [in sing. ] (responsibility to/toward) a moral obligation to behave correctly toward or in respect of: individuals have a responsibility to control personal behavior.

Can a weapon – gun, knife, club, baseball bat, etc. – be responsible for these killings? Can even the availability of a weapon be responsible? Again, look at the definition of responsibility. Nope. The burden of responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the individual.

A compilation of data by information Please® Database, © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. from the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1997, 2007 and 2008; Crime in the United States 2011, 2012 shows there were 12,765 murders in 2012. Of this total, 8,855 or 69.4 percent were committed by someone using a gun. But wait! That’s not all: 1,589 used a knife or sharp object; 518 used a club or blunt object; 767 killed by strangulation, hands, fists, feet, or pushing; 85 burned the victim in an arson; leaving 951 that were killed by poison, explosives, unknown, drowning, asphyxiation, narcotics, other means, and weapons not stated.

Wow! What a list of ways to kill! I am sure someone will be eager to point out that the majority used a gun. But was it the gun’s fault? If no guns had been available, would these 12,765 murders have not been committed? Not likely, since the killers in 3,910 of these instances used a different weapon.

No, it all comes down to responsibility. And that rests solely with the killer. Take the recent tragedy at the Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater. James Holmes walked into the theater and shot into the seated crowd, killing 12 people and wounding 70. At his trial, he claimed to be not guilty due to reasons of insanity. In other words, he was not responsible; his mental state was the cause. The judge didn’t buy it, and neither did 12 of his peers in the jury. Holmes now has 12 life terms plus 3,318 years to contemplate the definition of responsibility.

The other day a disgruntled former news reporter shot and killed two former colleagues and wounded a woman they were interviewing while on air. Immediately, the father of one of the victims – the cameraman – vowed to fight for stricter gun control. Well, there you go; it was the gun’s fault, not the gunman. The same call made after every tragedy of this type.

If I drive my car into a tree and total it, it would be pretty hard to blame the car, unless it was defective. I seriously doubt the insurance company would buy that story. Yet, no one has reported a defect in any of the weapons used that could have caused the killings. Oddly, the responsibility is almost always deflected from the shooter to guns or the supposed availability of guns.

Okay, back to my wrecked car scenario. Cars are much easier to own than any gun. If I had to go through more hoops to own one, would that make me a better, more responsible driver? Well, I wouldn’t intentionally drive a car into a tree, but then again, I wouldn’t intentionally shoot up a theater either. I take responsibility for my actions, and others should too.

Unfortunately, the trends of society toward more control these days seem to be contributing to the lack of personal responsibility. It is far too easy to claim that the government should control conditions that cause tragic events, and push the responsibility off on the government.

Regardless of the shooter’s state of mind, sanity, or weapon availability, it is always his or her responsibility. No amount of legislation will ever or can ever relieve the killer of responsibility for his or her actions. 

Democrats v/s Socialists

Well, the cat is slowly slipping out of the bag. Earlier this month Democratic National Committee Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was asked – not once but twice on different television programs – to explain the difference between Democrats and Socialists. She quickly diverted the question to an altogether different subject. No, she would not answer the question.

What brought about the question – from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, of all people – was the fact that the other Democrat contender in the Presidential race, Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist.

This deserves more in-depth examination. In 2009, the Socialist Part of America proudly announced there were 70 members of congress belonging to the party. Today, beliefnet.com said:

The 75-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, co-chaired by Reps. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison, is closely allied with the Democratic Socialists of America. The Communist Party USA identifies Progressive Caucus members as its “allies in Congress.”

Okay, it is settled, Sanders is a socialist, as apparently are a huge number of members of congress – all Democrats. Just what is a socialist and why should we be wary of them?

Socialism wasn’t invented by Karl Marx. Frenchmen Saint-Simon and Fourier advanced the idea of a socialist society long before Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels collaborated on this aberrant philosophy. Europeans, in particular, the French experimented with various forms of socialism well before the Lenin brought the Marxist ideals to notoriety.

The Russian revolution came about because of the excesses of the Tsarist monarchy. It was not intended to be a socialist or Marxist revolution. The people simply wanted to be free of the Tsar and his henchmen. What they wound up with was the dictator Lenin and his Bolshevik henchmen. When Lenin died during the formative stages of the Soviet Union, Joe Stalin stepped into his shoes, ruled with an iron fist, and allowed only a single party, the Bolsheviks, to dominate the political scene. The name Bolshevik was changed to Communist but maintained the same Marxist philosophy of socialism.

Socialism isn’t new in America. The Socialist Party of America was founded in 1897 and dissolved in 1972. No fewer than four socialist organizations succeeded the SPA. One of those organizations was the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), founded in 1991 by Bernie Sanders, a self-identified socialist.

Is there a difference between socialists and communists? Not much. Communists are Marxist socialists who advocate transition from a capitalist economy to a regulated socialist economy. Communists believe that transition should be achieved through a violent revolution. The Bolsheviks found out the revolution would not accept socialism without the force of a dictator.

