Futuristic predictions are notoriously goofed. A glance in the rear view mirror of history illuminates the hazard of forecasting. Consider in 1998 a well known futurist boldly prophesied that human life expectancy would rise to "over 100" by 2019. He missed by a whopping 27.4 years.
In a 1994 book, a British commentator and editor foresaw the retirement age would inch up to age 70. He was off by five years. In the U.S. the average retirement age for men is 65 and 63 for women. A few European countries have upped the retirement age to 67.
And there are more wrong-headed prognostications. The International Food Policy Research Institute forecast 33 years ago that the world population would balloon to 8 billion by 2020. Close but no cigar. The U.N. projects the world's population is 7.7 billion, a mere 300 million below the estimate.
One popular conjecture was the disappearance of paper books as consumers turned to wireless devices to devour their favorite novel. That must be news to the U.S. book publishing industry which sold 675 million print books in 2018. True, sales are declining, but readers aren't scrapping books.
Against this backdrop of conceited folly, your journalist once again boldy (some say egotistically) wades into the treacherous, murky waters of the future with predictions for 2020:
1. The Dow Jones stock index soars to a record 30,000 in the first quarter before giving up ground in the third quarter to finish near 29,000 after business profits begin showing softness and global economies fail to meet market expectations.
2. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measure of U.S. economic growth, defies forecasts by averaging 2.2 percent quarterly as consumer spending continues to spur the recent boom and recession fears evaporate. Ninety percent of world economies lag behind U.S.
3. China's economy struggles to reach its former robust levels as more banks fail, consumer spending weakens and an increasing number of countries balk at investment because of human rights violations. These developments compel China to make more concessions on U.S. trade.
4. The housing market, after a temporary slumber, awakens as the Fed dampens rate hike jitters triggering a 5 percent uptick in single family home starts, while inventory shrinks and prices for existing homes post single-digit gains, primarily in currently hot markets.
5. After much speculation, China launches a digital version of its currency, the Yuan, raising pressure on the United States to enter the digital currency age to maintain the dominance of the dollar as a worldwide currency. The Treasury Department promises to "explore" the option.
6. American wireless firms, after trailing China's aggressive rollout, usher in the next generation wireless technology 5G with rapid deployment in more cities, but applications are a disappointment as handset manufacturers and network connected devices are slow to market.
7. U.S. Attorney John Durham completes his investigation into FBI abuse regarding spying on Trump campaign and the abuse of FISA warrants, leading to indictments of senior Obama era officials, including John Brennan, James Comey and Andrew McCabe.
8. With birth rates falling in the U.S., American colleges and universities rethink higher education and begin reaching out to more than 49 million retirees in an effort to lure them back to campus by building senior housing and other amenities to offset dwindling enrollment.
9. Early Democratic Party presidential primaries produce no clear frontrunner. Worried about beating President Trump, former President Barack Obama endorses a new entrant into the race, however, delegates to the convention in Milwaukee ultimately decide the nominee.
10. Articles of impeachment remain stalled in the House of Representatives as Democrats continue to scour for new charges to levy against President Trump. Democrats launch new probes and adopt more articles as ammunition to defeat the president in the 2020 election.
For readers who remain skeptical about your journalist's crystal ball wizardry, five of last year's predictions were absolutely on target, including the prophecy that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would initiate hearings for Articles of Impeachment after the Mueller Report produced no wrongdoing.
Now that you have been offered a glimpse of 2020, here's hoping you have The Best New Year Ever!
Monday, December 30, 2019
Monday, December 23, 2019
Elves Stir Ruckus Jeopardizing Christmas
An impeachment inquiry has been scheduled for Christmas Day by a cadre of North Pole elves who want to oust Santa Claus from his position. News of the development has left anxious children all over the world wondering if they will receive toys and gifts this year.
An investigation was announced by Alabaster Snowball, the administrator of the Naughty and Nice List that Santa Claus relies on to decide which child's behavior merits toys. The diminutive Snowball claimed to have support from members of the Naughty and Nice Elf Committee.
At a hastily called hearing, Snowball alleged Santa secretly raised the behavioral standard to advantage kids with parents in the wealthiest one percent. Snowball revealed a whistleblower had overheard Santa making the request in a phone call to the Ukrainian born reindeer Blitzen.
Although Snowball did not divulge the identity of the whistleblower, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer speculated the snitch was Wunorse Openslae, a disgruntled elf who serves on the committee. "Openslae has been hostile to Santa this entire year," Rudolph glowed with discontent.
Santa Claus took to social media to unleash a torrent of tweets slamming Snowball as a partisan hack. "Snowball has concocted a Snow Job. He's upset because he had to work overtime last year making toys because too many kids made the Nice List. Naughty SNOWBALL!," read one tweet.
The white-bearded Claus pledged to fulfill his Christmas duty by skipping the "sham" inquiry. A defiant Claus told a news conference: "I will guarantee every kid: "If you like your gift, you can actually keep your gift." Some considered the quote a slap at Santa's cousin Obama Claus.
A few news reporters tried to goad the merry man into responding to catty comments from fashion designers about Mrs. Claus's dated red and white outfit and her ample figure. "You journalists should look in the mirror before you body shame anyone," the roly-poly Claus retorted.
A reporter from the Washington Impeachment Post challenged Claus to release his medical records in light of reports about Claus' own weight gain. "My personal physician, Dr. Shirley O. Bese, said I have the body of a 1,749-year old man," answered Claus, who became a legend in 270 A.D.
During the session with news members, angry environmentalists outside began waving signs proclaiming, "Santa Supports Dirty Coal!" A spokesperson for the group accused Santa of polluting the atmosphere by giving naughty kids a lump of coal in their Christmas stockings.
"We demand Santa pay a carbon tax if he is going to continue to use coal," the spokesperson told shivering bystanders. The environmental protesters also pointed out Santa's sleigh was powered by reindeer, whose burping fouls the air across the world.
Donner was not amused. "Count me as a burp denier," the reindeer harrumphed. "Santa feeds all his reindeer a vegan diet. Now admittedly, a few order meals from Jenny Craig, but most of the reindeer are content to munch on plant food that tastes just like a Whopper."
Inside at the news briefing, a handful of illegal immigrants from the South Pole interrupted Claus and insisted their children deserved free toys at Christmas just like the local kids in North Pole. The clump of aliens produced drivers licenses proving they were citizens of New Jersey.
Claus directed the immigrants to discuss the matter with Shinny Upatree, the elf charged with barcoding each toy with the recipient's address before it is loaded on Santa's sleigh on Christmas Eve. Upatree appeared with two Icy Gents who ushered the immigrants out of the room.
With all the hullabaloo, Santa figured he needed to change the prevailing narrative. He tugged an index card from the pocket of his red coat and began reciting his recent achievements. Reporters and bystanders listened as Claus ticked off a list that included a record stockings market.
"Ever since last Christmas, sales of stockings to be hung by fireplaces have soared. The market is now up to 28,000 stockings for the year. No one ever imagined sales would reach such heights," bragged Santa. "And, I have added more jobs this year than any North Pole employer."
As the news conference was wrapping up, Santa wanted to have the last word. He held up his fleshy arms to silence the media herd. "I just want to leave you with two words: 'Merry Christmas!'," he bellowed as his belly shook like a bowl full of Jello.
For once the media mob fell silent. No reporter objected. A few promised to write flattering stories about Santa Claus. Just kidding. This whole last paragraph is Fake News. But the remainder of the account is factually accurate as certified by the never reliable website Snopes.
An investigation was announced by Alabaster Snowball, the administrator of the Naughty and Nice List that Santa Claus relies on to decide which child's behavior merits toys. The diminutive Snowball claimed to have support from members of the Naughty and Nice Elf Committee.
At a hastily called hearing, Snowball alleged Santa secretly raised the behavioral standard to advantage kids with parents in the wealthiest one percent. Snowball revealed a whistleblower had overheard Santa making the request in a phone call to the Ukrainian born reindeer Blitzen.
Although Snowball did not divulge the identity of the whistleblower, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer speculated the snitch was Wunorse Openslae, a disgruntled elf who serves on the committee. "Openslae has been hostile to Santa this entire year," Rudolph glowed with discontent.
Santa Claus took to social media to unleash a torrent of tweets slamming Snowball as a partisan hack. "Snowball has concocted a Snow Job. He's upset because he had to work overtime last year making toys because too many kids made the Nice List. Naughty SNOWBALL!," read one tweet.
The white-bearded Claus pledged to fulfill his Christmas duty by skipping the "sham" inquiry. A defiant Claus told a news conference: "I will guarantee every kid: "If you like your gift, you can actually keep your gift." Some considered the quote a slap at Santa's cousin Obama Claus.
A few news reporters tried to goad the merry man into responding to catty comments from fashion designers about Mrs. Claus's dated red and white outfit and her ample figure. "You journalists should look in the mirror before you body shame anyone," the roly-poly Claus retorted.
A reporter from the Washington Impeachment Post challenged Claus to release his medical records in light of reports about Claus' own weight gain. "My personal physician, Dr. Shirley O. Bese, said I have the body of a 1,749-year old man," answered Claus, who became a legend in 270 A.D.
During the session with news members, angry environmentalists outside began waving signs proclaiming, "Santa Supports Dirty Coal!" A spokesperson for the group accused Santa of polluting the atmosphere by giving naughty kids a lump of coal in their Christmas stockings.
"We demand Santa pay a carbon tax if he is going to continue to use coal," the spokesperson told shivering bystanders. The environmental protesters also pointed out Santa's sleigh was powered by reindeer, whose burping fouls the air across the world.
Donner was not amused. "Count me as a burp denier," the reindeer harrumphed. "Santa feeds all his reindeer a vegan diet. Now admittedly, a few order meals from Jenny Craig, but most of the reindeer are content to munch on plant food that tastes just like a Whopper."
Inside at the news briefing, a handful of illegal immigrants from the South Pole interrupted Claus and insisted their children deserved free toys at Christmas just like the local kids in North Pole. The clump of aliens produced drivers licenses proving they were citizens of New Jersey.
Claus directed the immigrants to discuss the matter with Shinny Upatree, the elf charged with barcoding each toy with the recipient's address before it is loaded on Santa's sleigh on Christmas Eve. Upatree appeared with two Icy Gents who ushered the immigrants out of the room.
With all the hullabaloo, Santa figured he needed to change the prevailing narrative. He tugged an index card from the pocket of his red coat and began reciting his recent achievements. Reporters and bystanders listened as Claus ticked off a list that included a record stockings market.
"Ever since last Christmas, sales of stockings to be hung by fireplaces have soared. The market is now up to 28,000 stockings for the year. No one ever imagined sales would reach such heights," bragged Santa. "And, I have added more jobs this year than any North Pole employer."
As the news conference was wrapping up, Santa wanted to have the last word. He held up his fleshy arms to silence the media herd. "I just want to leave you with two words: 'Merry Christmas!'," he bellowed as his belly shook like a bowl full of Jello.
For once the media mob fell silent. No reporter objected. A few promised to write flattering stories about Santa Claus. Just kidding. This whole last paragraph is Fake News. But the remainder of the account is factually accurate as certified by the never reliable website Snopes.
Monday, December 16, 2019
Memories of Christmases Past
Christmas always stirs memories of past family celebrations of this holy day. Many of you likely have the same experience, especially as we gain the retrospection of many seasons. There is something magical about retelling of our personal stories of long ago Christmases.
My earliest recollections are of Christmas visits to my grandparents, Gussie and Fernan Roy, in tiny Iota, Louisiana. My Mom and Dad would shoehorn seven kids and presents into our station wagon for the drive. Christmas music played on the car radio. Dad refereed the jostling kids in back.
Entering my grandparents house was a treat for the senses. The scent of a freshly cut Christmas tree. Big bright colored bulbs and icicles were eye candy. The tantalizing aroma of freshly baked cookies and fudge. The coziness of their house, warmed by gas space heaters with flickering flames.
That first evening of our arrival, my grandmother would nestle by the heaters and spin mesmerizing tales in her unique Cajun accent as her gaggle of grandchildren doted on every word. The stories were ordinary small town anecdotes but recited in a very extraordinary way.
The lilt in her voice, the twinkle in her eyes, the love shining through her narrative. I will always treasure memories of those tales, rich in cultural context and oozing with local color. That storytelling talent has been lost in the clutter of our digital age of 132 characters.
Apologies for the digression. Uncles, aunts and cousins would arrive the next day. The atmosphere was joyous, heartwarming. Peels of laughter, cheerful smiles and rabid discussions of college football. A bouquet of aromas filled the house as dinner was served on an long wooden table.
If I close my eyes, I can hear the grownup chatter around the table and smell the scent of the abundant trove of food. Most of you are conjuring up your own dinner memories. Few people today prepare an entire feast for the holiday because life's pressure cooker allows little leftover time.
Another Roy family tradition was a Christmas Eve junket to view outdoor decorations in our neighborhood and adjoining areas. Dad was tour director for his wide-eyed brood, who giggled at his often feisty commentary. At the end of one of these guided excursions, he announced to laughter:
"Next year, we are going to make a big sign and stick it in the front yard. There will be a bright spotlight on the sign, which will read: 'We think your Christmas decorations stink, too!" You had to know my Dad to fully appreciate his Cajun brand of humor.
My best Christmas gift from Santa Claus? That's an easy one. The year--I think I was six or seven--I discovered a Lionel electric train under the tree on Christmas morning. The engine puffed smoke and tooted its whistle. I grew woozy just watching it chug around the oval track for hours at a time.
In fact, Mom decided the train possessed sleep aid properties. She would prop my brother Bob, a toddler at the time, in a chair and ask me to crank up the train. After a few laps, he was sound asleep. I never understood why Big Pharma did not patent Lionel Trains as a sleep drug.
After 73 Christmas mornings, there is one that stands out above all others. The year was 1977 and our youngest son Derek had only recently entered the world on a snowy December 6 in frigid St. Louis. He arrived in the midst of one of the worst blizzards in the city's history.
It was the first Christmas with both our sons Dean, 18 months, and Derek. I can still see Dianna, snuggled in a robe, huddled next to the Christmas tree, clutching Derek in her arms while Dean gazed down at his brother. The tenderness of that one moment reminded me of the meaning of Christmas.
Like Mary, Dianna cradled a newborn babe on Christmas Day. Our small house was not fit for a King, nor was that manger more than 2,000 years ago. It didn't matter. Like Mary and Joseph, we were overjoyed at the sight of our new son, swaddled in a blanket on a shivering morning.
When things get hectic during the holidays, my thoughts drift to that Christmas. The vivid memories keep me grounded in what is really important at Christmas. It is not about the tree, the presents or even the twinkling lights. Christmas is about the birth of a Son who would change the world.
Jesus remains the best gift every Christmas.
My earliest recollections are of Christmas visits to my grandparents, Gussie and Fernan Roy, in tiny Iota, Louisiana. My Mom and Dad would shoehorn seven kids and presents into our station wagon for the drive. Christmas music played on the car radio. Dad refereed the jostling kids in back.
Entering my grandparents house was a treat for the senses. The scent of a freshly cut Christmas tree. Big bright colored bulbs and icicles were eye candy. The tantalizing aroma of freshly baked cookies and fudge. The coziness of their house, warmed by gas space heaters with flickering flames.
That first evening of our arrival, my grandmother would nestle by the heaters and spin mesmerizing tales in her unique Cajun accent as her gaggle of grandchildren doted on every word. The stories were ordinary small town anecdotes but recited in a very extraordinary way.
The lilt in her voice, the twinkle in her eyes, the love shining through her narrative. I will always treasure memories of those tales, rich in cultural context and oozing with local color. That storytelling talent has been lost in the clutter of our digital age of 132 characters.
Apologies for the digression. Uncles, aunts and cousins would arrive the next day. The atmosphere was joyous, heartwarming. Peels of laughter, cheerful smiles and rabid discussions of college football. A bouquet of aromas filled the house as dinner was served on an long wooden table.
If I close my eyes, I can hear the grownup chatter around the table and smell the scent of the abundant trove of food. Most of you are conjuring up your own dinner memories. Few people today prepare an entire feast for the holiday because life's pressure cooker allows little leftover time.
Another Roy family tradition was a Christmas Eve junket to view outdoor decorations in our neighborhood and adjoining areas. Dad was tour director for his wide-eyed brood, who giggled at his often feisty commentary. At the end of one of these guided excursions, he announced to laughter:
"Next year, we are going to make a big sign and stick it in the front yard. There will be a bright spotlight on the sign, which will read: 'We think your Christmas decorations stink, too!" You had to know my Dad to fully appreciate his Cajun brand of humor.
My best Christmas gift from Santa Claus? That's an easy one. The year--I think I was six or seven--I discovered a Lionel electric train under the tree on Christmas morning. The engine puffed smoke and tooted its whistle. I grew woozy just watching it chug around the oval track for hours at a time.
