The Fray: Round One

 Now that we have endured a few candidate debates for the two major parties, I suppose it is time to start getting fired up over at least one of them. Believe me when I say I have tried, but just can’t seem to bring myself to generate much enthusiasm for any of them.

I have never voted for a democrat in a Presidential election, but if push came to shove, I would probably cast my vote for Jim Webb. He comes off as the one honest man in a field of shysters. The other Democratic candidates aren’t even worth my consideration. Sanders, Clinton, and O’Malley are all socialists, but only Sanders admits to being one. Lincoln Chafee doesn’t know what party he belongs to. He has been a Republican and an Independent. Now he thinks he is a Democrat. Not many in the party believe that, and neither do I, although I am sure he doesn’t fit in the Republican Party either.

As for issues, all but Webb believe in wealth redistribution. I find it more than a little hypocritical for these millionaires to claim they are for the middle-class when they don’t have the slightest idea who the middle class are. But they would make the rich pay for everything. How much are Hillary and Bill worth? How much have they soaked their “Clinton Foundation” for?

On the other side, we have the Republicans. I have nearly always voted Republican and probably will again. But I may be holding my nose doing it this time.

Trump is the leader of the pack. Why? Does he have any idea what the issues even are let alone how to solve them? He has a talent for telling people what they want to hear, but that’s what a good negotiator always does. That doesn’t necessarily mean we would come out on the good end of the deal. Words are cheap. Deeds are seldom easy or cheap.

You have to hand it to “The Donald”, though. He is one hellova chess player. He entered the race with very little hope of even making a showing – again – and perfectly read the party’s growing contempt for RINOs as well as the public’s disdain for politicians. Trump is the quintessential non-politician. Bombastic to the point of absurdity, Trump is playing directly to those who are fed up with political correctness and politicians in general. But what happens if he is elected? Worse, what happens if he is nominated as the party candidate? Has he bought the office for another Clinton as Ross Perot did for Bill?

Then we have the good Doctor Carson. I haven’t decided which office he is actually running for – maybe he hasn’t either. He seems to be aligned with Trump both in invective and outspokenness. Maybe he is campaigning to be Trump’s Vice-President.

Carly Fiorina is a very nice lady, smart, experienced leader, political outsider and could make a good first woman President. Carly has done well in the debates and shows she knows her stuff. One might think that with the country clamoring for firsts – first Black President, first woman President – Fiorina would be a shoe-in. Too bad the polls favor the woman from the other party for this race.

Then there are the “conservative” politicians, Ted Cruise, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Well, Paul is really more of a Libertarian than a Republican, but who votes Libertarian? His father learned that bitter lesson. As for Cruise and Rubio, I don’t see either as a good draw against the anointed Democrat, Hillary.

Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal both might have been the favorites at one time. They have experience and very good resumes, but it’s hard to beat bombast when it comes to winning polls.

Mike Huckabee said the one thing I had been wanting to hear from candidates on taxes. He is for a consumer tax to replace taxes on income. This, in my estimation, is the fairest form of taxation. Everyone pays the same and no loopholes can ever weasel their way into it. I don’t see a preacher fairing well against the godless horde of Democrats, though.

Then there is yet another Bush. Please tell me it isn’t so! No matter how nice a guy or even qualified he might be, there will never be another Bush elected to the Presidency – at least not in this century.

As for the rest, well, do you remember who they are? I’m pretty sure not many other voters do.

Thankfully, we Californians have until next June to sort this all out – or get so sick of it all that you just turn it off.

This Earth Ain’t Big Enough for the 10 Billion of Us!

If you drive the freeways, and who doesn’t, in this state, I am pretty sure you have at one time or another thought about population control. You would not be alone, and there are some very smart people doing just that.

The 2011 census puts the world population at some 7 billion. While that may seem like a lot, it is! But according to scientists we are at about 70 percent of the level where life as we know it will be unsustainable. So, what happens when we reach that magic 10 billion number? The movie industry has made good money speculating on just this issue. Remember Hunger Games, Blade Runner, and Soilent Green among others? I even remember one movie where people could only legally live 35 years.