Do socialists work for the “working class” aka., the little people. Again, that would be no. It is the big lie. Lenin called the proletariat, “useful idiots.” Workers unions were controlled by Bolsheviks and peasants were forced into collective farming. Individualism was outlawed – except for the elites of the administration. If you like slavery, you will love socialism.

And what of mere socialists? Well, in the ‘60s and ‘70s the American Socialists and Communist party advocated the same transition through revolution. Today these communists/socialists are members of our congress and reign throughout our government. Most are registered Democrats.

It is no coincidence that the recession brought out the socialist call for wealth redistribution. Of course, as Margaret Thatcher once said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The fall of the Soviet Union appeared to eliminate communism, but in actuality, it merely renamed itself – again – to “Progressive” and “Democratic Socialist”.

Is there a difference between socialists and Democrats? Well, Chris, apparently not for many Dems. The question he should have asked is, can a socialist leopard change its spots? Not likely! As the Russians tragically realized, socialism is elitism wrapped in a lie.

The Modern Car Dilemma

My wife’s ten-year-old PT Cruiser is … not well. If it were a person, we would be looking for a good nursing home to place it in.

It’s not like we haven’t maintained it properly. Every 3000 miles it gets a new oil filter and oil change. I replace the brake rotors and pads when they are worn. We always put the best tires on it and keep them properly inflated. It has had two new batteries during its lifetime. It gets regular tune-ups. It’s had a good life.

Lately, it has become… well, incontinent. The garage has a large – and growing – puddle of something oily beneath the poor car. On top of that, the air conditioner quit. I can’t say precisely when it quit, but the wife has been using the 4-60 A/C method most of this summer. What is the 4-60 A/C method? You roll down all four windows and drive 60 miles per hour. It doesn’t help much and leaves her hair looking like that new “just out of bed” messy style. But it’s still better than arriving looking like a wet dishtowel.

It’s been a good car, but yes, the time has come to think about a replacement.

I have never been a fan of used cars especially those only a year or two old. You have to ask, why would someone get rid of a car that soon? Although, those cars more … mature, have usually been around the block more than a time or two, so you might not be gaining much by trading in your old problems for new ones.

No, I like new cars. I like the warranty with a new car, although I have seldom had to use it. I like the feel of a new car. And I like the smell of a new car.

What I don’t like these days is the look of the new cars. One day when the PT Cruiser was in the shop, I rented a new Buick. Wow! A Buick! Nice car. My impression when setting in it for the first time was, huh? Well, I recognized the steering wheel, and brake and accelerator pedals, but everything else was foreign. I may just as well have been sitting at the controls of a 747.

I went to put the key (yes, the Buick did have a key) into the ignition. There was none. The rental guy showed me how to start the car by just putting your foot on the brake and pressing the “start” button. I still don’t know that the key was for. Nothing seemed to use it.

Okay, now that the engine is on, let’s back out. Wait a minute! There is no gearshift lever! Back to the rental guy. Turns out, there is a little knob on the console that controls the transmission.

Now I’m finally out of the lot and on the road. In front of me is a bewildering array of buttons – all with some sort of hieroglyphics – and a couple of computer screens. One screen appears to be showing the car’s speed, and the other is giving me more information than a Sunday newspaper.

I experimented with a few of the buttons and managed to get the A/C and fan to a somewhat comfortable point. I have no idea what most of the buttons did, though, and I’m certain the owner’s manual was the size of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace.”

I did manage to make it through the day but really didn’t go far. Even so, I still needed to have the same gas reading as when I left, so I pulled into a filling station. Uh, what side is the filler on? Of course, I had a 50 percent chance of guessing right and 100 percent chance of being wrong. So, whip the car around to the other side. Now I am confronted with a filler door that won’t open. Well, back to the buttons. There must be one with something that looks like a filler door that will open the thing. There wasn’t!

I panic! I am cutting it close on time to return the car, and just know they will be charging me for an extra day. Well, forget it. I know they will charge me ten dollars a gallon for what I used, but what-the-hey. I had no way of putting gas in it and didn’t have time to read through “War and Peace” to figure it out.

As it turned out, the PT Cruiser wasn’t done. I still needed a car, so the dealer was kind enough to provide a loaner – yes, I should have asked for one earlier.

When the service adviser brought the loaner around, he appeared in a brand new Chrysler 200. Wow! New car! It was then I noticed the Chrysler looked nearly identical to the Buick I had just returned. Parked next to each other, you could not tell the difference. Then it dawned on me; nearly all cars from all the different manufacturers look the same. Is there a conspiracy here, or did the engineers all go to the same school of design? Every car looks alike! And they all look like pregnant roller skates. There are no lines or distinguishing features, just the same blah in every car.

Call me nostalgic, but I do long for the ‘50s and ‘60s when cars had class, for the days when high-performance meant a mean engine and drive train, not a bigger amp. No Bluetooth, Pandora, or GPS for me. Give me a ’57 Chevy with standard transmission and a big V-8 – American iron with American muscle and class. A car you could be proud to own and drive.

Oh, well… dream on. I guess, I will be stuck with a pregnant roller skate and car payment larger that my mortgage. Maybe I can paint a Confederate flag on it so I can find it in a parking lot.