In fact, Mom decided the train possessed sleep aid properties. She would prop my brother Bob, a toddler at the time, in a chair and ask me to crank up the train. After a few laps, he was sound asleep. I never understood why Big Pharma did not patent Lionel Trains as a sleep drug.
After 73 Christmas mornings, there is one that stands out above all others. The year was 1977 and our youngest son Derek had only recently entered the world on a snowy December 6 in frigid St. Louis. He arrived in the midst of one of the worst blizzards in the city's history.
It was the first Christmas with both our sons Dean, 18 months, and Derek. I can still see Dianna, snuggled in a robe, huddled next to the Christmas tree, clutching Derek in her arms while Dean gazed down at his brother. The tenderness of that one moment reminded me of the meaning of Christmas.
Like Mary, Dianna cradled a newborn babe on Christmas Day. Our small house was not fit for a King, nor was that manger more than 2,000 years ago. It didn't matter. Like Mary and Joseph, we were overjoyed at the sight of our new son, swaddled in a blanket on a shivering morning.
When things get hectic during the holidays, my thoughts drift to that Christmas. The vivid memories keep me grounded in what is really important at Christmas. It is not about the tree, the presents or even the twinkling lights. Christmas is about the birth of a Son who would change the world.
Jesus remains the best gift every Christmas.
Monday, December 9, 2019
Christianity Under Attack Worldwide
The pious global news cartel has been strangely silent about the growing hostility towards Christians, especially in Muslim majority countries. Undoubtedly, persecution of Christians does not fit the media's politically motivated narrative of Muslim victimhood, which explains the news blackout.
The latest Pew Research Center study confirms that Christian groups were harassed in 144 nations, a nearly 13 percent increase over the previous year. Their findings are supported by United Kingdom sponsored research reporting cases of mushrooming violence against Christians.
The research documents that Christians, not Muslims, are most persecuted for their faith than any religious group on Earth. Despite the evidence, the American media has been relentless in its coverage of China's repression of one million Uighur Muslims in China, triggering a U.S. response.
The Trump Administration recently weighed in, condemning the "brutal campaign of repression" against the Uighur minority. Meanwhile, Christian minorities in Muslim countries such as Nigeria, are slaughtered by the thousands and driven from the homes without an official U.S. rebuke.
The media turns a blind eye to Christian massacres, beheadings and imprisonment. Even Christian leaders, including the Catholic hierarchy, are too timid to sound the alarm, afraid the politically correct elitists and cultural luminaries will disapprove of their stance.
Their acquiescence has allowed the media and Muslim apologists to own the narrative about religious persecution. Christians leaders must accept part of the blame for the ongoing exponential growth of government crackdowns on Christianity in virtually every corner of the globe.
For example, in 2017 China's President Xi Jinping approved new Draconian regulations clamping down on so-called "religious extremism." In its wake, Christian leaders and members have been arrested. Many have been dispatched to "re-eduction" camps. Official churches have been shuttered.
Despite the reprisals, religious organizations claim there remain tens of millions of underground churches that have eluded government detection. Many of these "churches" are in private homes. President Xi now has those churches in his crosshairs in his scheme to end religious worship.
Despite China's very public move against Christianity the subject has never been broached in trade negotiations with the Communist regime. The Christians in China have lacked support from global governments because economic issues outweigh religious freedom considerations.
A report commissioned by the British Foreign Secretary this year delivered a somber warning that the pervasive persecution of Christians in many cases now amounts to genocide. The report mentioned specifically the Middle East, where millions of Christians have suffered some of the worst horrors.
The UK report cites evidence of kidnappings, imprisonment and naked discrimination often driven by state authoritarianism. Corrupt leaders of many countries tacitly sanction violence against Christian groups as a government policy, which emboldens its citizens to brutalize Christians.
In sync with these governments, Muslim religious leaders preach hate of Christians, especially in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. The propaganda of bigotry reinforced by clerics creates a religious intolerance that spreads throughout a country, poisoning minds for generations.
UK Secretary Jeremy Hunt added; "What we have forgotten in this atmosphere of political correctness is actually the Christians that are being persecuted are among the poorest people on the planet. In the Middle East, the populations of Christians used to be about 20%; now it's 5%."
In majority Muslim countries, Christians are being forced to evacuate in droves. The population of Palestinian Christians has dropped from 15% to 2%. In the Middle East and north Africa, the population has fallen to less than 4%. This is a deliberate form of genocide that has been ignored.
Even the research data does not adequately capture the brutality of crimes against Christians. On Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, 250 people were killed by suicide bombers. In Egypt and Libya, Christians have been beheaded, their homes burned to the ground and their churches desecrated.
Journalists have reported 47 documented cases of desecration of churches in France this year. In Germany, three-fourths of resettled Christian refugees report they have been persecuted by Muslim immigrants. The number of attacks on Catholic churches in Europe has spiraled 25 percent this year.
Christian religious leaders must start demanding global action. They also have a duty to motivate billions of their followers worldwide to spur their governments to be accountable for religious freedom. Pray the leaders don't dally so long there are no more Christians left to save.
The latest Pew Research Center study confirms that Christian groups were harassed in 144 nations, a nearly 13 percent increase over the previous year. Their findings are supported by United Kingdom sponsored research reporting cases of mushrooming violence against Christians.
The research documents that Christians, not Muslims, are most persecuted for their faith than any religious group on Earth. Despite the evidence, the American media has been relentless in its coverage of China's repression of one million Uighur Muslims in China, triggering a U.S. response.
The Trump Administration recently weighed in, condemning the "brutal campaign of repression" against the Uighur minority. Meanwhile, Christian minorities in Muslim countries such as Nigeria, are slaughtered by the thousands and driven from the homes without an official U.S. rebuke.
The media turns a blind eye to Christian massacres, beheadings and imprisonment. Even Christian leaders, including the Catholic hierarchy, are too timid to sound the alarm, afraid the politically correct elitists and cultural luminaries will disapprove of their stance.
Their acquiescence has allowed the media and Muslim apologists to own the narrative about religious persecution. Christians leaders must accept part of the blame for the ongoing exponential growth of government crackdowns on Christianity in virtually every corner of the globe.
For example, in 2017 China's President Xi Jinping approved new Draconian regulations clamping down on so-called "religious extremism." In its wake, Christian leaders and members have been arrested. Many have been dispatched to "re-eduction" camps. Official churches have been shuttered.
Despite the reprisals, religious organizations claim there remain tens of millions of underground churches that have eluded government detection. Many of these "churches" are in private homes. President Xi now has those churches in his crosshairs in his scheme to end religious worship.
Despite China's very public move against Christianity the subject has never been broached in trade negotiations with the Communist regime. The Christians in China have lacked support from global governments because economic issues outweigh religious freedom considerations.
A report commissioned by the British Foreign Secretary this year delivered a somber warning that the pervasive persecution of Christians in many cases now amounts to genocide. The report mentioned specifically the Middle East, where millions of Christians have suffered some of the worst horrors.
The UK report cites evidence of kidnappings, imprisonment and naked discrimination often driven by state authoritarianism. Corrupt leaders of many countries tacitly sanction violence against Christian groups as a government policy, which emboldens its citizens to brutalize Christians.
In sync with these governments, Muslim religious leaders preach hate of Christians, especially in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. The propaganda of bigotry reinforced by clerics creates a religious intolerance that spreads throughout a country, poisoning minds for generations.
UK Secretary Jeremy Hunt added; "What we have forgotten in this atmosphere of political correctness is actually the Christians that are being persecuted are among the poorest people on the planet. In the Middle East, the populations of Christians used to be about 20%; now it's 5%."
In majority Muslim countries, Christians are being forced to evacuate in droves. The population of Palestinian Christians has dropped from 15% to 2%. In the Middle East and north Africa, the population has fallen to less than 4%. This is a deliberate form of genocide that has been ignored.
Even the research data does not adequately capture the brutality of crimes against Christians. On Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, 250 people were killed by suicide bombers. In Egypt and Libya, Christians have been beheaded, their homes burned to the ground and their churches desecrated.
Journalists have reported 47 documented cases of desecration of churches in France this year. In Germany, three-fourths of resettled Christian refugees report they have been persecuted by Muslim immigrants. The number of attacks on Catholic churches in Europe has spiraled 25 percent this year.
Christian religious leaders must start demanding global action. They also have a duty to motivate billions of their followers worldwide to spur their governments to be accountable for religious freedom. Pray the leaders don't dally so long there are no more Christians left to save.
Monday, December 2, 2019
Schiff Show: Weaponizing Impeachment
Democrats have detonated the equivalent of a political nuclear bomb with their relentless impeachment "inquiries." Whether they realize it or not, the fallout from their tactics will assure a mushroom cloud of partisanship, leaving in its wake destruction of America's chance for unity.
After the special counsel investigation conducted by Robert Mueller failed to produce evidence of an impeachable offense, Democrats could have left the fate of President Trump in the hands of voters in next year's election. But they decided Americans could not be trusted with the decision.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, after months of sidestepping the issue, signaled she had surrendered to her party's progressive, socialist wing. Impeachment of the president was greenlighted. Rep. Adam Schiff was anointed the impeacher-in-chief as head of the House Intelligence Committee.
In past impeachment proceedings, the House Judiciary Committee had taken the lead, but Pelosi had not been impressed with chairman Jerry Nadler's recent performances. Several top Democrats privately expressed their lack of confidence in Nadler. That's how it became the Schiff Show.
And what a disaster it was. Schiff began by announcing with much fanfare that a whistleblower would provide damning evidence of a quid-pro-quid deal between President Trump and his counterpart in the Ukraine. Schiff claimed the whistleblower overheard a call between the leaders.
Then Mr. Trump released a transcript of the call. The president of Ukraine made it clear there was no offer from the president to exchange information on Joe Biden and his son Hunter for American arms. That never stopped Schiff from daily proclaiming new "bombshell" evidence.
The California Democrat interviewed witnesses in secret with a few Republicans present before trotting them out before his committee's public hearings. Not a single "witness" ever heard first hand Mr.Trump offer a quid-pro-quid deal to the Ukrainian president. The hearings were a resounding flop.
Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi vacillated almost daily about what "crimes" were being uncovered by her hand-picked impeacher. She claimed Mr. Trump was guilty of quid-pro-quid. But focus group testing revealed the obvious: the overwhelming majority of Americans had no idea of its meaning.
Then the speaker's narrative switched to "bribery," an easily understood sleazy description. However, there was no proof. Her terminology flipped again. This time Mr. Trump was guilty of "extortion." That didn't fly either. Her latest: "Naked betrayal of American interests." Another wolf cry.
Nothing seemed to stick so the speaker has switched horses, handing Rep Nadler the reins for his own impeachment farcical hearings. Any Americans paying attention are bored, cynical and antipathetic. Impeachment has lost its seriousness as a legitimate exercise of the legislative branch.
The Democrats have succeeded in turning impeachment into a political instrument to bludgeon those the party opposes. Even the most partisan Democrat must surely recognize this will backfire next time the Republicans control the house with a Democrat in the Oval Office.
The opening of this pandora's box will be akin to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's use of the "nuclear option" which emboldened Republicans to adopt it to thwart Democrats. Likewise,
future commanders in chief will face the chilling prospect of impeachment, warranted or not.
Some Democrats may be shaking their heads and muttering: "Yeah, what about the impeachment of Bill Clinton? It was purely political!" They are, in this writer's opinion, correct. But at least Republicans followed the norms of judicial protocol, transparency and Congressional procedure.
The sitting attorney general Janet Reno, an appointee of President Clinton, authorized the special counsel. Prosecutor Ken Starr submitted his report and 18 boxes of supporting documents to the House of Representatives. The House Judiciary Committee released 3,000 pages of evidence.
The Judiciary Committee conducted public hearings, recommended impeachment and the entire House voted 258-176 to authorize an impeachment inquiry. None of those steps have been taken in this latest attempt by Democrats to overturn the 2016 election by impeaching Mr. Trump.
The lens of history will not be kind to Democrats for this sham process and it will render future inquiries nothing more than partisan political payback. This will increase rancor between the parties, render bipartisanship utterly futile and sow more discord between Americans of opposing views.
In the 243 year history of the U.S., only two presidents have been formally impeached by Congress. No president has been removed from office by impeachment. It is a grave undertaking that should only be invoked in the rarest of cases instead of being used as a political weapon of mass destruction.
After the special counsel investigation conducted by Robert Mueller failed to produce evidence of an impeachable offense, Democrats could have left the fate of President Trump in the hands of voters in next year's election. But they decided Americans could not be trusted with the decision.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, after months of sidestepping the issue, signaled she had surrendered to her party's progressive, socialist wing. Impeachment of the president was greenlighted. Rep. Adam Schiff was anointed the impeacher-in-chief as head of the House Intelligence Committee.
In past impeachment proceedings, the House Judiciary Committee had taken the lead, but Pelosi had not been impressed with chairman Jerry Nadler's recent performances. Several top Democrats privately expressed their lack of confidence in Nadler. That's how it became the Schiff Show.
And what a disaster it was. Schiff began by announcing with much fanfare that a whistleblower would provide damning evidence of a quid-pro-quid deal between President Trump and his counterpart in the Ukraine. Schiff claimed the whistleblower overheard a call between the leaders.
Then Mr. Trump released a transcript of the call. The president of Ukraine made it clear there was no offer from the president to exchange information on Joe Biden and his son Hunter for American arms. That never stopped Schiff from daily proclaiming new "bombshell" evidence.
The California Democrat interviewed witnesses in secret with a few Republicans present before trotting them out before his committee's public hearings. Not a single "witness" ever heard first hand Mr.Trump offer a quid-pro-quid deal to the Ukrainian president. The hearings were a resounding flop.
Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi vacillated almost daily about what "crimes" were being uncovered by her hand-picked impeacher. She claimed Mr. Trump was guilty of quid-pro-quid. But focus group testing revealed the obvious: the overwhelming majority of Americans had no idea of its meaning.
Then the speaker's narrative switched to "bribery," an easily understood sleazy description. However, there was no proof. Her terminology flipped again. This time Mr. Trump was guilty of "extortion." That didn't fly either. Her latest: "Naked betrayal of American interests." Another wolf cry.
Nothing seemed to stick so the speaker has switched horses, handing Rep Nadler the reins for his own impeachment farcical hearings. Any Americans paying attention are bored, cynical and antipathetic. Impeachment has lost its seriousness as a legitimate exercise of the legislative branch.
The Democrats have succeeded in turning impeachment into a political instrument to bludgeon those the party opposes. Even the most partisan Democrat must surely recognize this will backfire next time the Republicans control the house with a Democrat in the Oval Office.
The opening of this pandora's box will be akin to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's use of the "nuclear option" which emboldened Republicans to adopt it to thwart Democrats. Likewise,
future commanders in chief will face the chilling prospect of impeachment, warranted or not.
Some Democrats may be shaking their heads and muttering: "Yeah, what about the impeachment of Bill Clinton? It was purely political!" They are, in this writer's opinion, correct. But at least Republicans followed the norms of judicial protocol, transparency and Congressional procedure.
The sitting attorney general Janet Reno, an appointee of President Clinton, authorized the special counsel. Prosecutor Ken Starr submitted his report and 18 boxes of supporting documents to the House of Representatives. The House Judiciary Committee released 3,000 pages of evidence.
The Judiciary Committee conducted public hearings, recommended impeachment and the entire House voted 258-176 to authorize an impeachment inquiry. None of those steps have been taken in this latest attempt by Democrats to overturn the 2016 election by impeaching Mr. Trump.
The lens of history will not be kind to Democrats for this sham process and it will render future inquiries nothing more than partisan political payback. This will increase rancor between the parties, render bipartisanship utterly futile and sow more discord between Americans of opposing views.
In the 243 year history of the U.S., only two presidents have been formally impeached by Congress. No president has been removed from office by impeachment. It is a grave undertaking that should only be invoked in the rarest of cases instead of being used as a political weapon of mass destruction.
Monday, November 25, 2019
Give Thanks For Good Health In Bad Times
Every Thanksgiving as is my custom, I search for reasons to be grateful. I confess this year it has been a stretch. Like many in my age group, the aches and pains are mounting up. Body parts are wearing out faster than the marble steps leading up to the top of the leaning Tower of Pisa.
Not unlike those steps, years of repetitive human action extracts a toll on our bodies. What makes it disheartening is the first 70 years of my life were virtually pain free. No broken limbs. No surgeries, save for a tonsillectomy. Few visits to doctors and a handful of x-rays over those decades.
It is not as if I didn't prepare for the onset of lost youth. I exercised my entire life, beginning with sports at an early age. Until recently, I did 50 minutes of cardio training religiously, taking a few days off every month. I lifted free weights and worked on my core to build balance and strength.
As I watched others fight the ravages of advancing years, my pride swelled. That would never happen to me. I did the right things to avoid the pitfalls of inevitable decline. Good health was won through my hard work alone. That was enough to stave off the effects of too many birthdays.
