As the Political World Turns

In Washington DC, President Trump announced his nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg as an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court.  We can expect the next month to be filled with the vilification of the candidate as a human being, not because she is a despicable human being, but because she is President Trump’s choice and the opposition has demonstrated that to be their only weapon.

Of course, to mobilize their followers we can expect the fear card to be played by each talking head on television who owes their livelihood to the DNC.  We’ve already begun to see those attacks, but apparently, there is a writer’s strike because none of them seem to be new and original.  For example, they are dragging out the old “Handmaiden’s Tail” costumes they used so unsuccessfully to demonstrate conservative women can’t think for themselves.  Then, remarkably, they are attacking her beliefs in the Roman Catholic faith. 

I find this hysterical for those who hold John F. Kennedy as a god.  Probably most of the people on television or in the media aren’t old enough to remember when Kennedy was attacked for his faith and had to give a speech about not listening to the Pope for guidance.  I think George Santayana had some thoughts about history repeating itself.

The biggest fear card the left will play is the absolute conviction the 1973 decision on Roe v. Wade will be completely overturned and women will once more be forced into back street abortions by sleazy doctors who’ve lost their licenses due to their drug addictions and marriage problems.  The only real issue here is there is not one decision that needs to be reconsidered, but at least four, but when have facts ever weighted in with the need to instill fear among those too uninterested to know the facts.  If facts were important, we would talk about the disproportionate number of African-American abortions compared to the whites.  We would consider the real reason Planned Parenthood locates its abortion centers in black neighborhoods.  We would ask why the government should fund this elective surgery, or why we don’t care when life is a life?

The left, it seems to me, is all about causes.  “Black Lives Matter,” but only certain black lives (from all appearances only the lives of those who turn to a life of crime).  Women’s rights matter, but only women who agree with the political agenda of the cause.  Not those who might see life in a different vain.  The “Me Too” movement was all about acknowledging the violence of men against women, but again we see it is only about becoming a tool to vilify certain men the cause may disagree with.  In the end, it is not about protecting women from rapists, it’s about using women just in a different manner than rapists.

In our current climate (and perhaps it was always this way), politicians can never admit they were wrong, but if they could, I wonder how many of the Democrats in the Senate in 2013 had wished Harry Reid hadn’t been so arrogant as to abolish the long-standing process for judicial advice and consent? 

It was that decision that has opened the door for Justice Barrett’s confirmation.  I was sorry to see the tradition abolished in 2013, but forcing the party to live with its choices, especially in an age where we don’t accept personal responsibility for anything seems fitting as we approach an election I think will shock the Democratic party to its core.

Magic Pills

 

We’ve been conditioned to believe the government can offer solutions (i.e. Magic Pills) promising to make our lives perfect.  It’s been my impression these cure-all's rarely perform as we would want them to, and too often lead to requiring other pills to fix the problems created by the first magic pill.  Climate science seems to me like a big campaign to sell such a magic pill.

As I understand the whole issue of climate science it is a bunch of scientists feeding data into a bunch of computers and super-computers in an effort to solve the question “what came first the chicken or the egg.”  Just kidding.  They are trying to determine the causes of our on-going changes in climate and what politicians can do to stop them.  On the surface this seems a lot like asking Deep Thought for the answer to “life, the universe and everything.”  I guess we should consider ourselves lucky it hasn’t taken 7-million years to come up with the answer.[1]

In the Paris Climate Accords[2], signed by the US under the Obama administration and later rejected by the Trump administration, the whole purpose was to:

a)     Hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

b)    Increase the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

c)     Make finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.

At the end of the day it was that last statement that was most significant.  The industrial nations are supposed to send money through the UN to the poor nations (with the usual pass through and handling graft) so they can improve their lot in life and the industrial nations feel good about what they’ve done to pollute the earth.  The rich can still fly their planes and sail their yachts but they have to pay some poor slob to use his/her “carbon credits.” (e.g.   Sir Elton John flies Prince Henry and Meagan to France)

As in all things – once the political is introduced into the scientific equation everyone is forced to take a side.  We are no longer capable of finding a moderate solution, it becomes an all or nothing choice.  On the one side are all those people who know they are smarter than everyone else because they are rich, highly educated, are paid to play sports or entertain us, or are just plain famous.  On the other side are all those who want to be left alone to live their lives as they’ve grown accustom to.  Caught in the middle are all those who would like to do the right thing, but can’t decide on what opinions to believe and fear the costs of those choices.  Against this background we have the politicians who seek to become rich and powerful themselves by controlling the spending of our tax dollars.