Fiction? Maybe. But what does happen when we reach that magic 10 billion census figure? According to the World Bank, the fertility rate is an average 2.5 children per female, a rate sustained for decades.

So when will we reach saturation? According to the United Nations' World Population Prospects report, the world population is currently growing by approximately 74 million people per year. Current United Nations predictions estimate that the world population will reach 9.0 billion around 2050, assuming a decrease in average fertility rate from 2.5 down to 2.0. According to the UN high estimates, we could reach 9 billion by 2040 and be at 11 billion by 2050.

The World Bank shows a fertility rate decline in most of the productive nations, but the poor, third world countries continue to increase in fertility.

If you believe the scientists that give us that sustainability cutoff at 10 billion people, we could be in big trouble somewhere between 2040 (25 years from now!) and 2050. Of course, there are always those that will believe technology will solve the problem. Others will question even that there is a problem. Unlike the somewhat nebulous factors of climate change, though, population is a value very easily counted and the cause well known. The number of people and rate of change is a solid fact.

There are approximately 15.77 billion acres of inhabitable land on the face of the earth, about 10 percent of which is arable (suitable for growing food). That leaves about 14.2 billion acres for housing, manufacturing, and businesses, and 1.6 billion acres for growing food. Can we grow enough food on 1.6 billion acres to feed 10 or 11 billion people? Will there be enough fresh water for irrigation and human activity? Scientists think this is about the limit of our capacity to sustain life.

The UN is counting on the fertility rates to decrease steadily to 2.0 by 2020 and some magical lower number thereafter. The thing is they don’t say how or why. The world rate has been at 2.5 for decades. Just what will cause that to drop?

The highest fertility rate (CIA World Fact Book) is in Niger and the lowest is in Singapore. Scan the chart and you will find that the poorest countries have the highest fertility rate. Does that mean if we throw money at the poor countries their fertility rate will drop? An absurd notion! But I am certain wealth and education are factors in restraining the fertility rate. Unfortunately, wealth and education also decrease the mortality rate.

 A doctor once told me that we live too long. Aside from the fact that this is not something you want to hear from your doctor, it is the truth! Each decade shows an increase in the longevity of people in educated and wealthy countries.

I don’t have ready answers to this knotty problem, and I’m not likely to live long enough to see the worst of it. But this is a problem far bigger than global climate change and one that desperately needs sober discussion. Sadly, it is not even on the to-do list of ours or most other governments.

The Power of Nature and The Impotence of Humans

I used to believe that the ‘e’ in email stood for ‘evil.’ A few years back I received over 500 emails in one day, mostly advertising penis enlargement, or selling Viagra or Cialis. They say sex sells. Apparently, not being able to have sex doesn’t do too bad either.

Spam filters have gotten much better. I still receive a few junk emails, but most of what I now get is from friends. For the most part, they are either of a political nature or humorous… sometimes both. On very rare occasions, I will get something so interesting that I just have to share it. Like the email a friend sent directing me to the website http://www.forbiddenknowledge.tv/videos/astrophysics/something-is-affecting-the-entire-solar-system.html.

The title of the site, "Global Warming" is Solar-System-Wide, just begged for me to look at it. There is a video included that I found very interesting.

As we have seen, the climate Chicken Littles have gone from calling their Armageddon theory of ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Global Climate Change’ because the warning trend didn’t actually develop like they had calculated.

Even though the planet may not be following the temperature trends expected, there are other severe weather anomalies setting records, and there can be no doubt the planet is experiencing some changes. The main argument over whether the changes are being caused by human activity may just be moot.

In 1997, Russian geophysicist, Alexei Dmitriev published a paper stating that the Solar System was starting to move through an area of space with more charged particles that were causing irreversible alterations to its planets. Note the plural planets. The video shows the changes that every planet – yes, even little Pluto – is going through along with those occurring on Earth.