In hindsight, my foolish pride was my undoing. I should have been giving thanks daily for the precious gift of good health instead of pounding my chest in celebration of what I had done to become fit. I have learned a humbling lesson: no one earns nor is owed absolute health.
When I reached seven decades, I endured my first surgery in 64 years to repair a torn rotator cuff. My recovery progressed well and within months I resumed my active life. At that point, I figured I was good until I was housed on the wrong side of the grass. I remained invincible.
Then this year brought a cascade of physical ailments. I noticed it was becoming painful to walk. X-rays and an MRI indicated I required a hip replacement. As the orthopedic specialist explained, "Your hip has just worn out." Not the worse news, but a reminder of my vulnerability.
About the same time knee pain forced me to walk with a limp. Osteoarthritis is the culprit. Injections offered little relief. The ortho doctor just winced and said, "It probably is related to your hip. It will get better after surgery." As comforting as that sounds, at that time surgery was five months away,
Pain morphed into a daily grind. Then a frequent neck and shoulder ache turned into a fiery torment. Another MRI and another doctor. Diagnosis: multiple degenerative discs in my neck and a pinched nerve. Sleeping, sitting and pounding my computer keyboard became challenging.
What followed next was rounds of physical therapy and physiotherapy on my hip and neck. My calendar was clogged, not with golf or outdoor activities, but with therapy, pain management consultants, doctors and more imaging appointments. For a once active guy, it is distressing.
I am not auditioning for a pity party. I could be undergoing much worse, a life-threatening disease for instance. Many friends are dealing with far more pain and crippling infirmities. I consider myself blessed to be able to carry on with my life, even if my issues have limited my mobility and stamina.
My regret is that I never fully appreciated my superb health that allowed a vigorous lifestyle. I was blessed then and still am. Health setbacks are part of life at any age. No one escapes them if their earthly existence includes too many revolutions around the sun. It is the universal truth.
Throughout my episodes, I am learning new traits. Patience; something lacking in my DNA. Endurance; life's journey is no sprint but a marathon run over a pothole pitted course. Humbleness; more awareness of others sufferings. Appreciation; especially for health care personnel.
I even find more joy in life's tiniest moments. A sympathetic pat on the back. A furtive glance of caring. An ear that patiently listens to my complaints. A nod from a fellow patient who understands the tribulation. A wife who bears the brunt of the mood swings triggered by bouts of pain.
My hip surgery is scheduled January 13th. Instead of dreading it, I am buoyed by each approaching day. Questions surround my neck issues. However, I am trusting a solution will be found. Whatever happens, I refuse to wallow in regret or allow uncertainty to rob me of the joy for each day of life.
All my training has prepared my body for surgery and recovery. Yet I take no credit for the years of good health. If I have learned anything, it is that we do not have full authority over our bodies. Without God, we can't even draw our next breath. That thought makes me thankful and at peace.
Not unlike those steps, years of repetitive human action extracts a toll on our bodies. What makes it disheartening is the first 70 years of my life were virtually pain free. No broken limbs. No surgeries, save for a tonsillectomy. Few visits to doctors and a handful of x-rays over those decades.
It is not as if I didn't prepare for the onset of lost youth. I exercised my entire life, beginning with sports at an early age. Until recently, I did 50 minutes of cardio training religiously, taking a few days off every month. I lifted free weights and worked on my core to build balance and strength.
As I watched others fight the ravages of advancing years, my pride swelled. That would never happen to me. I did the right things to avoid the pitfalls of inevitable decline. Good health was won through my hard work alone. That was enough to stave off the effects of too many birthdays.
In hindsight, my foolish pride was my undoing. I should have been giving thanks daily for the precious gift of good health instead of pounding my chest in celebration of what I had done to become fit. I have learned a humbling lesson: no one earns nor is owed absolute health.
When I reached seven decades, I endured my first surgery in 64 years to repair a torn rotator cuff. My recovery progressed well and within months I resumed my active life. At that point, I figured I was good until I was housed on the wrong side of the grass. I remained invincible.
Then this year brought a cascade of physical ailments. I noticed it was becoming painful to walk. X-rays and an MRI indicated I required a hip replacement. As the orthopedic specialist explained, "Your hip has just worn out." Not the worse news, but a reminder of my vulnerability.
About the same time knee pain forced me to walk with a limp. Osteoarthritis is the culprit. Injections offered little relief. The ortho doctor just winced and said, "It probably is related to your hip. It will get better after surgery." As comforting as that sounds, at that time surgery was five months away,
Pain morphed into a daily grind. Then a frequent neck and shoulder ache turned into a fiery torment. Another MRI and another doctor. Diagnosis: multiple degenerative discs in my neck and a pinched nerve. Sleeping, sitting and pounding my computer keyboard became challenging.
What followed next was rounds of physical therapy and physiotherapy on my hip and neck. My calendar was clogged, not with golf or outdoor activities, but with therapy, pain management consultants, doctors and more imaging appointments. For a once active guy, it is distressing.
I am not auditioning for a pity party. I could be undergoing much worse, a life-threatening disease for instance. Many friends are dealing with far more pain and crippling infirmities. I consider myself blessed to be able to carry on with my life, even if my issues have limited my mobility and stamina.
My regret is that I never fully appreciated my superb health that allowed a vigorous lifestyle. I was blessed then and still am. Health setbacks are part of life at any age. No one escapes them if their earthly existence includes too many revolutions around the sun. It is the universal truth.
Throughout my episodes, I am learning new traits. Patience; something lacking in my DNA. Endurance; life's journey is no sprint but a marathon run over a pothole pitted course. Humbleness; more awareness of others sufferings. Appreciation; especially for health care personnel.
I even find more joy in life's tiniest moments. A sympathetic pat on the back. A furtive glance of caring. An ear that patiently listens to my complaints. A nod from a fellow patient who understands the tribulation. A wife who bears the brunt of the mood swings triggered by bouts of pain.
My hip surgery is scheduled January 13th. Instead of dreading it, I am buoyed by each approaching day. Questions surround my neck issues. However, I am trusting a solution will be found. Whatever happens, I refuse to wallow in regret or allow uncertainty to rob me of the joy for each day of life.
All my training has prepared my body for surgery and recovery. Yet I take no credit for the years of good health. If I have learned anything, it is that we do not have full authority over our bodies. Without God, we can't even draw our next breath. That thought makes me thankful and at peace.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Judge Sanctions Asian-American Discrimination
In a landmark case naturally ignored by the news media, a federal judge recently ruled the bastion of self-proclaimed student diversity, Harvard University, can legally discriminate against Asian-Americans. The verdict is a reminder of the insanity of race-conscious college admissions policies.
This breach of fairness and justice was so out of whack with American principles of equality that it is impossible to fathom how U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs, an appointee to the bench of President Obama, could ignore the plaintiffs compelling argument of discrimination.
As background, the lawsuit against Harvard was brought on behalf of more than two dozen plaintiffs by Students for Fair Admissions, a conservative legal activist organization. Their case claimed admission metrics used by Harvard were biased against Asian-Americans.
In particular, the plaintiffs cited a metric called personal rating, which supposedly measures intangibles such as an applicant's kindness, empathy, self-confidence or leadership quality. The plaintiffs' evidence showed the metric penalizes Asian applicants due to unfair stereotypes.
At the heart of the issue is a practice many universities have concocted to enroll more Hispanic and African-American students by using nebulous or subjective measures to allow otherwise less qualified applicants to leapfrog others with proven academic achievements.
While admitting that Harvard's admission process could stand improvement, the judge's decision concluded: "That being said, the court will not dismantle a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster solely because it could do better." Her ruling is tacit approval of discrimination.
To understand the folly of the ruling, additional context is required. For instance, Asian-Americans make up only 5.6% of the U.S. population, certainly qualifying this ethnic group to be granted minority status. By comparison, African-Americans represent 13 percent of the population.
Some of you are huffing right now about the enslavement of African-Americans as the rationale for now granting this group favored status in admissions. But did you know Asian Americans were incarcerated in concentration camps in this country based solely on racial discrimination?
After Pearl Harbor, Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt signed an executive order forcing Japanese Americans to be relocated to camps in the Western U.S. as war hysteria and racial animus toward this ethnic group escalated. More than 120,000 citizens endured imprisonment.
The Census Bureau used data to pinpoint the location of citizens of Japanese origin to assist in the roundup. In 1988, Republican President Ronald Reagan signed legislation formally apologizing to Japanese Americans for "racial prejudice, war hysteria and failure of political leadership."
The mea culpa came appallingly late--43 years after the end of World War II.
During the building of the Transcontinental Railroad in the mid-1860's, Asian laborers from China and Hong Kong were recruited because few whites wanted to endure the back-breaking labor. Chinese workers received 30-to-50% less pay than their white counterparts.
Hundreds of Chinese laborers died from explosions, landslides, accidents and disease. Their white overlords worked the Chinese literally to death in many cases. They were considered expendable and thus were treated with excessive cruelty.
Concerned with growing Chinese immigration, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the only U.S. law to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race. The legislation restricted Chinese immigration for the next sixty years. It was the ugliest form of discrimination.
Asian Americans have suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. Yet there appears to be no recognition by Harvard, Judge Burroughs or many Americans. The reason is America's political establishment, particularly Democrats, coddles blacks because of their clout at the ballot box.
In a stunning admission, Judge Burroughs wrote that eliminating consideration of race would cause the African-American student population to decline from 14% to 9%. She failed to point out that the Asian-American student population has remained nearly stagnant, thanks to race-based favoritism.
In fact, the percentage of Asians admitted to Harvard declined from 1992 to 2013. Meanwhile, the percentages of African-Americans and Hispanics have risen. So who is being discriminated against here? Apparently, facts don't matter to Judge Burroughs, the daughter of a Harvard graduate.
For the record, Judge Burroughs applied to Harvard and her application was rejected. If only, she had been Hispanic or African-American, she might have earned a degree from this hypocritical university. Sadly, an Asian American would have had even worse odds of admission than the judge.
This breach of fairness and justice was so out of whack with American principles of equality that it is impossible to fathom how U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs, an appointee to the bench of President Obama, could ignore the plaintiffs compelling argument of discrimination.
As background, the lawsuit against Harvard was brought on behalf of more than two dozen plaintiffs by Students for Fair Admissions, a conservative legal activist organization. Their case claimed admission metrics used by Harvard were biased against Asian-Americans.
In particular, the plaintiffs cited a metric called personal rating, which supposedly measures intangibles such as an applicant's kindness, empathy, self-confidence or leadership quality. The plaintiffs' evidence showed the metric penalizes Asian applicants due to unfair stereotypes.
At the heart of the issue is a practice many universities have concocted to enroll more Hispanic and African-American students by using nebulous or subjective measures to allow otherwise less qualified applicants to leapfrog others with proven academic achievements.
While admitting that Harvard's admission process could stand improvement, the judge's decision concluded: "That being said, the court will not dismantle a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster solely because it could do better." Her ruling is tacit approval of discrimination.
To understand the folly of the ruling, additional context is required. For instance, Asian-Americans make up only 5.6% of the U.S. population, certainly qualifying this ethnic group to be granted minority status. By comparison, African-Americans represent 13 percent of the population.
Some of you are huffing right now about the enslavement of African-Americans as the rationale for now granting this group favored status in admissions. But did you know Asian Americans were incarcerated in concentration camps in this country based solely on racial discrimination?
After Pearl Harbor, Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt signed an executive order forcing Japanese Americans to be relocated to camps in the Western U.S. as war hysteria and racial animus toward this ethnic group escalated. More than 120,000 citizens endured imprisonment.
The Census Bureau used data to pinpoint the location of citizens of Japanese origin to assist in the roundup. In 1988, Republican President Ronald Reagan signed legislation formally apologizing to Japanese Americans for "racial prejudice, war hysteria and failure of political leadership."
The mea culpa came appallingly late--43 years after the end of World War II.
During the building of the Transcontinental Railroad in the mid-1860's, Asian laborers from China and Hong Kong were recruited because few whites wanted to endure the back-breaking labor. Chinese workers received 30-to-50% less pay than their white counterparts.
Hundreds of Chinese laborers died from explosions, landslides, accidents and disease. Their white overlords worked the Chinese literally to death in many cases. They were considered expendable and thus were treated with excessive cruelty.
Concerned with growing Chinese immigration, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the only U.S. law to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race. The legislation restricted Chinese immigration for the next sixty years. It was the ugliest form of discrimination.
Asian Americans have suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. Yet there appears to be no recognition by Harvard, Judge Burroughs or many Americans. The reason is America's political establishment, particularly Democrats, coddles blacks because of their clout at the ballot box.
In a stunning admission, Judge Burroughs wrote that eliminating consideration of race would cause the African-American student population to decline from 14% to 9%. She failed to point out that the Asian-American student population has remained nearly stagnant, thanks to race-based favoritism.
In fact, the percentage of Asians admitted to Harvard declined from 1992 to 2013. Meanwhile, the percentages of African-Americans and Hispanics have risen. So who is being discriminated against here? Apparently, facts don't matter to Judge Burroughs, the daughter of a Harvard graduate.
For the record, Judge Burroughs applied to Harvard and her application was rejected. If only, she had been Hispanic or African-American, she might have earned a degree from this hypocritical university. Sadly, an Asian American would have had even worse odds of admission than the judge.
Monday, November 11, 2019
Veterans Day: America's Forgotten War
By most historical accounts, it was the deadliest conflict in military history. More than 70 million soldiers and civilians perished. The savagery of World War I played out in muddy trenches, leaving lasting scars in Europe. But for many Americans, the century-old war has been long forgotten.
The last U.S. veteran of World War I, Frank Buckles, died in June, 1973 at the age of 101. His passing was barely mentioned in the news media. It was a sad reminder how little is remembered about the bravery of American soldiers engaged in the bloodiest war in modern history.
More than 126,000 American men sacrificed their lives on the altar of freedom in the war. Another 234,000 were wounded. An estimated 50 million military casualties were recorded in the conflict that embroiled most of Europe and introduced the first use of large-scale chemical warfare.
America's entry into the war in 1917 changed the course of the conflict that had ravaged the European continent since 1914. President Woodrow Wilson committed U.S. forces to join with Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Romania and Japan, an allied coalition that had suffered staggering losses.
The allies were facing armies from Germany, Austria, Hungry, Bulgaria and Turkey. (Other countries sent troops but these were the major combatants.) Germany was first to unleash chemical weapons, using first chlorine gas and then mustard gas that inflicted horrific wounds and ultimately death.
The war ended on November 11, 1918, exactly 101 years to this day when Germany signed the armistice and the guns fell silent. Memories of the gruesome war are still prominent in many European cities, which have erected war memorials in the town centers to salute fallen soldiers.
However, in America there are few memorials or remembrances. While many Americans are familiar with World War II and Vietnam War heroes, most would be hard pressed to name a single one from World War I. However, perhaps America's most unlikeliest war hero emerged in that conflict.
His name was Alvin C. York, a Tennessee native and pacifist who registered for the draft as required by law, but scribbled on his draft card, "Don't want to fight." York had serious moral issues about war and had been advised by his pastor to seek conscientious objector status.
Although the Army considered his objections, York was drafted and sent to basic training. The 30-year-old York eventually had a change of heart after consulting Biblical sources during a visit to his hometown. He returned with a firm belief that God meant for him to fight in the war.
York was assigned to Company G, 328th Infantry Regiment, 82nd Infantry Division. Eventually promoted to corporal, York took part in the St. Mihiel offensive as the 82nd sought to protect the U.S. First Army's right flank. His unit was ordered to take a hill north of Chatel-Chehery in France.
As his unit inched forward, York and his fellow soldiers came under fierce German machine-gun fire from all sides in the surrounding Argonne forest. By mid-morning York's platoon commander was killed and he assumed command of the remaining seven soldiers to repel the German onslaught.
During the bloody encounter, York was credited with killing more than 20 Germans and silencing 35-machine guns. At one point, six Germans charged his position with fixed bayonets. York keep firing his rifle, relying on his sharp-shooting skills he honed hunting in Tennessee, until the Germans fell.
Eventually, the Germans surrendered and York and the few men left in his platoon captured 132 prisoners. For his gallantry, York was awarded two French medals for bravery and the allied commander called his achievement "the greatest exploit every accomplished by a common soldier."
His own country awarded him the Medal of Honor and promoted him to sergeant. He was honored with a ticker tape parade in New York City. In 1941, his life was immortalized in the film " Sergeant York" starring Gary Cooper. After the war, York returned to his home in Tennessee.
Today on Veteran's Day, take a moment to remember those who have served our country in war and peace time. And say a prayer for those brave men, like Sergeant York, who fought to save Europe from being overrun by the forces of evil in World War I. They deserve to no longer be forgotten.