Today we see the world differently than our ancestors, and in my opinion that is a good thing, the question is does it matter?  If we each took the time to pick up after ourselves, reduce the use of plastics and shift from societies that take convenience over sustainment we would all be better off, but ask yourself, is that likely to happen?  Is there some magic pill we could take the make everyone a little less entitled or more sensitive to the world around them?  From my perspective it seems unlikely.  We need only look at the climate activists who stage demonstrations against the fossil fuel industry to see the mess they leave behind them as they return to their entitled lives.  If these people can’t pick up after themselves then what are the chances the rest of us will.  Everyone seems to believe it’s someone else’s job to pick up after they’ve saved the planet.

Now we have a debate about the number of fires in the western United States.  Of course, those who accept climate science think it is the sole reason for the fires, and the choices of their politicians seem irrelevant.  Those who question the modeling reject that notion and place all the blame of the ineptitude of the politicians.  Neither side is willing to accept that maybe it is some of both, and God forbid a politician ever admit he/she may have a wrong position.  The real question for the climate science crowd is what actual short-term solutions do you offer for reducing the burning of the western United States?  As far as I can tell it all hinges on giant fans and solar panels to power electric cars which would require more electricity across an aging grid, which would start more fires.

Then we have arsonists.  Arson seems to be an increasingly fun way to express your displeasure with something.  Unfortunately, it also tends to start massive wild fires during the season when the west coast is mostly tinder.  Is there some climate change magic pill solution for those folks?

How about Hurricanes?  I’m told there are more Hurricanes in the Atlantic than any time in the last 100 years, but if one of them comes ashore at the exact same place one did about 16 years ago does that mean the climate hasn’t changed in 16 years?

All this reminds me of the big environmental disasters of the last century.

For example, I remember that time we were creating a hole in the ozone because too many women were using hair spray.  Back in the olden days we were able to reach an agreement that women would abandon the big bouffant styles of the ’70 and ‘80s and save the world.  Thanks to the courageous decisions of women worldwide, and the elimination of chlorofluorocarbons as a propellant we’ve at least stabilized and are (perhaps) reducing the size of the hole over the Antarctic.

Even before that we were using dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane or DDT to kill insects to, seemingly, make life better for all mankind by eliminating one of the leading causes of malaria (the lowly mosquito).  Unfortunately, for the larger birds of prey like the Bald Eagle there was an unanticipated side effect.  It caused the shells of their eggs to weaken and dramatically increased infant mortality, a leading cause of extinction.  Again, fortunately, we were able to agree we could live better with a few bugs than we could without eagles.

 Nuclear power is clean energy, but we seem unwilling to really discuss that as a favored choice.  There are some really good reasons most of us tend to shy away from that discussion, at least right now.  Us older folks remember Three Mile Island in PA, and Chernobyl in the Ukraine where the reactors failed.  In the case of the Soviet Union, the Chernobyl disaster created a contamination zone of about 162,150 km².  More recently we had the disaster in Japan, where a tsunami knocked out the Fukushima Diichi nuclear plant.  Of course, scientists promise us new reactors will be much safer than those old reactors, but until we come up with a way to dispose of all the nuclear waste, we still have a potential environmental catastrophe just waiting to happen. 

Finally, as we move on to the “environmentally friendly” solutions of wind and solar power I wonder how we will deal with the unanticipated side effects of that magic pill.  As I understand the manufacturing of these miracles of modern science all require exotic materials and metals to function properly.  As we dispose of the aging and no longer effective solar panels what environmental pitfalls await us?

·      “The problem of solar panel disposal “will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment” because it “is a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle.”

·      “The reality is that there is a problem now, and it’s only going to get larger, expanding as rapidly as the PV industry expanded 10 years ago.”