The site stated that, “Dmitriev surmised that there was a probability that we were moving into a rapid temperature instability period, similar to the one that took place 10,000 years ago, when our current 6th Extinction began suddenly resulting in the swift demise of the Northern Hemisphere's megafauna (mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, massive ground sloths and many other animals most people don't know once populated the North American Continent, including gigantic species of lions and camels).”

Amazing physical properties are changing throughout the solar system, from the magnetosphere of the sun, the reflectivity of Neptune and atmosphere of Mercury and Mars to fluctuations in Earth’s magnetic field.

Why is this so interesting? Well, besides the fact that we have never before observed this phenomenon, the one outstanding feature is that there is scant possibility that humans could be causing it. Another interesting factor is that all of these changes appear to be occurring simultaneously – including Earth’s ‘Global Climate Change.’

Even the Pope and Al Gore would have to admit that it would be the height of arrogance to propose that humans are causing a synchronous change in the entire solar system. That is not to say that we should quit trying to clean harmful pollutants from the air we breath. It does, however, give cause to question the lengths we need to go to achieve breathable air and diminish or even negate the arguments for Armageddon due to manmade greenhouse gases.

Great Greasy Gobs of PC Doo-Doo

While Donald Trump has been making great headway in his campaign by stepping in piles of PC doo-doo, it looks like the runner-up, Dr. Ben Carson, has managed to step in one himself.

On an NBC (does anyone still watch that network?) broadcast of “Meet The Press”, Carson matter-of-factly said, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.’’

Oh my, Dr. Carson, you have stepped in a particularly nasty pile that time. As to be expected, the left and the Muslim complainers all took issue with the statement. Interestingly, many of the more conservative pundits also railed against the good doctor’s opinion. In the end, though, a large swath of Americans agreed wholly with Carson’s statement.

Before the din becomes deafening, let’s look at what was said and give it a little critical analysis.

Contrary to what some claim, Dr. Carson did not say that a Muslim cannot become President. Such a statement would be entirely inaccurate. Even Obama has not been able to strip the First Amendment from the Constitution, which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The US Constitution does stipulate that the President must be a natural-born citizen. Article II section 1:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;…

A foreign-born person would not be eligible to become President regardless of religion. Not a word is even implied in the constitution about any religious qualification for the office of President. But you knew that, and so did Dr. Carson.

Would it be wise to elect a Muslim to the Presidency? Not to put words into Carson’s mouth, I believe this is what he meant by expressing his opinion that he would not advocate for a Muslim becoming President.

Why not a Muslim? Simple! While there are many good Muslims both here and abroad, the tenets of Islam and Sharia law are entirely incongruent with the US Constitution. That’s not to say that a Muslim would not make a good president, but if that person would adhere strictly to his or her religion many laws would be violated.

When John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic President, many people feared that the Pope would have the last word on Presidential issues. That didn’t happen. The Speaker of the House, John Boehner is a devout Catholic, yet he has never advocated in his job for any religious advantages.

Would a Muslim President proselytize or bring Sharia law to the US? Only good sense and integrity on the part of that person would prevent it.

Sharia is an abomination. There I have said it, and I will stand squarely behind my statement. I am not a theologian, but I have read the Quran and have researched Sharia law. First, it is not a universal, codified law. Every sect has its own version of Sharia, much of it is not even written down. The Muslim faithful are at the mercy of the whims of a Mullah, Caliph, or Ayatollah, often with no appeal or recourse. What is haram (forbidden) in one sect or even by an individual Mullah may not even be considered by another. Oppressive dictates on women are common, and punishments are far out of line with the severity of the “crimes”.

Under Sharia, we see punishments such as stoning for adultery – nearly always women – “honor” killings of women who have been raped, hands lopped off, heads lopped off, women beaten by husbands at the consent of Sharia, women not allowed to appear in public without a male relative escort, women required to wear burqas, and three-year-old girls being sold as brides.

This is not a law; it is an abhorrent violation of human rights and dignity. Could a Muslim President ignore these tenets and still be considered a good Muslim? That is the crux of Dr. Carson’s statement. It is also a moot point in this election, as I haven’t heard of any Muslim running for the office.

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?