The last U.S. veteran of World War I, Frank Buckles, died in June, 1973 at the age of 101. His passing was barely mentioned in the news media. It was a sad reminder how little is remembered about the bravery of American soldiers engaged in the bloodiest war in modern history.
More than 126,000 American men sacrificed their lives on the altar of freedom in the war. Another 234,000 were wounded. An estimated 50 million military casualties were recorded in the conflict that embroiled most of Europe and introduced the first use of large-scale chemical warfare.
America's entry into the war in 1917 changed the course of the conflict that had ravaged the European continent since 1914. President Woodrow Wilson committed U.S. forces to join with Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Romania and Japan, an allied coalition that had suffered staggering losses.
The allies were facing armies from Germany, Austria, Hungry, Bulgaria and Turkey. (Other countries sent troops but these were the major combatants.) Germany was first to unleash chemical weapons, using first chlorine gas and then mustard gas that inflicted horrific wounds and ultimately death.
The war ended on November 11, 1918, exactly 101 years to this day when Germany signed the armistice and the guns fell silent. Memories of the gruesome war are still prominent in many European cities, which have erected war memorials in the town centers to salute fallen soldiers.
However, in America there are few memorials or remembrances. While many Americans are familiar with World War II and Vietnam War heroes, most would be hard pressed to name a single one from World War I. However, perhaps America's most unlikeliest war hero emerged in that conflict.
His name was Alvin C. York, a Tennessee native and pacifist who registered for the draft as required by law, but scribbled on his draft card, "Don't want to fight." York had serious moral issues about war and had been advised by his pastor to seek conscientious objector status.
Although the Army considered his objections, York was drafted and sent to basic training. The 30-year-old York eventually had a change of heart after consulting Biblical sources during a visit to his hometown. He returned with a firm belief that God meant for him to fight in the war.
York was assigned to Company G, 328th Infantry Regiment, 82nd Infantry Division. Eventually promoted to corporal, York took part in the St. Mihiel offensive as the 82nd sought to protect the U.S. First Army's right flank. His unit was ordered to take a hill north of Chatel-Chehery in France.
As his unit inched forward, York and his fellow soldiers came under fierce German machine-gun fire from all sides in the surrounding Argonne forest. By mid-morning York's platoon commander was killed and he assumed command of the remaining seven soldiers to repel the German onslaught.
During the bloody encounter, York was credited with killing more than 20 Germans and silencing 35-machine guns. At one point, six Germans charged his position with fixed bayonets. York keep firing his rifle, relying on his sharp-shooting skills he honed hunting in Tennessee, until the Germans fell.
Eventually, the Germans surrendered and York and the few men left in his platoon captured 132 prisoners. For his gallantry, York was awarded two French medals for bravery and the allied commander called his achievement "the greatest exploit every accomplished by a common soldier."
His own country awarded him the Medal of Honor and promoted him to sergeant. He was honored with a ticker tape parade in New York City. In 1941, his life was immortalized in the film " Sergeant York" starring Gary Cooper. After the war, York returned to his home in Tennessee.
Today on Veteran's Day, take a moment to remember those who have served our country in war and peace time. And say a prayer for those brave men, like Sergeant York, who fought to save Europe from being overrun by the forces of evil in World War I. They deserve to no longer be forgotten.
Monday, October 28, 2019
Anti-Worm Drug Holds Promise For Cancer Patients
An drug commonly used to eliminate parasites in dogs and cats has emerged as an unlikely but promising candidate to treat a variety of cancers in humans. Researchers are optimistic that Fenbendazole, a staple of veterinary practice, eventually will be approved for cancer therapy.
Mounting research on mice has shown that the anti-worm treatment, one of a class of drugs called benzimidazoles, inhibits cancer tumor growth by killing diseased cells. In addition, Fenbendazole blocks the intake of glucose in cancer cells, depriving them of their primary fuel.
Early animal studies have demonstrated Fenbendazole and its cousin Mebendazole could be effective in treatment therapy for a host of cancers, including prostate, lung, lymphoma, glioblastoma and brain tumors. Oncologists would have a new weapon in their arsenal in the battle against cancer.
Researchers stumbled upon the the discovery by accident. In 2014, a Johns Hopkins team was attempting to grow tumors in laboratory mice. In one set of mice, they were stumped because it was the only group that showed no tumors. They realized that group had been dewormed in advance.
As researchers dug deeper into the drug, they found that it had been previously reported Fenbendazole has anti-cancer properties. Word spread about the discovery and soon researchers in various labs were conducting their own experiments with the anti-worm drug.
A 2018 study published in Nature further set the cancer world buzzing. An article reported that researchers concluded there was evidence that Fenbendazole may be effective in the elimination of cancer cells. As it turns out, the use of similar drugs was nothing new in the cancer field.
In the early 90's, a drug called Lemaziole was shown as a complementary treatment for colon cancer, which also restored a depressed immune system. That means this class of drugs could be used in conjunction with chemotherapy and radiation treatments to wipe out the disease.
Various articles have appeared in newspapers and other publications over the years offering testimonies of cancer patients who have claimed to use Fenbendazole or another similar drug with successful results. However, this anecdotal evidence is no substitute for clinical research.
The good news is that Fenbendazole has already been used in clinical trials and has been deemed safe for human consumption. Unlike chemotherapy and radiation, there are no known serious side effects. However, doctors still are wary about the effects of long-term use.
But that hasn't deterred researchers. Bin Chen, a faculty member in Pediatrics in the Institute for Computational Health Sciences at University of California-San Francisco, conducted experiments in mice and expressed cautious optimism about the drug's effectiveness in killing cancerous liver tissue.
"We found these disease genes were reversed after six weeks of treatment in a patient-derived tissue in the mouse model," he was quoted on the UCSF website. Chen said his team reviewed more than 1,000 current drugs before discovering deworming pills were effective.
Chen was able to evaluate that large a number of drugs quickly, using data tools to screen and identify candidates that would target genes in cancerous liver tissues. He cross-referenced data on genes and common drugs to find the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Chen is at the forefront of a growing field of researchers looking at approved drugs to repurpose them in treating cancer patients. If successful, this will drastically reduce the millions of dollars spent on years of research and speed up the drug's time to market.
The next step is for human trials, known as Phase I studies. The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins has begun recruiting patients for research to determine the safety and side effects of large doses of Mebendazole to treat progressive pediatric brain tumors.
Mebendazole has already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for parasitic infections in humans and has a long track record of human use. The drug is frequently used in countries with tropical climates at high doses for rare parasitic infections of the brain.
The trial's primary objective will be to determine the maximum tolerated dose of oral Mebendazole in patients with either recurrent or progressive pediatric brain tumors, according to information posted by the National Cancer Institute.
The research will also gauge the safety, tolerance and toxicity of the drug in patients. Another focus will be determining the overall survival rate of patients treated with escalated dosages of Mebendazole.
As is the case with most drug trials, the study will require at least two years. The estimated study completion date is June, 2022. However, an advantage is the anti-parasitic drug is widely available, so if it proves effective, large quantities can be immediately distributed to patients.
Sadly, too often potentially promising developments on the cancer front are dashed in trials that fail to produce evidence to support the optimism. This time the hope is that the research outcome leads to the implementation of a new treatment to arrest cancer and save lives.
Mounting research on mice has shown that the anti-worm treatment, one of a class of drugs called benzimidazoles, inhibits cancer tumor growth by killing diseased cells. In addition, Fenbendazole blocks the intake of glucose in cancer cells, depriving them of their primary fuel.
Early animal studies have demonstrated Fenbendazole and its cousin Mebendazole could be effective in treatment therapy for a host of cancers, including prostate, lung, lymphoma, glioblastoma and brain tumors. Oncologists would have a new weapon in their arsenal in the battle against cancer.
Researchers stumbled upon the the discovery by accident. In 2014, a Johns Hopkins team was attempting to grow tumors in laboratory mice. In one set of mice, they were stumped because it was the only group that showed no tumors. They realized that group had been dewormed in advance.
As researchers dug deeper into the drug, they found that it had been previously reported Fenbendazole has anti-cancer properties. Word spread about the discovery and soon researchers in various labs were conducting their own experiments with the anti-worm drug.
A 2018 study published in Nature further set the cancer world buzzing. An article reported that researchers concluded there was evidence that Fenbendazole may be effective in the elimination of cancer cells. As it turns out, the use of similar drugs was nothing new in the cancer field.
In the early 90's, a drug called Lemaziole was shown as a complementary treatment for colon cancer, which also restored a depressed immune system. That means this class of drugs could be used in conjunction with chemotherapy and radiation treatments to wipe out the disease.
Various articles have appeared in newspapers and other publications over the years offering testimonies of cancer patients who have claimed to use Fenbendazole or another similar drug with successful results. However, this anecdotal evidence is no substitute for clinical research.
The good news is that Fenbendazole has already been used in clinical trials and has been deemed safe for human consumption. Unlike chemotherapy and radiation, there are no known serious side effects. However, doctors still are wary about the effects of long-term use.
But that hasn't deterred researchers. Bin Chen, a faculty member in Pediatrics in the Institute for Computational Health Sciences at University of California-San Francisco, conducted experiments in mice and expressed cautious optimism about the drug's effectiveness in killing cancerous liver tissue.
"We found these disease genes were reversed after six weeks of treatment in a patient-derived tissue in the mouse model," he was quoted on the UCSF website. Chen said his team reviewed more than 1,000 current drugs before discovering deworming pills were effective.
Chen was able to evaluate that large a number of drugs quickly, using data tools to screen and identify candidates that would target genes in cancerous liver tissues. He cross-referenced data on genes and common drugs to find the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Chen is at the forefront of a growing field of researchers looking at approved drugs to repurpose them in treating cancer patients. If successful, this will drastically reduce the millions of dollars spent on years of research and speed up the drug's time to market.
The next step is for human trials, known as Phase I studies. The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins has begun recruiting patients for research to determine the safety and side effects of large doses of Mebendazole to treat progressive pediatric brain tumors.
Mebendazole has already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for parasitic infections in humans and has a long track record of human use. The drug is frequently used in countries with tropical climates at high doses for rare parasitic infections of the brain.
The trial's primary objective will be to determine the maximum tolerated dose of oral Mebendazole in patients with either recurrent or progressive pediatric brain tumors, according to information posted by the National Cancer Institute.
The research will also gauge the safety, tolerance and toxicity of the drug in patients. Another focus will be determining the overall survival rate of patients treated with escalated dosages of Mebendazole.
As is the case with most drug trials, the study will require at least two years. The estimated study completion date is June, 2022. However, an advantage is the anti-parasitic drug is widely available, so if it proves effective, large quantities can be immediately distributed to patients.
Sadly, too often potentially promising developments on the cancer front are dashed in trials that fail to produce evidence to support the optimism. This time the hope is that the research outcome leads to the implementation of a new treatment to arrest cancer and save lives.
Monday, October 21, 2019
American Firms Unholy Alliance With China
The recent dustup over an NBA tweet and China is just the latest example of the Communist country's unapologetic censorship of free speech. American companies discovered long ago the cost of doing business in China requires kowtowing to the regime's demands or risk banishment.
Their conduct rankles many Americans, who view their behavior as hypocritical. These same companies have been openly critical of objections by Congress and interest groups about their content. The trio huff they will not cower to attempts to restrict free speech on their platforms.
The high-tech industry and other American firms--GE, Intel, Walmart, Starbucks, Boeing, GM--are complicit in the regime's dynamic global economic growth by spending lavishly on Chinese facilities and hiring local workers. Meanwhile, China continues to steal American technology.
Beijing has made no secret of its ambition to become the global leader in key emerging industries, including information technology, alternative energy, biotechnology, alternative-fuel cars and high-end equipment manufacturing. The regime will back Chinese firms with generous state funding.
China's subsidy of these sectors will put American firms at a competitive disadvantage. If you doubt China's ability to overtake America, you haven't been paying attention. In 2011, Apple was the dominant smartphone in China. Today, the top three brands, all Chinese, own a 71% market share.
China's long range plan is for its home-grown industries to be become not only the country's market leaders, but to supplant American brands worldwide. Recent research by groups such as McKinsey document that Chinese consumers are increasingly showing a preference for China-made goods.
To secure its economic superiority, China has launched a multi-trillion-dollar project to revive the ancient "Silk Road," which could redefine global trade and signal the tipping point for a new Asian century. The scope of the project is typical of the country's audacious economic dreams.
The regime already has invested billions in new infrastructure projects such as roads, railways, ports and maritime corridors that will span more than 60 countries and 4.4 billion people, covering up to 40 percent of the global GDP. The plan includes linking Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
This unprecedented scale of the project should worry American firms. China's aim is to end dependence on American goods, innovation and technology. While it extends its economic power, China's blueprint includes exporting its brand of Communism worldwide.
American businesses may one day be forced to abandon the Chinese market, either because of dwindling profits or because the government decides to limit foreign investment. China has employed this tactic in decades past. There is no certainty it will not do it again.
The NBA, businesses, movie studios and others that appease China in the name of profits may rue the day they ignored the Communist nation's geopolitical and economic aspirations. Not only will their profits be harmed, but they will have lost something more valuable: the American public's trust.
In this latest incident, the general manager for the Houston Rockets took to social media to express his support for the courageous protesters in Hong Kong. After China's official condemnation, NBA commissioner Adam Silver reprimanded the GM and apologized to the regime's government.
Silver with the support of wealthy NBA owners put profits over principle. The NBA has lucrative television contracts for its games to be aired in China. The league has long viewed China as its future with billions of potential viewers who buy league's jerseys and other merchandise.
The NBA is not the only entertainment industry to bow to Chinese pressure. China banned movies from Sony and Disney in 1997 after the two studios released films about Tibet. Both entertainment giants groveled before the Communists to earn the right to distribute future films in China.
Chinese bullying of American firms has been a staple of its government. However, it has grown more bellicose under the autocratic rule of President Xi Jinping. The Communist ruler has made it clear that he will curtail freedom of speech even in America as a price for access to China's market.
Since President Nixon's historic 1972 visit to China, globalists have advocated American investment in the Asian nation as a way to open up the Communist regime to democratic changes. This theory has been discredited by decades of Chinese trampling of basic human rights of its citizens.
Under China's leader Xi Jinping, the regime has become increasingly insular, more hostile to democratic principles, militarily threatening and an economic behemoth with world domination as its goal. No serious economist or politician can claim trade has loosened China's oppressive policies.
In spite of growing Chinese antagonism, American companies' investment in the Communist country continues unabated. In 2018, U.S. businesses invested $116.52 billion in China, according to Statista, a global research firm. That is a ten-fold hike from $11.4 billion almost two decades ago in 2000.
Meanwhile, the trade deficit with China has ballooned as the regime ships more goods and equipment to the U.S., while the Communists buy fewer American products. This trade imbalance has resulted in the elimination or displacement of 3.2 million U.S. jobs, estimates the Economic Policy Institute.
Some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley--Apple, Google and Facebook--are heavily invested in China. All have caved at one time to demands from the government to alter its applications to placate the Communists, including deleting information about the recent Hong Kong protests.
Meanwhile, the trade deficit with China has ballooned as the regime ships more goods and equipment to the U.S., while the Communists buy fewer American products. This trade imbalance has resulted in the elimination or displacement of 3.2 million U.S. jobs, estimates the Economic Policy Institute.
Some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley--Apple, Google and Facebook--are heavily invested in China. All have caved at one time to demands from the government to alter its applications to placate the Communists, including deleting information about the recent Hong Kong protests.
Their conduct rankles many Americans, who view their behavior as hypocritical. These same companies have been openly critical of objections by Congress and interest groups about their content. The trio huff they will not cower to attempts to restrict free speech on their platforms.
The high-tech industry and other American firms--GE, Intel, Walmart, Starbucks, Boeing, GM--are complicit in the regime's dynamic global economic growth by spending lavishly on Chinese facilities and hiring local workers. Meanwhile, China continues to steal American technology.
Beijing has made no secret of its ambition to become the global leader in key emerging industries, including information technology, alternative energy, biotechnology, alternative-fuel cars and high-end equipment manufacturing. The regime will back Chinese firms with generous state funding.
China's subsidy of these sectors will put American firms at a competitive disadvantage. If you doubt China's ability to overtake America, you haven't been paying attention. In 2011, Apple was the dominant smartphone in China. Today, the top three brands, all Chinese, own a 71% market share.
China's long range plan is for its home-grown industries to be become not only the country's market leaders, but to supplant American brands worldwide. Recent research by groups such as McKinsey document that Chinese consumers are increasingly showing a preference for China-made goods.
To secure its economic superiority, China has launched a multi-trillion-dollar project to revive the ancient "Silk Road," which could redefine global trade and signal the tipping point for a new Asian century. The scope of the project is typical of the country's audacious economic dreams.