·      The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.”[3]

While we are talking about solar panels lets talk about some other environmental issues. When assessing solar panels as a key energy resource, it is important to weigh up any concerns. One of the issues confronting the solar industry is that many of the materials used to produce solar panels can be hazardous. Some potential issues include:

·      Sawing silicon into discs for use creates silicon dust called kerf, with up to 50% waste. Kerf can be inhaled by workers, causing severe respiratory problems.

·      Silica gas is highly explosive, and has been known to spontaneously combust.

·      Silicon production reactors are cleaned with sulfur hexafluoride, which is the most potent greenhouse gas per molecule according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It also can react with other chemicals to produce sulfur dioxide, which is responsible for acid rain.[4]

Then there is the question of what the heavy metals used in the batteries required of many of these systems will actually do as they are disposed of, or even the cost to the individuals who have to dig those metals out of the earth.  I’ll leave that discussion for another day.

---

[1] The answer is 42.  (From “A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#1e371b47121c

[4] https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=12014

A Few Thoughts on COVID-19

Before I start, I’d like to review some factual numbers most can agree with.  First, I’ll start with the 1918 H1N1 (“Spanish”) flu.

There were actually three waves of the flu.  The initial wave was in the first half of 1918, the second, and deadliest was October to December 1918, and the third was in the Spring of 1919.

It is estimated between 50 and 100 million people died and perhaps 500 million people contacted it.  (World population at the time was about 1.5 billion, so almost 1/3 of the world came down with the illness.)

We like to believe science was not as advanced in the day, and perhaps that is true, but the interesting takeaway, at least for me, is widespread immunization was not practiced and had no impact in lessening the outbreaks.[1]

All that is background.  This isn’t 1918, its 100 years later, and the “claims of science” now drive the news and individual choices/decisions.

The novel coronavirus, (AKA COVID-19, China Virus, Wuhan Virus, and SARS-CoV-2) is this year’s pandemic and in an effort to avoid the devastation of the 1918 H1N1 most of the western nations have gone to the extreme of demanding their citizens remain in isolation and have effectively shut down the economies in the hopes of letting the virus play itself out through lack of social interaction.

As of today, there have been 28,292,846 cases worldwide, of which 6,431,885 have been in the U.S.  From a mortality rate, 911,770 deaths, with of which 192, 663 have been here.

It appears, at least on paper, China, where the virus originated, has been far more successful by just stopping the reporting on the number of ill and dying people. Nobody in the media seems at all interested in actually challenging that approach so it must be okay.

So, has the approach of the world been effective?  The answer is a resounding – maybe, kinda, sort of.

It looked like we in the US had the virus under control and then we began to reopen the economy and BOOM, the cases grew!  States that had horrific death rates remained locked down and their cases remained low.  We are now seeing the same kinds of things in Europe.  Spain which had a terrible experience and went into almost complete lock-down now has among the highest rate of infections.  As a way of explanation, effective 9/11/2020, the USA has a rate of 8,447 cases per million, while Spain has a rate of 12,418/1M[2]

Ultimately, the question for all of us is what is the acceptable level of risk for us as individuals and for a society?

For some, that number appears to be zero, but that will never be achieved.  Even when an effective immunization comes out, we can expect to see both adverse reactions to the immunization as well as immunizations that seem to have been ineffective.  For the majority though there will be benefit.

For others, that level of acceptable risks seems to be at the levels of mortality we see today.  According to the World Health Organization that number should be 3.6%.  Today in the U.S. we are at 3%, and here in FL we are actually at 1.9%[3].  So, while the media will shout about the number of cases we have, for me the real concern should be what is the probability it will take a life?  In that sense it truly does appear we’ve turned the corner on this pandemic.

As each of us decide what is best for us individually, the one thing I’ve seen as this became a political issue, rather than simply a medical problem, is how one’s political belief in the power of their party’s recommendations is reflected in how they accept risk, both for themselves and for others.  From a social perspective that seems a bit crazy, but in a polarized world I guess it is to be expected.

I respect each person’s choice, whether it is to remain cloistered away, wear a mask in limited public excursions, or attempt to return to a fully social life within the guidelines of the state.  Sadly, that acceptance does not seem to be a common approach for all.