The regime already has invested billions in new infrastructure projects such as roads, railways, ports and maritime corridors that will span more than 60 countries and 4.4 billion people, covering up to 40 percent of the global GDP. The plan includes linking Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
This unprecedented scale of the project should worry American firms. China's aim is to end dependence on American goods, innovation and technology. While it extends its economic power, China's blueprint includes exporting its brand of Communism worldwide.
American businesses may one day be forced to abandon the Chinese market, either because of dwindling profits or because the government decides to limit foreign investment. China has employed this tactic in decades past. There is no certainty it will not do it again.
The NBA, businesses, movie studios and others that appease China in the name of profits may rue the day they ignored the Communist nation's geopolitical and economic aspirations. Not only will their profits be harmed, but they will have lost something more valuable: the American public's trust.
Monday, October 14, 2019
The Billionaire Behind Impeachment Impetus
California billionaire Tom Steyer is spearheading an under the radar campaign to intimidate Democrats to impeach President Trump. A political action committee, Need to Impeach, bankrolled primarily by Steyer has a multi-million dollar war chest and an expansive staff at its disposal.
Steyer, one of the Democratic Party's most prodigious contributors, is a former hedge fund manager who sold his share in 2012. Forbes estimates his net worth at $1.6 billion. Since 2014, Steyer has shelled out more than $100 million to Democrat candidates.
Less than six months after Trump was sworn in as president, Steyer called for the impeachment of the nation's chief executive. From that day in June of 2017, the Californian has used his fortune to build a formidable cache to underwrite a nationwide grassroots campaign to remove the president.
According to the non-partisan group OpenSecrets.org, Steyer has written checks totaling nearly $50 million to underwrite the impeachment effort. In fairness, there is nothing illegal about the activities of his organization. However, Steyer's tactics are worrying some Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi.
Steyer's committee has used negative advertising, petitions, rallies, protests and door-to-door canvassing to target House Democrats reluctant to sign on to impeachment. Even before the Mueller report, the Steyer forces were ganging up on key House Democrats to support impeachment.
Under the banner of Need to Impeach, Steyer unleashed negative ads targeting Democrat Jerry Nadler of New York, the diminutive Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee after he announced that he advocated a "wait and see" impeachment approach before the special prosecutor issued his findings.
Elijah Cummings of Maryland is another Democrat who found himself in the Steyer crosshairs as chair of the House Oversight Committee. The negative ads failed to impress Cummings. "He ought to spend his money on something else," Cummings said after the Streyer-backed attack.
In another political assault, the organization zeroed in on Virginia Democrat Don Beyer. The Steyer troops choose Beyer's district for one of its town halls to "call out" the Democrat for his lack of support for impeachment, Beyer relented under pressure and signed on to impeachment soon after.
As these developments were happening, Speaker of the House Pelosi found herself languishing in a boiling political caldron. Early on, Ms. Pelosi sidestepped the issue, rebuffing party progressives who were spoiling for a formal impeachment vote.
Then a spokesman for the impeachment outfit let it be known that his group was considering funding pro-impeachment Democrat candidates in the primaries, unless incumbents give their full throated support to ridding Washington of President Trump. That well-timed leak scared fence sitters.
One of the names mentioned was Speaker Pelosi, one of the party's most influential fund raisers. Surely it is coincidental, but after months of tap dancing around the subject Pelosi surrendered to the growing cacophony from her caucus to become a focal point for impeachment.
Steyer is unapologetic for the bare knuckled political campaign. "There's a gigantic cost to not listening to your constituents," Steyer said in an interview with Politico. "There's a gigantic cost to thumbing your nose at democracy." Democrats dodge impeachment at their own peril.
To underscore his boss' intentions, Need to Impeach strategist Kevin Mack claims the organization had virtually unlimited resources to spend in key districts. The group has already committed $40 million to the impeachment effort, according to Mack.
The PAC is not the only forum for Steyer to preach removing Mr. Trump. The 62-year-old is running for president in the Democratic Party primary. He has made it clear that he will spend up to $100 million of his own money to win the nomination.
His candidacy has brought impeachment to center stage, making it a litmus test for his opponents. Those who don't support forcibly throwing out the president will earn Steyer's scorn. That could spell doom for the eventual nominee, if Steyer withholds financial support.
The Californian has already spent an estimated $19 million for advertising over the airwaves for his candidacy. In addition, his campaign has purchased at least $10 million on digital platforms since he entered the race in July. His spending far eclipses that of his opponents.
His high rolling spending has not impressed some Democrat candidates. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker told supporters that Steyer's "ability to spend millions of his personal wealth has helped him gain in the polls like no one else." One poll shows support for Steyer has reached eight percent.
Don't be fooled: Rep Adam Schiff and Rep. Nadler are just puppets in the impeachment sideshow. The puppet master is Tom Steyer. Even if his Quixotic presidential campaign flops, the billionaire will remain the political energy behind the political operation to overturn the 2016 election.
Steyer, one of the Democratic Party's most prodigious contributors, is a former hedge fund manager who sold his share in 2012. Forbes estimates his net worth at $1.6 billion. Since 2014, Steyer has shelled out more than $100 million to Democrat candidates.
Less than six months after Trump was sworn in as president, Steyer called for the impeachment of the nation's chief executive. From that day in June of 2017, the Californian has used his fortune to build a formidable cache to underwrite a nationwide grassroots campaign to remove the president.
According to the non-partisan group OpenSecrets.org, Steyer has written checks totaling nearly $50 million to underwrite the impeachment effort. In fairness, there is nothing illegal about the activities of his organization. However, Steyer's tactics are worrying some Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi.
Steyer's committee has used negative advertising, petitions, rallies, protests and door-to-door canvassing to target House Democrats reluctant to sign on to impeachment. Even before the Mueller report, the Steyer forces were ganging up on key House Democrats to support impeachment.
Under the banner of Need to Impeach, Steyer unleashed negative ads targeting Democrat Jerry Nadler of New York, the diminutive Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee after he announced that he advocated a "wait and see" impeachment approach before the special prosecutor issued his findings.
Elijah Cummings of Maryland is another Democrat who found himself in the Steyer crosshairs as chair of the House Oversight Committee. The negative ads failed to impress Cummings. "He ought to spend his money on something else," Cummings said after the Streyer-backed attack.
In another political assault, the organization zeroed in on Virginia Democrat Don Beyer. The Steyer troops choose Beyer's district for one of its town halls to "call out" the Democrat for his lack of support for impeachment, Beyer relented under pressure and signed on to impeachment soon after.
As these developments were happening, Speaker of the House Pelosi found herself languishing in a boiling political caldron. Early on, Ms. Pelosi sidestepped the issue, rebuffing party progressives who were spoiling for a formal impeachment vote.
Then a spokesman for the impeachment outfit let it be known that his group was considering funding pro-impeachment Democrat candidates in the primaries, unless incumbents give their full throated support to ridding Washington of President Trump. That well-timed leak scared fence sitters.
One of the names mentioned was Speaker Pelosi, one of the party's most influential fund raisers. Surely it is coincidental, but after months of tap dancing around the subject Pelosi surrendered to the growing cacophony from her caucus to become a focal point for impeachment.
Steyer is unapologetic for the bare knuckled political campaign. "There's a gigantic cost to not listening to your constituents," Steyer said in an interview with Politico. "There's a gigantic cost to thumbing your nose at democracy." Democrats dodge impeachment at their own peril.
To underscore his boss' intentions, Need to Impeach strategist Kevin Mack claims the organization had virtually unlimited resources to spend in key districts. The group has already committed $40 million to the impeachment effort, according to Mack.
The PAC is not the only forum for Steyer to preach removing Mr. Trump. The 62-year-old is running for president in the Democratic Party primary. He has made it clear that he will spend up to $100 million of his own money to win the nomination.
His candidacy has brought impeachment to center stage, making it a litmus test for his opponents. Those who don't support forcibly throwing out the president will earn Steyer's scorn. That could spell doom for the eventual nominee, if Steyer withholds financial support.
The Californian has already spent an estimated $19 million for advertising over the airwaves for his candidacy. In addition, his campaign has purchased at least $10 million on digital platforms since he entered the race in July. His spending far eclipses that of his opponents.
His high rolling spending has not impressed some Democrat candidates. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker told supporters that Steyer's "ability to spend millions of his personal wealth has helped him gain in the polls like no one else." One poll shows support for Steyer has reached eight percent.
Don't be fooled: Rep Adam Schiff and Rep. Nadler are just puppets in the impeachment sideshow. The puppet master is Tom Steyer. Even if his Quixotic presidential campaign flops, the billionaire will remain the political energy behind the political operation to overturn the 2016 election.
Monday, October 7, 2019
Tailgating: Expand A Great American Tradition
This is the season for tailgating, which for some fans is the only reason to attend a football game. Smoke from grills wafting through a parking lot. Adult beverages flowing from kegs and cans. Food piled on card tables and in the back of pickups and in motor homes. It's an American tradition.
As soon as the last football game is played in bone chilling weather, tailgating goes into hibernation until next season. It seems like an eternity for die hard fans. Why can't tailgating last all year? There is no law that sanctions tailgating only at football games. This calls for some creative thinking.
A perfect occasion for tailgating would be right after your colonoscopy. You emerge woozy from your procedure and waddle into the parking lot on the arm of your spouse. Cheers erupt from people in flimsy paper gowns, their bottoms exposed. It's a celebration like none other.
After fasting and gulping foul liquids, you are ready for food. Your fellow colonoscopy victims wrap you in blankets and hand you a plate filled with breakfast tacos. Someone begins a chant: "C-O-L-O-N! C-O-L-O-N! Go Colon Go!" Suddenly, you have forgotten the previous day's noxious prep.
A week passes and you arrive for your dental appointment for a cleaning. The parking lot is packed with cheering people carrying festive signs such as, "My Dentist Is Long In The Tooth!" You cautiously approach a dental hygienist handing out blue plumes of cotton candy.
"Should I eat this before my cleaning?" you ask skeptically. She grins, "Of course, that will make it more fun to scrape, chisel and scrub brush your teeth." As you move toward the dental office, someone presses a bag of corn nuts in your hand. "Chew these before your cleaning," she cackles.
As you gaze around, you see booths offering chewy caramel candies, popcorn, chocolate blueberries and red wine. You graze along with the other dental patients until your teeth look like the bottom of a sewer drain. Your dental cleaning takes four hours and the cost is double the normal fee.
A month later your arrive a the Department of Motor Vehicles to renew your driver's license. Instead of the usual line snaking around the building, you see hundreds of people milling around pickup trucks, campers and recreational vehicles. A band is marching and playing the DMV Fight Song:
"We'll do our best,
So you'll fail the test,
And treat you badly,
so you'll leave sadly!"
State troopers are offering massages in the RV's. The pickups are stuffed with kegs of beer. Campers are crammed with people watching television. You gulp liquid refreshment and celebrate. After waiting five hours, you enter the DMV office and flunk the test because of your blood alcohol level.
Next day you chauffeur your spouse to the Symphony Hall for a performance of Beethoven's Ninth in C Minor. The usual stuffy crowd sheds their suit coats and fur wraps to huddle around grills with lobster tails sizzling over a fire. There's a sushi bar and a caviar tent in the parking lot.
A tuba player and violinist are belting out tunes from your college alma mater. Some symphony patrons are wearing jerseys with the name of their favorite wind instrument. There is a giant television showing replays of last year's award winning performance of a Mozart concerto.
The well coiffed crowd, humming with excitement, enters the Symphony Hall in a rowdy mood. As the orchestra begins its first piece the audience starts the wave. The conductor drops his baton. A few patrons begin bellowing, "We Want Mozart." The orchestra storms off the stage in protest.
Actually, all this daydreaming about tailgating sparks an idea. Given the number of birthdays I have celebrated, perhaps, it is time I start making plans for a tailgate party for my funeral. Pardon me if it sounds a bit macabre, but what better way to celebrate a rabid sports fan's final game?
Picture this: Outside the funeral home my friends (both of them) and my creditors (2,000) are grilling my favorite food group, barbecue. Huge vats of potato salad and coleslaw are strategically located in the parking lot. Baked beans are forbidden out of respect for the deceased.
A putting green and a driving range have been installed in the cemetery. People are whacking golf balls off headstones on graves. There are contests for hitting the ball closest to my burial plot. The prize is a truckload of all the used golf balls I found in the woods during searches for my own ProV1.
As a tribute to my love for college football, there are goal posts leading into the funeral home. Admission is granted only to those who can kick a field goal from 15 yards. Pom poms and face paint are distributed to attendees. Cheerleaders lead everyone in a rendition of "Amazing Grace."
Tailgating extends well into the evening. Everyone agrees it is the most enjoyable send off they have ever attended. Some predict tailgate funerals will become an overnight sensation. No sense in limiting merriment to the football season when other opportunities abound for tailgating.
As soon as the last football game is played in bone chilling weather, tailgating goes into hibernation until next season. It seems like an eternity for die hard fans. Why can't tailgating last all year? There is no law that sanctions tailgating only at football games. This calls for some creative thinking.
A perfect occasion for tailgating would be right after your colonoscopy. You emerge woozy from your procedure and waddle into the parking lot on the arm of your spouse. Cheers erupt from people in flimsy paper gowns, their bottoms exposed. It's a celebration like none other.
After fasting and gulping foul liquids, you are ready for food. Your fellow colonoscopy victims wrap you in blankets and hand you a plate filled with breakfast tacos. Someone begins a chant: "C-O-L-O-N! C-O-L-O-N! Go Colon Go!" Suddenly, you have forgotten the previous day's noxious prep.
A week passes and you arrive for your dental appointment for a cleaning. The parking lot is packed with cheering people carrying festive signs such as, "My Dentist Is Long In The Tooth!" You cautiously approach a dental hygienist handing out blue plumes of cotton candy.
"Should I eat this before my cleaning?" you ask skeptically. She grins, "Of course, that will make it more fun to scrape, chisel and scrub brush your teeth." As you move toward the dental office, someone presses a bag of corn nuts in your hand. "Chew these before your cleaning," she cackles.
As you gaze around, you see booths offering chewy caramel candies, popcorn, chocolate blueberries and red wine. You graze along with the other dental patients until your teeth look like the bottom of a sewer drain. Your dental cleaning takes four hours and the cost is double the normal fee.
A month later your arrive a the Department of Motor Vehicles to renew your driver's license. Instead of the usual line snaking around the building, you see hundreds of people milling around pickup trucks, campers and recreational vehicles. A band is marching and playing the DMV Fight Song:
"We'll do our best,
So you'll fail the test,
And treat you badly,
so you'll leave sadly!"
State troopers are offering massages in the RV's. The pickups are stuffed with kegs of beer. Campers are crammed with people watching television. You gulp liquid refreshment and celebrate. After waiting five hours, you enter the DMV office and flunk the test because of your blood alcohol level.
Next day you chauffeur your spouse to the Symphony Hall for a performance of Beethoven's Ninth in C Minor. The usual stuffy crowd sheds their suit coats and fur wraps to huddle around grills with lobster tails sizzling over a fire. There's a sushi bar and a caviar tent in the parking lot.
A tuba player and violinist are belting out tunes from your college alma mater. Some symphony patrons are wearing jerseys with the name of their favorite wind instrument. There is a giant television showing replays of last year's award winning performance of a Mozart concerto.
The well coiffed crowd, humming with excitement, enters the Symphony Hall in a rowdy mood. As the orchestra begins its first piece the audience starts the wave. The conductor drops his baton. A few patrons begin bellowing, "We Want Mozart." The orchestra storms off the stage in protest.
Actually, all this daydreaming about tailgating sparks an idea. Given the number of birthdays I have celebrated, perhaps, it is time I start making plans for a tailgate party for my funeral. Pardon me if it sounds a bit macabre, but what better way to celebrate a rabid sports fan's final game?
Picture this: Outside the funeral home my friends (both of them) and my creditors (2,000) are grilling my favorite food group, barbecue. Huge vats of potato salad and coleslaw are strategically located in the parking lot. Baked beans are forbidden out of respect for the deceased.
A putting green and a driving range have been installed in the cemetery. People are whacking golf balls off headstones on graves. There are contests for hitting the ball closest to my burial plot. The prize is a truckload of all the used golf balls I found in the woods during searches for my own ProV1.
As a tribute to my love for college football, there are goal posts leading into the funeral home. Admission is granted only to those who can kick a field goal from 15 yards. Pom poms and face paint are distributed to attendees. Cheerleaders lead everyone in a rendition of "Amazing Grace."
Tailgating extends well into the evening. Everyone agrees it is the most enjoyable send off they have ever attended. Some predict tailgate funerals will become an overnight sensation. No sense in limiting merriment to the football season when other opportunities abound for tailgating.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Joe Biden: His Son And The Ukraine Oligarch
Democrats accused President Trump of a quid-pro-quid deal with Ukraine in a veiled move to distract media attention from a controversy engulfing Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Details continue to emerge about the son's involvement with a Ukrainian oligarch's corruption-plagued gas company.