---

[1] https://www.healthline.com/health/1918-flu-pandemic-facts#8.-Widespread-immunization-ended-the-pandemic

[2] https://covid19statistics.org/

[3] https://covidusa.net/

Nineteen Years Ago

Nineteen years ago, four aircraft were highjacked in a coordinated plan by a terror group most had never heard of.  By the end of that day the world would know of Al-Qaida, and its leader Osama bin Laden.  On that day nearly 3,000 innocent men and women died, and 6,000 were injured by the 19 terrorists.  

Since 9/11 thousands more have died or been injured as we’ve fought against terrorism, or have suffered the life-ending illness from the chemical cocktails of the collapsing world trade center apocalypse.   For one moment in time, America was united in its will to seek revenge, just as we had been after December 7, 1941.

Our political leaders promised us that revenge, and at the same time promised us safety -- if we would give up just a bit of our freedom for more government oversight and protection.

I wonder have they kept their promises, or have they used those tools to further divide and separate us?

Are We Watching the End of US?

I am not sure there is a model for how global superpowers are to fall into decline, but we have a history of that happening (e.g. Egypt, Assyrians, Rome, The Catholic Church, Colonial Spain).  The thing with previous superpowers is their domination of the world’s history was measured in millenniums and centuries.  If we fall our role as a superpower will be measured in decades.

Since 2016 we’ve seen one party and its media and social allies do all within their power to destroy the two-party system.  From my perspective, it appears this was driven by greed, and a sense of entitlement to rule the masses as they see fit.  In 2016 they rigged their own primary to put forward a woman who viewed herself as entitled to be President, who carried so much baggage that enough traditional democrats chose someone else.  Now they put forward a candidate who, by all rational analysis will be a face on the throne and little more.  That said, some believe other, deeper, things are at play and a “deep state” has actually been running the country for several years, and only those who are acceptable to that “deep-state” can be allowed to sit in the oval office.

What I see coming from the various spokespeople of the Democratic party is a desire for anarchy over order, a threat of continued violence if “we the people” fail to elect the right candidate, even whispers of a “military coup” if the current President doesn’t leave the office.  I wonder how many of the young radicals and supporters of the Democratic party know what kind of apocalypse they are advocating for?  I occasionally see comments from a highly educated liberal who by all indications believes the “right” government is the be-all for solving social problems. 

I readily admit there is an attractive aspect to that, but my life experiences (which include living in several other countries and several states), suggests that Jack (as in Jack and Beanstalk) had a similar view to my young friend.  Trade the cow for a few magic beans and everything will be great.  Of course, it worked out for Jack but not so well for the Giant.  In the final analysis, did the magic beans really make life better for the average citizen? 

Of course, the young urban radicals are all advocating for a Marxist or socialist form of government, while those who’ve seen how unsuccessful those governments have been warning of the dangers.  In the end, it really boils down to who gains the power to suck the wealth from the nation, and what promises they will make to the average citizen who just wants to live a sustainable life safely.  I use Maslow’s hierarchy to define sustainability.

The progressives all want what they believe are modern fundamental rights of free healthcare, the ability to earn a good living, freedom from personal responsibility, and perhaps even self-actualization.  To achieve this, they are willing to transfer many of their currently protected freedoms to the government, as long as it’s the correct government.

So, what happens when we, the United States, fail as a Republic?  There are a lot of options but it would seem unlikely we begin another civil war (although unlikely; it is not out of the question).  The reason I say that is unlikely – with our more mobile society none of us have the loyalty to our home states that drove so many to stand up for the states versus the union, as their politicians fought with each other (e.g. Robert E. Lee).  As we abandon the current constitution and the rule of law for something else, we will put into motion a series of dominos with each one tipping over the next.  For me, the one unknown is what will our military do with all the weapons of mass destruction as the government fails?

So, let’s review what I think a collapse of a Federal Government would look like.

First and foremost, there will be a collapse of the dollar and everything associated with it (which is just about everything).  Our economy and the world’s economy is based on the good faith of the world that the US is strong and trustworthy.  Our federal reserve notes are not based on anything beyond the belief the U.S. government will pay its bills on time.  Once we default on that promise confidence in the dollar will collapse and the world will flounder until it finds a new standard for exchange.  It could be oil, gold, or silver, or more likely the economies of the world will look to another power to be the basis of exchange.  The Peoples Republic of China, as the next strongest nation, behind the United States comes immediately to mind.