The former vice president and Democratic Party presidential candidate initially shooed away reporters asking questions about his son's questionable activities and the apparent conflict of interest. The stonewalling ended when Biden was finally prodded into publicly proclaiming to the media:
"I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings." However, Biden is on shaky ground based on credible information in the public domain.
To set the stage, President Obama appointed the vice president his "point person" on Ukraine in February of 2014. From 2014-2017, he made five trips to the Ukraine in his official capacity as vice president as Russian aggression escalated tensions in the Eastern European country.
During the diplomatic shuttling, Biden's son with two business partners were deep in discussions about a deal with the scandal ridden natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. One of Hunter's partners, Devon Archer, arranged for a meeting with the elder Biden on April 16, 2015 at the White House.
Official White House records show the meeting lasted until 11:59 p.m. There are no details on the subject of the discussion. However, less than a week after their chitchat Archer was invited to join the Burisma board Three weeks later Hunter Biden became a board member, too.
It is not credible to think the vice president knew nothing about his son's Ukraine dealings after the meeting with Hunter's business partner, especially given the timing of the appointments to the Burisma board. Unless of course, they just talked about grandchildren. (Sarcasm intended.)
After the board appointments, Burisma touted its newest member, Hunter Biden. It prominently mentioned he was the vice president's son. His official role, as vaguely described by Burisma, was to provide "consulting" for the company on "various matters" and to offer "strategic guidance."
Even while the younger Biden had been negotiating with Burisma, the natural gas company was the subject of an investigation into suspected fraud. Great Britain's Serious Fraud Office froze assets of Burisma as part of a money laundering probe. The assets were later unfrozen when Ukraine sued.
This wasn't the only brush with controversy for Burisma. It had been suspected of corruption both inside Ukraine and by the United States. The secretive company's founder Mykola Zlochevsky was also the subject of official Ukrainian inquiries, including for tax evasion.
None of this appeared to matter to Hunter Biden. Bank records from 2014 and 2015 show Hunter Biden was personally paid more than $850,000. Burisma does not release compensation details for board members, but the records were uncovered in U.S. litigation into an unrelated case.
Seneca Partners LLC, which included Biden and his two associates, received regular transfers of usually more than $166,000 per month during the 2014-2015 period, according to the same banking records cited above. These payments came under scrutiny by the Ukraine's general prosecutor.
It was reported that the prosecutor had made plans to "include interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." Both Hunter Biden and the former vice president have declined to comment on this allegation.
This is where the story about the vice president's unawareness of his son's business dealings begins to crumble. In March of 2016, Biden addressed a public meeting of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, bragging how he had bullied Ukrainian officials into firing the general prosecutor.
Biden described in detail as news cameras rolled how he threatened to pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if Ukraine didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. In Biden's own words, here is what he remembered telling Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016:
"I am going to be leaving here in I think about six hours....If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money," he recalled telling Poroshenko. "Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
There was one tiny fact Biden omitted. The prosecutor who was summarily fired was leading a far ranging corruption probe into the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, which employed his son as a board member. And there is more proof that the elder Biden had to know what was happening.
A New York Times article on December 8, 2015, appeared four months before the firing of the general prosecutor and included information about Hunter Biden's role in Burisma. Biden's office was quoted as acknowledging that the younger Biden was indeed a Burisma board member.
Bloomberg News recently reported the following: "Joe Biden has said that he's never spoken with his son about his foreign business dealings. Hunter told the New Yorker earlier this year that he once touched on Ukraine obliquely. "Dad said, 'I hope you know what you are doing' and I said, "I do."
There is no better example of a possible quid-pro-quid arrangement between a top U.S. official and a foreign government than this case. The former vice president has publicly admitted he threatened to withhold U.S. foreign aid if a Ukrainian prosecutor was not dismissed.
Joe Biden has skated around this issue by repeatedly claiming he was clueless about his son's business dealings. Now it is time for the Department of Justice to open an official inquiry to determine if the former veep used his office and American aid to spare his son from prosecution.
There is far more evidence in the public record about influence peddling by Joe Biden than the thin accusations against Mr. Trump for his discussion with the Ukraine president about Hunter Biden. The media and Democrats can no longer cover up for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.
It would be ironic if the Democrats pursuit of the Ukraine connection with Mr. Trump would instead force the party of impeachment to reconsider the candidacy of Joe Biden, whose interference in a foreign country's justice system weakens his chances in the presidential race.
The former vice president and Democratic Party presidential candidate initially shooed away reporters asking questions about his son's questionable activities and the apparent conflict of interest. The stonewalling ended when Biden was finally prodded into publicly proclaiming to the media:
"I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings." However, Biden is on shaky ground based on credible information in the public domain.
To set the stage, President Obama appointed the vice president his "point person" on Ukraine in February of 2014. From 2014-2017, he made five trips to the Ukraine in his official capacity as vice president as Russian aggression escalated tensions in the Eastern European country.
During the diplomatic shuttling, Biden's son with two business partners were deep in discussions about a deal with the scandal ridden natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. One of Hunter's partners, Devon Archer, arranged for a meeting with the elder Biden on April 16, 2015 at the White House.
Official White House records show the meeting lasted until 11:59 p.m. There are no details on the subject of the discussion. However, less than a week after their chitchat Archer was invited to join the Burisma board Three weeks later Hunter Biden became a board member, too.
It is not credible to think the vice president knew nothing about his son's Ukraine dealings after the meeting with Hunter's business partner, especially given the timing of the appointments to the Burisma board. Unless of course, they just talked about grandchildren. (Sarcasm intended.)
After the board appointments, Burisma touted its newest member, Hunter Biden. It prominently mentioned he was the vice president's son. His official role, as vaguely described by Burisma, was to provide "consulting" for the company on "various matters" and to offer "strategic guidance."
Even while the younger Biden had been negotiating with Burisma, the natural gas company was the subject of an investigation into suspected fraud. Great Britain's Serious Fraud Office froze assets of Burisma as part of a money laundering probe. The assets were later unfrozen when Ukraine sued.
This wasn't the only brush with controversy for Burisma. It had been suspected of corruption both inside Ukraine and by the United States. The secretive company's founder Mykola Zlochevsky was also the subject of official Ukrainian inquiries, including for tax evasion.
None of this appeared to matter to Hunter Biden. Bank records from 2014 and 2015 show Hunter Biden was personally paid more than $850,000. Burisma does not release compensation details for board members, but the records were uncovered in U.S. litigation into an unrelated case.
Seneca Partners LLC, which included Biden and his two associates, received regular transfers of usually more than $166,000 per month during the 2014-2015 period, according to the same banking records cited above. These payments came under scrutiny by the Ukraine's general prosecutor.
It was reported that the prosecutor had made plans to "include interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." Both Hunter Biden and the former vice president have declined to comment on this allegation.
This is where the story about the vice president's unawareness of his son's business dealings begins to crumble. In March of 2016, Biden addressed a public meeting of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, bragging how he had bullied Ukrainian officials into firing the general prosecutor.
Biden described in detail as news cameras rolled how he threatened to pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if Ukraine didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. In Biden's own words, here is what he remembered telling Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016:
"I am going to be leaving here in I think about six hours....If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money," he recalled telling Poroshenko. "Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
There was one tiny fact Biden omitted. The prosecutor who was summarily fired was leading a far ranging corruption probe into the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, which employed his son as a board member. And there is more proof that the elder Biden had to know what was happening.
A New York Times article on December 8, 2015, appeared four months before the firing of the general prosecutor and included information about Hunter Biden's role in Burisma. Biden's office was quoted as acknowledging that the younger Biden was indeed a Burisma board member.
Bloomberg News recently reported the following: "Joe Biden has said that he's never spoken with his son about his foreign business dealings. Hunter told the New Yorker earlier this year that he once touched on Ukraine obliquely. "Dad said, 'I hope you know what you are doing' and I said, "I do."
There is no better example of a possible quid-pro-quid arrangement between a top U.S. official and a foreign government than this case. The former vice president has publicly admitted he threatened to withhold U.S. foreign aid if a Ukrainian prosecutor was not dismissed.
Joe Biden has skated around this issue by repeatedly claiming he was clueless about his son's business dealings. Now it is time for the Department of Justice to open an official inquiry to determine if the former veep used his office and American aid to spare his son from prosecution.
There is far more evidence in the public record about influence peddling by Joe Biden than the thin accusations against Mr. Trump for his discussion with the Ukraine president about Hunter Biden. The media and Democrats can no longer cover up for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.
It would be ironic if the Democrats pursuit of the Ukraine connection with Mr. Trump would instead force the party of impeachment to reconsider the candidacy of Joe Biden, whose interference in a foreign country's justice system weakens his chances in the presidential race.
Monday, September 23, 2019
Democrats' Kavanaugh Impeachment Tactic
Democrats are thumping the drums for impeachment after a New York Times smear article about Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Even after the once noble Times was forced to admit pertinent facts were omitted thereby shredding the credibility of the allegations, Democrats stubbornly plowed ahead.
To recap, the Times recently carried a thinly sourced article purporting that Justice Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct at a party while an undergraduate at Yale. For the prurient, the specific unverified allegation was Kavanaugh exposed his penis to college-age women at a drunken party.
Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelley, who are shilling their book about Kavanaugh, used as their source a former Clinton lawyer who was not a witness to the alleged incident. His information was third-hand. Even the victim refused to corroborate the event for the reporters.
However, the article did not mention the alleged victim had denied any knowledge of the incident to her friends. None of the victim's friends came forward to offer any supporting testimony. This smacks of nothing less than a deliberately vicious attempt to blacken Justice Kavanaugh's reputation.
Putting aside the appalling lapse in journalistic ethics, the Times tried to save its red face by blaming the fiasco on the editing of the article rather than indict the two biased reporters. Any person with a modicum of understanding of newsroom operations knows this is a canard.
Putting aside the appalling lapse in journalistic ethics, the Times tried to save its red face by blaming the fiasco on the editing of the article rather than indict the two biased reporters. Any person with a modicum of understanding of newsroom operations knows this is a canard.
Copy editors do not delete relevant evidentiary information without consulting the writers. In a story flaunting such damaging allegations, even a senior editor likely would check with the writers before reaching a decision to remove significant revelations. That's why the explanation is rubbish.
The Gray Lady, as the Times was known in its heyday, has become the Scarlet Tramp.
Only after being exposed by another reporter, the Times' offered a correction on Monday conceding key facts were missing. Nonetheless, Democrat presidential candidates raced to the microphones to demand impeachment of Kavanaugh. Others called for his immediate resignation.
Democrats tried to justify their renewed effort to remove Kavanaugh based on the fact the FBI never interviewed the alleged victim at the Yale party during the agency's probe for the confirmation hearings. That is a flimsy excuse because it is apparent the victim had no intention of testifying.
Kavanaugh's background, including his college days, has been investigated during at least five federal background checks. No current sitting justice or former Supreme Court justice has been subjected to such scrutiny. It strains credulity to imagine investigators missed the improprieties five times.
There is no secret about the Times motive. From the second Kavanaugh, a practicing Catholic, was nominated, liberals have operated on the political assumption that the justice will take "a scalpel" to the Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling once he assumed his seat on the Supreme Court.
The assault began when Democrats ambushed Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings with sexual misconduct allegations by Christine Blasey Ford. Since her testimony, every single person she claimed could verify her story has disavowed knowledge, including her best friend Leland Keyser.
Despite this fact, Democrats lamely assert that Ms. Ford's account deserves to be believed.
That is why the Times latest hit job on Kavanaugh was needed to provide cover for those Democrats hell bent on forcing Kavanaugh off the court by whatever means. Their efforts have taken on a new desperation because at least 20 abortion cases are flowing in the pipeline to the Supreme Court.
Democrats are wading in hazardous and uncharted political waters. If a party can remove a sitting justice based on unsubstantiated allegations, then it will set a precedent that will be used to intimidate members of the court who do not see eye-to-eye on judicial matters with members of Congress.
In fact, the only sitting justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804 for partisan reasons. Chase, appointed by President George Washington, irked Thomas Jefferson's allies with his opinions, leading to the justice's impeachment. The Senate acquitted Chase of all charges.
There is a reason Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments. It is to remove the judges from being influenced by politics so they can rule impartially without fear of political retribution. That was the clear intent of our founding fathers. It remains a valid protection today.
In the event impeachment craters, Democrats have another scheme to bully the conservative majority. Several presidential hopefuls have floated the idea of expanding the court under a Democrat president. Even liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pooh-poohed the idea.
Democrats should remember the lesson of the Senate's nuclear option invoked by Majority Leader Harry Reid, who broke decades of tradition. Once Republicans returned to power, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell employed the same tactic. Democrats fumed. They shouldn't have been surprised.
Political intimidation of justices, if the Democrats succeed, surely will be used by Republicans against Democrat appointed judges in the future. It is a dangerous precedent that should be rejected by even those who hold opposing views to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The assault began when Democrats ambushed Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings with sexual misconduct allegations by Christine Blasey Ford. Since her testimony, every single person she claimed could verify her story has disavowed knowledge, including her best friend Leland Keyser.
Despite this fact, Democrats lamely assert that Ms. Ford's account deserves to be believed.
That is why the Times latest hit job on Kavanaugh was needed to provide cover for those Democrats hell bent on forcing Kavanaugh off the court by whatever means. Their efforts have taken on a new desperation because at least 20 abortion cases are flowing in the pipeline to the Supreme Court.
Democrats are wading in hazardous and uncharted political waters. If a party can remove a sitting justice based on unsubstantiated allegations, then it will set a precedent that will be used to intimidate members of the court who do not see eye-to-eye on judicial matters with members of Congress.
In fact, the only sitting justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804 for partisan reasons. Chase, appointed by President George Washington, irked Thomas Jefferson's allies with his opinions, leading to the justice's impeachment. The Senate acquitted Chase of all charges.
There is a reason Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments. It is to remove the judges from being influenced by politics so they can rule impartially without fear of political retribution. That was the clear intent of our founding fathers. It remains a valid protection today.
In the event impeachment craters, Democrats have another scheme to bully the conservative majority. Several presidential hopefuls have floated the idea of expanding the court under a Democrat president. Even liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pooh-poohed the idea.
Democrats should remember the lesson of the Senate's nuclear option invoked by Majority Leader Harry Reid, who broke decades of tradition. Once Republicans returned to power, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell employed the same tactic. Democrats fumed. They shouldn't have been surprised.
Political intimidation of justices, if the Democrats succeed, surely will be used by Republicans against Democrat appointed judges in the future. It is a dangerous precedent that should be rejected by even those who hold opposing views to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Monday, September 16, 2019
Climate Predictions Hinder Environmental Efforts
Discredited predictions about climate cataclysm are promoting an ideological tug-of-war over the issue. Global organizations, academics and scientists have been guilty of grossly inaccurate forecasts, reducing the debate over the environment to gratuitous scaremongering.
Climate change, closely identified with liberalism, has become a political catechism, crippling chances of a bipartisan approach. That is tragic because the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of clean air, clean water and conservation. Virtually no one opposes that ideology.
However, spreading apocalyptic prophecies to urge action has invited criticism instead of cooperation. Environmentalists need to practice more education and less proselytizing. Everyone should be able to agree the current approach has failed miserably to gain bipartisan traction.
One of the worst offenders of wildly misleading forecasts has been the often-cited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the U.N. Environment Program. It counts among its members more than 1,500 scientists.
For example, the IPCC issued a report this month maintaining global warming has devastated crop production. The document sounded the alarm of a impending disaster of epic proportions. But the report parsed language and relied on heresy instead of evidence.
"Based on indigenous and local knowledge, climate change is affecting food security in dry lands, particularly those in Africa and high mountain regions of Asia and South America," the report claimed. Note the lack of hard data to justify the original premise about drastic consequences.
Another agency in the same building, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, issued a report citing record-setting production of global corn, wheat and rice crops five years running through 2017, the most recent available data. This is the latest contradiction to calamitous claims.
Here are a few other doozies. A Department of Oceanography professor of the U.S. Navy predicted in 2007 an ice free Arctic Ocean by 2013. That same year the IPCC predicted that by 2020 there would be increasing droughts worldwide. It later was forced to admit the forecast was overstated.
Even when predictions are found baseless, the proponents refuse to budge. James Hansen, who headed NASA's Goddard Institute for three decades, has a long and shameful record of counterfeit predictions. Despite the facts, Hansen's forecasts are still repeated by climate alarmists.
Lead IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund was pressed once on his debunked forecasts. His reply: "On the whole I would stand by these predictions--not predictions, sorry, scenarios--as having at least in a general way actually come true."
Oppenheimer's most glaring error was predicting greenhouse gases would desolate the heartlands of America, "causing crop failures and food riots," adding the situation would send Americans fleeing to Mexico to work as "field hands." He once served as an advisor to Al Gore on climate matters.
Liberals and conservatives need to start fresh, armed with facts not spurious forecast models and outlandish predictions. That means putting aside a polemic that suggests saving the environment is an either or proposition: do you want oil or a clean environment; economic growth or pure water, etc.
Here's a novel approach: stop arguing about climate change and pursue policies that are good for the environment. There are literally hundreds of ways to decrease waste and reduce air and water pollution. Many are far less expensive and require far less government intrusion than current ideas.
University of Central Oklahoma research found that if manufacturers used recycled paper, it would cut air pollution 73% and water pollution by 35% compared to current methods. Recycling glass would reduce mining waste by 80% and air pollution by 20%.
A U.S. Forest Service study estimates the U.S. loses around 36 million trees every year. Many of those trees are in urban areas, where temperatures tend to be higher because of a phenomenon known as the heat island effect. Urban reforestation would reduce energy use and carbon dioxide.
Recycling steel would trim 97% of the mining waste produced through traditional manufacturing and cut 86% of air pollution and 76% of water pollution in the country. Non-biodegradable plastic is clogging landfills and polluting oceans. Reducing plastic waste is a no brainer.
The good news is America is making progress. A study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 12.2% since 2007. In the same period, China's emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons and India's surged 1 billion tons.
That last point deserves underscoring: India and China are creating environmental havoc. The Health Effects Institute (HEI) of Boston reported in 2017 that the two countries had the deadliest air pollution in the world. Cleaning up America is just one solution of the global climate we all share.
American ingenuity is a transformative force when it is unleashed to tackle thorny issues. As a country, we need to agree to put aside differences and harness that creativity to make our environment cleaner tomorrow and for future generations. There should be no debate about that.
Climate change, closely identified with liberalism, has become a political catechism, crippling chances of a bipartisan approach. That is tragic because the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of clean air, clean water and conservation. Virtually no one opposes that ideology.
However, spreading apocalyptic prophecies to urge action has invited criticism instead of cooperation. Environmentalists need to practice more education and less proselytizing. Everyone should be able to agree the current approach has failed miserably to gain bipartisan traction.
One of the worst offenders of wildly misleading forecasts has been the often-cited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the U.N. Environment Program. It counts among its members more than 1,500 scientists.
For example, the IPCC issued a report this month maintaining global warming has devastated crop production. The document sounded the alarm of a impending disaster of epic proportions. But the report parsed language and relied on heresy instead of evidence.
"Based on indigenous and local knowledge, climate change is affecting food security in dry lands, particularly those in Africa and high mountain regions of Asia and South America," the report claimed. Note the lack of hard data to justify the original premise about drastic consequences.
Another agency in the same building, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, issued a report citing record-setting production of global corn, wheat and rice crops five years running through 2017, the most recent available data. This is the latest contradiction to calamitous claims.
Here are a few other doozies. A Department of Oceanography professor of the U.S. Navy predicted in 2007 an ice free Arctic Ocean by 2013. That same year the IPCC predicted that by 2020 there would be increasing droughts worldwide. It later was forced to admit the forecast was overstated.
Even when predictions are found baseless, the proponents refuse to budge. James Hansen, who headed NASA's Goddard Institute for three decades, has a long and shameful record of counterfeit predictions. Despite the facts, Hansen's forecasts are still repeated by climate alarmists.
Lead IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund was pressed once on his debunked forecasts. His reply: "On the whole I would stand by these predictions--not predictions, sorry, scenarios--as having at least in a general way actually come true."
Oppenheimer's most glaring error was predicting greenhouse gases would desolate the heartlands of America, "causing crop failures and food riots," adding the situation would send Americans fleeing to Mexico to work as "field hands." He once served as an advisor to Al Gore on climate matters.
Liberals and conservatives need to start fresh, armed with facts not spurious forecast models and outlandish predictions. That means putting aside a polemic that suggests saving the environment is an either or proposition: do you want oil or a clean environment; economic growth or pure water, etc.
Here's a novel approach: stop arguing about climate change and pursue policies that are good for the environment. There are literally hundreds of ways to decrease waste and reduce air and water pollution. Many are far less expensive and require far less government intrusion than current ideas.
University of Central Oklahoma research found that if manufacturers used recycled paper, it would cut air pollution 73% and water pollution by 35% compared to current methods. Recycling glass would reduce mining waste by 80% and air pollution by 20%.
A U.S. Forest Service study estimates the U.S. loses around 36 million trees every year. Many of those trees are in urban areas, where temperatures tend to be higher because of a phenomenon known as the heat island effect. Urban reforestation would reduce energy use and carbon dioxide.
Recycling steel would trim 97% of the mining waste produced through traditional manufacturing and cut 86% of air pollution and 76% of water pollution in the country. Non-biodegradable plastic is clogging landfills and polluting oceans. Reducing plastic waste is a no brainer.
The good news is America is making progress. A study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 12.2% since 2007. In the same period, China's emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons and India's surged 1 billion tons.
That last point deserves underscoring: India and China are creating environmental havoc. The Health Effects Institute (HEI) of Boston reported in 2017 that the two countries had the deadliest air pollution in the world. Cleaning up America is just one solution of the global climate we all share.
American ingenuity is a transformative force when it is unleashed to tackle thorny issues. As a country, we need to agree to put aside differences and harness that creativity to make our environment cleaner tomorrow and for future generations. There should be no debate about that.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Unhappy Crowd: Spare Us the "Woe is Me" Lament
Squawking about America has never been shriller. Gun violence is spiraling out of control. Racism is seething. Trade wars are spiking prices. The nation's political climate is toxic. Homeless people are camped on streets of cities. The whole country is a rotten stinking dung heap.
Day after day the piercing chorus is deafening. For many Baby Boomers, including this writer, it has become nauseating. The contempt, disgust and loathing from our fellow Americans is too much to stomach. This country needs perspective, a quality missing in today's warped media reporting.
If you honestly believe America has never been this foul, you just haven't lived long enough. Not too many decades ago, this country was in the throes of race riots, soaring interest rates, double-digit inflation, high unemployment and one of the deadliest wars ever fought by our military.
Americans, especially Millennials, have either forgotten or never been taught American history. As a timely reminder, here is a refresher on the turmoil that roiled the country from 1962 to 1981, a period that included political assassinations, cities in flames, an oil embargo and economic Armageddon.
During the Cold War with Russia in the 1960's, President John F. Kennedy advised Americans to build bomb shelters as a precaution. By 1965, 200,000 underground shelters speckled the American landscape. As school children, we were drilled to hide under a desk in the event of a nuclear attack.
Tensions boiled over in October 1962 when the U.S. discovered Soviet nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba. The military blockaded Cuba to prevent Soviet ships from reaching the island. Nuclear war appeared imminent. After a nerve-racking 13-day standoff, the Soviets agreed to remove the missiles.
Not long after, President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 by a gunmen who had visited Russia. Less than 20 years later, President Ronald Reagan was shot, the bullet just missing vital organs sparing his life. If a closely-guarded president could be killed or wounded, none of us felt safe.
During the period after 1963, ugly race riots broke out in major U.S. cities as African-Americans battled police in the streets. National guard units had to be called up to restore peace. Historians have called the riots the "most serious and widespread" ever in the U.S.
The social unrest flared in 1968 after civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King was struck down by an assassin's bullet. The news ignited riots in 110 cities across the country in a single night. That same year Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy was murdered.
His death and the simmering anger over the Vietnam War combusted into the worst incident in American politics. At the Democratic Party convention in Chicago, violent confrontations exploded as police and protesters fought. Demonstrators were beaten and tear gassed on national television.
The unpopular war in Asia, which lasted almost 20 years, ended with 58,220 American military causalities. Another 304,000 soldiers returned home with crippling wounds. Many of my generation lost college mates, friends and family members. Too many died forgotten in a war run by politicians.
For perspective, only the Civil War, World War I and World War II, eclipsed Vietnam as the deadliest conflicts in our history.
On the heels of the war, impeachment proceedings were launched by the House Judiciary Committee against President Richard M. Nixon, who was implicated in the break-in at a Democratic Party facility in the Watergate Hotel in Washington. Under pressure, Nixon was forced to resign in 1974.
The nation barely exhaled when a Middle-East oil embargo kindled a gasoline shortage in the country. Prices quadrupled at the pump overnight, shredding family budgets and triggering a nationwide panic. Stations ran out of gas. Fuel-starved cars were abandoned on the road.
During the height of the crisis, price gouging was rampant. We waited in long lines of cars idling on roads leading to stations, snarling traffic and shortening tempers. Mandatory limits of five-gallons of fuel per car were imposed by gas stations. Daily commutes were often sidelined by empty gas tanks.
Then galloping inflation and high unemployment detonated. From 1976 to 1980, car prices zoomed 72%. The cost of new homes soared 67%. In a single year 1979, gasoline prices rocketed up 60%. Inflation spurted to 12.4% in 1980. The prime interest rate topped 21% that same year.
Unemployment jumped to 9%. Many firms laid off workers. A new term was coined, The Misery Index, to quantify Americans' fears and anxieties over the economic morose. Government wage and price controls, introduced to stem inflation, instead stunted an economic recovery.
During this era in the 1970's, the nation recorded the worst crime rate in its history. There were 115.2 million crimes reported in that decade. The highest murder rate in the country's history was in 1980, far outdistancing today's FBI homicide rate-per-population. Crime became a hot political issue.
Perhaps, this brief history lesson will remind all Americans that our country has undergone more dire economic, political, race and violence-marred eras. That doesn't mean we should be sanguine about these times. However, today's Americans deserve to have current events put into historical context.
It may not be the best of times but it certainly isn't the worst. Not even close. Someone has to spread that message to quell the incessant wallowing in self-pity. The media will not. We must do it.
Day after day the piercing chorus is deafening. For many Baby Boomers, including this writer, it has become nauseating. The contempt, disgust and loathing from our fellow Americans is too much to stomach. This country needs perspective, a quality missing in today's warped media reporting.
If you honestly believe America has never been this foul, you just haven't lived long enough. Not too many decades ago, this country was in the throes of race riots, soaring interest rates, double-digit inflation, high unemployment and one of the deadliest wars ever fought by our military.
Americans, especially Millennials, have either forgotten or never been taught American history. As a timely reminder, here is a refresher on the turmoil that roiled the country from 1962 to 1981, a period that included political assassinations, cities in flames, an oil embargo and economic Armageddon.
During the Cold War with Russia in the 1960's, President John F. Kennedy advised Americans to build bomb shelters as a precaution. By 1965, 200,000 underground shelters speckled the American landscape. As school children, we were drilled to hide under a desk in the event of a nuclear attack.
Tensions boiled over in October 1962 when the U.S. discovered Soviet nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba. The military blockaded Cuba to prevent Soviet ships from reaching the island. Nuclear war appeared imminent. After a nerve-racking 13-day standoff, the Soviets agreed to remove the missiles.
Not long after, President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 by a gunmen who had visited Russia. Less than 20 years later, President Ronald Reagan was shot, the bullet just missing vital organs sparing his life. If a closely-guarded president could be killed or wounded, none of us felt safe.
During the period after 1963, ugly race riots broke out in major U.S. cities as African-Americans battled police in the streets. National guard units had to be called up to restore peace. Historians have called the riots the "most serious and widespread" ever in the U.S.
The social unrest flared in 1968 after civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King was struck down by an assassin's bullet. The news ignited riots in 110 cities across the country in a single night. That same year Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy was murdered.
His death and the simmering anger over the Vietnam War combusted into the worst incident in American politics. At the Democratic Party convention in Chicago, violent confrontations exploded as police and protesters fought. Demonstrators were beaten and tear gassed on national television.
The unpopular war in Asia, which lasted almost 20 years, ended with 58,220 American military causalities. Another 304,000 soldiers returned home with crippling wounds. Many of my generation lost college mates, friends and family members. Too many died forgotten in a war run by politicians.
For perspective, only the Civil War, World War I and World War II, eclipsed Vietnam as the deadliest conflicts in our history.
On the heels of the war, impeachment proceedings were launched by the House Judiciary Committee against President Richard M. Nixon, who was implicated in the break-in at a Democratic Party facility in the Watergate Hotel in Washington. Under pressure, Nixon was forced to resign in 1974.
The nation barely exhaled when a Middle-East oil embargo kindled a gasoline shortage in the country. Prices quadrupled at the pump overnight, shredding family budgets and triggering a nationwide panic. Stations ran out of gas. Fuel-starved cars were abandoned on the road.
During the height of the crisis, price gouging was rampant. We waited in long lines of cars idling on roads leading to stations, snarling traffic and shortening tempers. Mandatory limits of five-gallons of fuel per car were imposed by gas stations. Daily commutes were often sidelined by empty gas tanks.
Then galloping inflation and high unemployment detonated. From 1976 to 1980, car prices zoomed 72%. The cost of new homes soared 67%. In a single year 1979, gasoline prices rocketed up 60%. Inflation spurted to 12.4% in 1980. The prime interest rate topped 21% that same year.
Unemployment jumped to 9%. Many firms laid off workers. A new term was coined, The Misery Index, to quantify Americans' fears and anxieties over the economic morose. Government wage and price controls, introduced to stem inflation, instead stunted an economic recovery.
During this era in the 1970's, the nation recorded the worst crime rate in its history. There were 115.2 million crimes reported in that decade. The highest murder rate in the country's history was in 1980, far outdistancing today's FBI homicide rate-per-population. Crime became a hot political issue.
Perhaps, this brief history lesson will remind all Americans that our country has undergone more dire economic, political, race and violence-marred eras. That doesn't mean we should be sanguine about these times. However, today's Americans deserve to have current events put into historical context.
It may not be the best of times but it certainly isn't the worst. Not even close. Someone has to spread that message to quell the incessant wallowing in self-pity. The media will not. We must do it.
Monday, September 2, 2019
Bullet Trains: Does High Speed Rail Have a Future?
High-speed rail proponents cling to the dream of so-called Bullet Trains criss crossing America, ferrying millions of passengers. Despite limited progress in pockets of the U.S., implementation has been derailed by billion dollar cost-tags, titanic deficits, politics and the sheer size of the country.
The clamor for lightning quick rail grows louder each time another country inaugurates service for a Bullet Train, such as the one in Shanghai, China, that reaches speeds of up to 268 m.p.h and averages 143 m.p.h. Japan is testing a Bullet Train capable of reaching 249 m.p.h.
Proponents point out that public opinion polls document rising support for high-speed rail. A recent survey released by the American Public Transportation Association found that two-thirds (63%) of Americans would be likely to use high-speed transportation if it was readily available.
Millennials and young people (18-44) are the most ardent advocates of high-speed rail with 71% in favor of building a network. When researchers informed participants of the benefits of costs and time-savings of high-speed rail, the likelihood of using fast trains climbed by a few percentage points.
In recognition of the public's appetite for speedy trains, the Federal Railroad Administration recently announced it will allow passenger trains to operate at speeds up to 220 m.p.h. There's only one problem. The majority of the nation's rail network can't handle those speeds.
That hasn't stopped plans for next generation high-speed rail from being unveiled in California, Florida and Texas. In each case, progress can be described as tortoise-like. Construction has started on the privately funded route for an Orlando to Miami train, but no launch date has been announced.
Like Florida, the Houston to Dallas route plan in Texas is privately funded. The line is expected to cost at least $12 to $14 billion, however, the company admits it has raised substantially less than that amount. The most recent figure released by the firm put the funding at about $200 million.
California's concept of developing a Bullet Train from Los Angeles to San Diego was sidelined when Gov. Gavin Newsom pulled the plug on the publicly funded project as costs ballooned to between $63.2 billion and $98.1 billion. Meanwhile, work continues on a scaled-down route.
Proponents note Bullet Trains are operating over large networks in countries such as Japan, Europe and China. If those countries can build fast rail, why can't the richest country in the world do it? The answer is there are daunting obstacles in America that are not factors in those countries.
Perhaps, the biggest hurdle is replacing tracks incapable of handling higher speed trains. America's largest passenger rail firm is Amtrak, operated and funded by the federal government. It chugs over 21,300 miles of rail, covering most of the nation. Displacing the network would cost billions.
But changing the existing track isn't the only challenge. Even the fastest trains must slow down for curvatures in the rail network. Unfortunately, the aging U.S. track network is stippled with curves. That means additional land would be needed to build a straight line between stations.
Problems multiply if a plan includes a nationwide system. High speed rail is efficient in densely populated countries, such as Japan. After leaving the two U.S. coasts, there is a lot of real estate to cover. Regional tracks make more economic sense as Amtrak's experience indicates.
Amtrak operates in a sea of red ink. For decades, passenger revenues have failed to exceed operating costs. In the latest fiscal year, Amtrak's revenues hit $3.18 billion, but expenses were $4.16 billion. If you are searching for a glimmer of hope, then look no further than the Northeast corridor.
The 456-mile route running from Boston to Washington, D.C. operates at a modest profit. Amtrak's Acela Express, the fastest train in the U.S., zips along at speeds of 150-miles per hour for brief stretches. However, it averages only 68 m.p.h. because the track hugs the jagged coastline.