That transition, in my opinion, will not be instantaneous, in fact, it will take a good number of years and perhaps make the Great Depression look like a cakewalk.

Once corporations and nations lose faith that the United States can pay its bills we can expect to see our economy go into an inflationary period as money become more and more worthless, until ultimately it will collapse and all the people who are now dependent on the government for their subsistence will find themselves destitute.

Those who think the government must provide them with health care will see it actually  disappears (look at Venezuela) and we will for a time descend into some kind of barter system with an increasingly active black market.  Just like in prohibition and with illegal drugs, that black market will dramatically increase the wealth and strength of organized crime elements.

The historically expected services of police and social infrastructure will shrink as the now various and separate governments try and control the inflationary costs of providing them.  When this occurs, we will see businesses flee the increasing violence of the urban centers.  I believe we are starting to see that migration today as Democratic politicians accept the chaos of groups like Antifa and BLM.  The large, multination, corporations will continue to survive, although their loyalties will shift depending on whose currency brings them the greatest profit.

At some point, industries will begin to spring up, but worker wages will be at the barely surviving level since they will be competing with other 3^rd world countries to meet the demands of the Chinese and the multinational companies who’ve found where the next generation of wealth is.

Of course, along the way, all the lifetimes of savings, including social security, individual retirement accounts, investments (including property) will disappear and those who look to those monies to live on will have to find some other way to survive.  Those with skills needed by the multinational corporations may do okay, those who are billionaires may see the fall coming and move their wealth to some safe harbor, and those with actual skills will survive during the barter years.  Those living in Universities and with social worker degrees will struggle with us, retirees.

I sure hope I am wrong in this view and it is just the pessimist in me, but more and more people I talk with share similar fears.

You Decide

I never talk politics when I play Pickleball, if I have opinions, I write them down and put them on my blog. First, I don’t really care that much about the day in and day out goings-on within our political system, because politicians rarely talk about important things that directly affect my life.  But more importantly, other than my vote I don’t get a direct say in the decisions the various governments do make.  Today was an exception, although I did more listening than talking.

Another retired LTCOL mentioned that President Trump had made the statement that people buried in Arlington National Cemetery were all losers for being killed in a war, and since his parents were both buried there he would never vote for Trump.  There were a couple of similar statements floating around on social media I had seen but ignored before heading off to play.  After listening to the two people sitting there talking about the President my only comment was that I never believed a rumor about what Trump had said unless I hear it myself and understand the context.  Of course, this was challenged by one of the two who noted the President says a lot of stupid stuff.  I really can’t disagree with that, for I think the same thing from time to time.

So, I came home and sat down at my computer to see if I could track down what got this Army LTCOL so riled up.

Using the Duck Duck Go search engine, I typed in “Did Trump say people buried in Arlington National Cemetery were all suckers and losers?”  Here are the top five responses to that question.  Forbes,  CBC,  The Atlantic,  IBTimes,  Slate.  Four of the articles all refer back to “The Atlantic” article published on September 3, 2020, which claims that in 2017 the President refused to visit a World War I cemetery in France and allegedly said those buried there were “losers and suckers” for fighting in France.

Of course, Jeffery Goldberg uses the most favored of supporting documents when alleging wrongdoing by the President.  He learned of these statements from “four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day.”  It is remarkable how no one with first-hand knowledge of the events is willing to go on record, and the ones who go on record to point these “facts” out as lies are discredited as Trump’s stooges.

If “The Atlantic” had a track record of unbiased reporting I could maybe give them a slide on this, but they don’t.  Over the past four years, they’ve taken every opportunity to vilify the President, usually to be proven they were liars just a few weeks after publication.

What makes this article even more suspect is the timing?  Clearly, Mr. Goldberg believes he can help the DNC cause if he can suggest the President doesn’t respect the military and persuade its members to vote for Joe Biden so what does he have to lose.  Journalist integrity went to the wayside a long time ago.