Although the corridor was retrofitted to accommodate higher speed trains, some areas can only handle speeds of 25 m.p.h. To fix the issue would required multi-billions of dollars in funding and require decades to complete construction. Extending it to the entire country is cost prohibitive.
Because of the nation's size, air travel is more attractive for most cross country trips. Even a high-speed rail train operating between New York and Los Angeles could not compete with airlines, America has built up a massive air travel infrastructure that rail transportation cannot match.
Of all the hurdles, the steepest is political. There is a constant struggle between the federal government and states over jurisdiction of interstate infrastructure. Regionalizing high-speed rail is a thorny issue too because lawmakers in states that don't benefit are less likely to support it.
High-speed rail may just be another idea ahead of its time. If the economics change for automobile and air travel, then the politics could swing in favor of high-speed trains. Realistically, that may take decades, maybe even longer. Intermediate steps, like regional rail, might fast track deployment.
The clamor for lightning quick rail grows louder each time another country inaugurates service for a Bullet Train, such as the one in Shanghai, China, that reaches speeds of up to 268 m.p.h and averages 143 m.p.h. Japan is testing a Bullet Train capable of reaching 249 m.p.h.
Proponents point out that public opinion polls document rising support for high-speed rail. A recent survey released by the American Public Transportation Association found that two-thirds (63%) of Americans would be likely to use high-speed transportation if it was readily available.
Millennials and young people (18-44) are the most ardent advocates of high-speed rail with 71% in favor of building a network. When researchers informed participants of the benefits of costs and time-savings of high-speed rail, the likelihood of using fast trains climbed by a few percentage points.
In recognition of the public's appetite for speedy trains, the Federal Railroad Administration recently announced it will allow passenger trains to operate at speeds up to 220 m.p.h. There's only one problem. The majority of the nation's rail network can't handle those speeds.
That hasn't stopped plans for next generation high-speed rail from being unveiled in California, Florida and Texas. In each case, progress can be described as tortoise-like. Construction has started on the privately funded route for an Orlando to Miami train, but no launch date has been announced.
Like Florida, the Houston to Dallas route plan in Texas is privately funded. The line is expected to cost at least $12 to $14 billion, however, the company admits it has raised substantially less than that amount. The most recent figure released by the firm put the funding at about $200 million.
California's concept of developing a Bullet Train from Los Angeles to San Diego was sidelined when Gov. Gavin Newsom pulled the plug on the publicly funded project as costs ballooned to between $63.2 billion and $98.1 billion. Meanwhile, work continues on a scaled-down route.
Proponents note Bullet Trains are operating over large networks in countries such as Japan, Europe and China. If those countries can build fast rail, why can't the richest country in the world do it? The answer is there are daunting obstacles in America that are not factors in those countries.
Perhaps, the biggest hurdle is replacing tracks incapable of handling higher speed trains. America's largest passenger rail firm is Amtrak, operated and funded by the federal government. It chugs over 21,300 miles of rail, covering most of the nation. Displacing the network would cost billions.
But changing the existing track isn't the only challenge. Even the fastest trains must slow down for curvatures in the rail network. Unfortunately, the aging U.S. track network is stippled with curves. That means additional land would be needed to build a straight line between stations.
Problems multiply if a plan includes a nationwide system. High speed rail is efficient in densely populated countries, such as Japan. After leaving the two U.S. coasts, there is a lot of real estate to cover. Regional tracks make more economic sense as Amtrak's experience indicates.
Amtrak operates in a sea of red ink. For decades, passenger revenues have failed to exceed operating costs. In the latest fiscal year, Amtrak's revenues hit $3.18 billion, but expenses were $4.16 billion. If you are searching for a glimmer of hope, then look no further than the Northeast corridor.
The 456-mile route running from Boston to Washington, D.C. operates at a modest profit. Amtrak's Acela Express, the fastest train in the U.S., zips along at speeds of 150-miles per hour for brief stretches. However, it averages only 68 m.p.h. because the track hugs the jagged coastline.
Although the corridor was retrofitted to accommodate higher speed trains, some areas can only handle speeds of 25 m.p.h. To fix the issue would required multi-billions of dollars in funding and require decades to complete construction. Extending it to the entire country is cost prohibitive.
Because of the nation's size, air travel is more attractive for most cross country trips. Even a high-speed rail train operating between New York and Los Angeles could not compete with airlines, America has built up a massive air travel infrastructure that rail transportation cannot match.
Of all the hurdles, the steepest is political. There is a constant struggle between the federal government and states over jurisdiction of interstate infrastructure. Regionalizing high-speed rail is a thorny issue too because lawmakers in states that don't benefit are less likely to support it.
High-speed rail may just be another idea ahead of its time. If the economics change for automobile and air travel, then the politics could swing in favor of high-speed trains. Realistically, that may take decades, maybe even longer. Intermediate steps, like regional rail, might fast track deployment.
Monday, August 26, 2019
America's Space Odyssey: Leader to Laggard
Millions worldwide watched the flickering images on television as a lunar lander hovered near the moon's surface. Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were shoehorned in the space vehicle frantically searching for a safe place to land among the moon's yawning craters and craggy rocks.
The task was made infinitely more intense after alarms rattled the silence in the space capsule. Mission Control signaled the go ahead for landing after deciding a computer system overload tripped the alarms. But the tension increased as a glowing gauge showed 18 seconds of fuel remaining.
With just seconds of precious fuel to spare, Armstrong toggled the craft to a smooth landing on the surface of the moon. Armstrong exhaled, smiled and then radioed: "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed." It was exactly 4:18 p.m. on July 20, 1969, more than 50 years ago.
The main event began about six hours later when Armstrong, swaddled in a bulky, white spacesuit, opened the hatch of Eagle and slowly backed down a ladder. As he descended, he switched on a TV camera. At 10:56 p.m., his foot touched the surface of the moon to the cheers of millions.
This historic moment capped a eight-year-long effort by the U.S. to seize the lead in the race to space, eclipsing the Soviet Union. This was more than "One step for man, one giant leap for mankind." It was the crowning achievement of the 20th century for American ingenuity, vision and invention.
The space program ushered in a plethora of new technology, notably industrial computing which sparked the Digital Revolution. How far have we progressed? The computing power used on Apollo was two-millionths of one percent of the computing power of today's smartphones.
The space program ushered in a plethora of new technology, notably industrial computing which sparked the Digital Revolution. How far have we progressed? The computing power used on Apollo was two-millionths of one percent of the computing power of today's smartphones.
Many predicted the successful mission would jump start a heroic era of manned exploration of the Cosmos, including landing on distant planets. However, the space program suffered a run of near disasters and tragedies, including the 1986 explosion of the Challenger space shuttle.
As the years passed, what remained of NASA (National Aeronautical and Space Administration) shriveled from neglect and lack of funding. Manned space exploration was supplanted by robotic probes sent hurtling into space to glimpse the universe. Not the stuff of legendary daring feats.
America has invested so little in its space exploration that today we depend on Russia to shuttle our astronauts to service the international space station. While it's true that private investment by companies such as Space X has advanced rocket technology, government funding has fallen behind.
Meanwhile, China has stepped up efforts to dominate space travel and exploration, investing billions in infrastructure and nuclear powered rocket technology. They have unveiled plans to build manned labs both on the moon and Mars. China recently rocketed its first quantum satellite in orbit.
China became the third country after the U.S. and Russia to successfully perform a sea-based orbital launch in June, reports Reuters. A rocket carrying seven satellites blasted off from a platform on a semi-submersible barge in the Yellow Sea. The country also boasts three land-based launch sites.
Its ambitious plans include developing reusable, low-cost medium rockets along with super heavy-lift rockets expected to make their virgin flight in 2030. At the same time, China is in the process of constructing a new space station, expected to be completed about 2022.
Tens of private Chinese firms have joined the race to develop rockets capable of delivering low-cost micro satellites with commercial applications. Last month iSpace became the first privately funded Chinese firm to put satellites into orbit. In China, private and government efforts are intertwined.
China has made it clear its goal is to rule space. What will be America's response? The bipartisan political alliance behind the Apollo mission was spurred by President John F. Kennedy's speech to Congress in 1961. Can today's politicians cobble a coalition to answer China's challenge?
The sharp divisions between the political parties and the White House offer faint hope, especially when too few Americans care a wit about space exploration or China's determination to surpass the United States. It is dispiriting to watch what has happened to America's resolve to lead in space.
Unless the country awakens to the challenge, not only will the United States cede space exploration to China but our indifference will one day allow the Chinese to threaten American interests and values with a terrestrial platform to subjugate its enemies and achieve global dominance.
America has invested so little in its space exploration that today we depend on Russia to shuttle our astronauts to service the international space station. While it's true that private investment by companies such as Space X has advanced rocket technology, government funding has fallen behind.
Meanwhile, China has stepped up efforts to dominate space travel and exploration, investing billions in infrastructure and nuclear powered rocket technology. They have unveiled plans to build manned labs both on the moon and Mars. China recently rocketed its first quantum satellite in orbit.
China became the third country after the U.S. and Russia to successfully perform a sea-based orbital launch in June, reports Reuters. A rocket carrying seven satellites blasted off from a platform on a semi-submersible barge in the Yellow Sea. The country also boasts three land-based launch sites.
Its ambitious plans include developing reusable, low-cost medium rockets along with super heavy-lift rockets expected to make their virgin flight in 2030. At the same time, China is in the process of constructing a new space station, expected to be completed about 2022.
Tens of private Chinese firms have joined the race to develop rockets capable of delivering low-cost micro satellites with commercial applications. Last month iSpace became the first privately funded Chinese firm to put satellites into orbit. In China, private and government efforts are intertwined.
China has made it clear its goal is to rule space. What will be America's response? The bipartisan political alliance behind the Apollo mission was spurred by President John F. Kennedy's speech to Congress in 1961. Can today's politicians cobble a coalition to answer China's challenge?
The sharp divisions between the political parties and the White House offer faint hope, especially when too few Americans care a wit about space exploration or China's determination to surpass the United States. It is dispiriting to watch what has happened to America's resolve to lead in space.
Unless the country awakens to the challenge, not only will the United States cede space exploration to China but our indifference will one day allow the Chinese to threaten American interests and values with a terrestrial platform to subjugate its enemies and achieve global dominance.
Monday, August 19, 2019
White Supremacy: The Truth Behind The Rhetoric
Politicians and the media have whipped up a frothy narrative about the explosive growth of white supremacy in the United States. These co-conspirators hope to frighten Americans. They understand fear is the enemy of truth. However, the facts do not support their emotionally-charged rhetoric.
Before diving into the data, let me make it clear at the outset. Hate in any form, including white supremacy, is evil. Those who foment this malignant contagion are to be condemned. We can't deny its existence. Such wickedness has no place in America and it must be confronted.
However, those who claim the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Nazi's and associated white supremacy groups are stealthily recruiting armies of disciples have no proof. The FBI, Justice Department and other federal agencies have published no data on the these organizations. Evidence simply does not exist.
Despite this fact, Democrats and the mainstream media want you to believe hoards of angry white men preaching racial purity are overrunning the country. They point to the riot in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 as an example of a virulent strain of white supremacy that is poisoning America.
In that incident, there were "about" 50 neo-Nazi's marching and chanting in the streets. They were confronted by around 1,000 counter protesters. A melee ensued because the state and local police failed to intervene quickly enough, according to a report by the City of Charlottesville.
Do 50 crackpots waving Nazi flags represent a clear and present danger to the United States? Hardly. No one sanctions hateful speech, but is a single incident a legitimate indicator that white supremacy is on the rise? Of course not. However, it is a siren call for vigilance to prevent another episode.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, certainly no conservative group, published data in 2016 that claimed there are "between 5,000 and 8,000 Klan members, split among dozens of different and often warring organizations that use the Klan name." There are 323 million Americans. Do the math.
In the report, the center estimated there were 130 KKK groups in the country in 2016. According to its figures, the Klan has been in decline since 2010 when its numbers reached 221 loosely affiliated organizations. This is a far cry from the Klan's presence in the 1920's.
Historians estimate there were between four-and-five million Klansmen during the 1920's. Membership began to decline even into the 1960's when the KKK attracted whites opposed to civil rights legislation. Best guesses are the Klan membership then was in the hundreds of thousands.
Some conspiracy theorists claim white supremacy has gone underground to avoid detection. That is clearly not the case since there are websites and social media posts spewing the nefarious doctrine. Law enforcement officials believe most of the venom is coming from just a handful of individuals.
Journalists recently uncovered a 2006 FBI Bulletin that warned of the threat of white nationalists and skinheads infiltrating law enforcement as evidence the problem has been ignored. There have been isolated cases of police being outed for their white supremacy views. But nothing widespread.
Yet there must be acknowledgment that hate crimes are on the rise, according to FBI data. Incidents increased 17% in 2017, the latest available figures. But the agency noted there are more law enforcement agencies reporting hate crimes than in the past. It may account for some of the increase.
There were 7,175 cases reported by 2,040 of the more than 16,100 law enforcement agencies that submitted data. The majority (58.1%) were categorized as hate crimes targeting a person's race, ethnicity or ancestry, while religious bias was found in 22% of cases.
Digging deeper, you find that 48.8% of the race, ethnicity or ancestry crimes were anti-African-American, 17.5% were anti-white, 10.9% were anti-Hispanic, 5.8 percent were anti-Native American and 3.1% were anti-Asian. Clearly, hatred respects no racial or cultural boundaries.
Even in a country with chasms of disagreement on issues surely we can stand together in opposition to all forms of hatred. The lesson of Nazi Germany is a reminder that if hatred of races, religions or ethnicities festers there are deadly consequences. It cannot be excused or condoned in America.
Before diving into the data, let me make it clear at the outset. Hate in any form, including white supremacy, is evil. Those who foment this malignant contagion are to be condemned. We can't deny its existence. Such wickedness has no place in America and it must be confronted.
However, those who claim the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Nazi's and associated white supremacy groups are stealthily recruiting armies of disciples have no proof. The FBI, Justice Department and other federal agencies have published no data on the these organizations. Evidence simply does not exist.
Despite this fact, Democrats and the mainstream media want you to believe hoards of angry white men preaching racial purity are overrunning the country. They point to the riot in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 as an example of a virulent strain of white supremacy that is poisoning America.
In that incident, there were "about" 50 neo-Nazi's marching and chanting in the streets. They were confronted by around 1,000 counter protesters. A melee ensued because the state and local police failed to intervene quickly enough, according to a report by the City of Charlottesville.
Do 50 crackpots waving Nazi flags represent a clear and present danger to the United States? Hardly. No one sanctions hateful speech, but is a single incident a legitimate indicator that white supremacy is on the rise? Of course not. However, it is a siren call for vigilance to prevent another episode.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, certainly no conservative group, published data in 2016 that claimed there are "between 5,000 and 8,000 Klan members, split among dozens of different and often warring organizations that use the Klan name." There are 323 million Americans. Do the math.
In the report, the center estimated there were 130 KKK groups in the country in 2016. According to its figures, the Klan has been in decline since 2010 when its numbers reached 221 loosely affiliated organizations. This is a far cry from the Klan's presence in the 1920's.
Historians estimate there were between four-and-five million Klansmen during the 1920's. Membership began to decline even into the 1960's when the KKK attracted whites opposed to civil rights legislation. Best guesses are the Klan membership then was in the hundreds of thousands.
Some conspiracy theorists claim white supremacy has gone underground to avoid detection. That is clearly not the case since there are websites and social media posts spewing the nefarious doctrine. Law enforcement officials believe most of the venom is coming from just a handful of individuals.
Journalists recently uncovered a 2006 FBI Bulletin that warned of the threat of white nationalists and skinheads infiltrating law enforcement as evidence the problem has been ignored. There have been isolated cases of police being outed for their white supremacy views. But nothing widespread.
Yet there must be acknowledgment that hate crimes are on the rise, according to FBI data. Incidents increased 17% in 2017, the latest available figures. But the agency noted there are more law enforcement agencies reporting hate crimes than in the past. It may account for some of the increase.
There were 7,175 cases reported by 2,040 of the more than 16,100 law enforcement agencies that submitted data. The majority (58.1%) were categorized as hate crimes targeting a person's race, ethnicity or ancestry, while religious bias was found in 22% of cases.
Digging deeper, you find that 48.8% of the race, ethnicity or ancestry crimes were anti-African-American, 17.5% were anti-white, 10.9% were anti-Hispanic, 5.8 percent were anti-Native American and 3.1% were anti-Asian. Clearly, hatred respects no racial or cultural boundaries.
Even in a country with chasms of disagreement on issues surely we can stand together in opposition to all forms of hatred. The lesson of Nazi Germany is a reminder that if hatred of races, religions or ethnicities festers there are deadly consequences. It cannot be excused or condoned in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)