And then what?

What will happen on Tuesday?

It will depend on whether or not you want to live in what has been the finest nation in the known history of the world.

It is fine because everyone is born with an equal chance; an equal chance at life, at liberty, a dynamic duo which pretty much guarantees the pursuit of happiness. But first you must have life.

And life is going to be the issue on Tuesday: life and liberty. The two are not synonymous.

The unfortunate thing about most of those listening to political rhetoric is that they don't pay much attention to what's being said. If they are present at a rally, it is easy to get wound up in group dynamics: the crowd produces its own mood, its own understanding, and neither may reflect the words said.

Mr. Obama has said, in effect, that he is going tax "the rich" in order to support "the poor." Since a relative few (compared to the population) of us qualify as poor we will receive no benefit from this robbery.

What robbery, you may ask. Is there any difference between stopping someone on the street and taking his or her money, clothing, jewelry, shopping basket and car for no reason other that person has them, or taking his or her income simply because it is there? Yet this is pretty much was has been offered.

Oh, and all kinds of "free" stuff. Anyone who has responded to an ad offering free things "if you'll just … (whatever) … has learned how much free stuff really costs.

Free stuff: "free" health benefits (nationalized health care), "free" college education, "free" cash in hand. All for free. Yeah.

But someone has to pay for all that "free" stuff.

We're told that heavy taxation will affect only the rich. Is that possible? Hardly. The government has decided many years ago to tax the income of those of us who have incomes. The taxes go up and sometimes they come down, but once applied they never seem to disappear. But these tax increases will hit only the rich. Sure.

Does this mean that the government will be able to go into someone's bank account and take out what it considers to be the excess? No? Then where? If I were wealthy enough to have to worry about being the "taxable rich" and if the taxes were aimed at my income, I could simply stop having an income. If my money, placed wherever it was to earn more money, was simply removed and put into a non interest-bearing area, I would be able to live in some comfort but not be burdened by taxes. If I did that before the end of the year, I would have to pay tax on this year's income, but what about next year's? In a true socialistic society someone — the government? — might come after me and take whatever it considered excessive, and leave me with what was left.

But it will take time to do that.

Heavy taxes will destroy whatever is left of our economy, and incidentally "sharing the wealth," will, too, because if you take everything from a business or a big corporation, there is no incentive to stay in business and no money left over to pay or hire employees.

On paper, socialism (and we're talking about socialism, here) always looks good, but almost never works. Why? Because most of us need some sort of incentive. In this nation a lot of incentive came from the family. If you have a family, you want it to be well fed, decently clothed and decently educated. But if you have no control over that, why bother.

Mr. Obama denies that he is proposing a socialist society in this country, overseen by a benevolent government.

But no matter what you think he said, that is what Mr. Obama has suggested. Of course you have to listen to the words.

When the system begins to break down, what happens to all the free stuff, like medical care? Doctors won't be paid by the visit, but by the government. Ditto hospitals. And you will be told what kind of health care you are allowed. Eventually — maybe to make more room for all the illegal aliens Mr. Obama intends to legalize — you will be told how many children you can have. Abortion will be easily available and may be demanded as it is in some other places.

 Where is the liberty? And where is the life?

Doesn't all that sound wonderful.

Sic transit Gloria U.S.A.

The messiah?

Not everyone will agree, but many observers see time as running out for John McCain unless something crops up.

There has been remarkably little response to the allegations — some or all of which may be true — of voter fraud favoring Barrack Obama in the primaries and likely happening right now in the early voting in many states.

It would seem that the candidate to an even greater extent than most running for public office — even the highest — wants and will accept a win by any means at all. Voter fraud?

What may — or will — happen if Obama is elected?

While taxes and spending will, as the candidate promises, almost certainly go up, the wealth — if there is any left — will be spread around except in the area of national security. There has been a promise that defense spending will be cut by 25 per cent leaving, as someone commented, our troops in Iraq with their rifles but ammunition. I suppose this means that some or all of the troops will be coming home and leaving the Iraqis and others to fend for themselves.

I admit that I was somewhat ambiguous about going back into Iraq when Bush ordered it, but if we pull our support too soon, we will have wasted the lives lost there and probably guarantee our returning troops the same kinds of greetings returning Vietnam veterans received.

What else?

Oh, yeah, almost forgot about the economy and some other issues:

Do you suppose, with the spending programs suggested that the taxation will stop at the absolute top rank of those with money?

The poverty line in this country is somewhere around $14,000 or so for a single person (in the continental U.S.A.), but rising to $22,000 or more (top around $26,000) for a family of four. For larger families the line is higher topping out at more that $35,000 for a family of eight.

In Hawaii and Alaska costs of everything including poverty are higher, in Hawaii especially, much higher.

Some of these people, I assume, will be in line for the wealth the man from somewhere will be spreading around, but, unless there is some sort of adjustment, some of those who aren't on the absolute bottom level — if you're hungry it is sometimes hard to realize that there is a lower level — will paying for aid to that lower level, probably with their own dinner money.

Will wages go up?

Almost certainly not. Business owners have families, too, and are likely to be more concerned about their own, regardless of how badly they may feel about putting their own workers back on the street.

Will wages go down?

Maybe not, but whether they stay level or go down (up?) there will be fewer people drawing wages which will curtail production and, in a time of falling income, increase costs drastically.

What about other things?

Well, there are all kinds of promises which some see as threats. How about nationalized health care. Works other places, doesn't it? I guess it depends on what you consider "works" means. Currently, even if you don't have insurance you can be treated in an emergency room, assuming you have an emergency. If you have insurance or cash you can get in to see a doctor on very short notice and if surgery is indicated get that taken care of in most cases pretty quickly. Go to nationalized health country and it may take you weeks to see a doctor and a year or more for surgery. And you don't have to pay anything — except rapidly climbing taxes.

Oh, but for those in need, abortions will be available on demand and perhaps even encouraged. A woman, the left says, has the right to choose. She certainly does, but that choice can best be made before abortion has to be an option.

Obama has promised the best of all worlds. Everyone gets fed, everyone gets health care — who cares about the quality? — and everyone is broke, because while there may be some food around, you won't be able drive you car much, the possibility of rapid transit is quite low.

Except for rapid transit to Hell, which is the direction indicated.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Let's focus

I am sitting here in the American southwest with the sun shining outside and the threat of a sever-ish winter storm on the horizon.

I am, of course, worried about global warming, not because it is happening (it is not), but because it leads focus in the wrong direction. The globe is and has been cooling for the past ten years, and likely will continue cooling for sometime to come, maybe for a very longtime to come.

But. And this maybe is an important "but," there is a lot of money to be made out of global warming and a lot of money has been made out of it. I think it was Goebbels (I could be mistaken) who said the bigger the lie the easier it is to believe.

Warming happens. It is part of cycle. You see it almost annually. Year A is warmer (cooler) than year B. Decade B was warmer than decade. But the global warming that seems to bring forth hysteria is happening only as part of a cycle. Some years the planet is warmer than in some other years. Right now, the planet is in a cooling cycle.

So-called global warming is being blamed on greenhouse gases, primarily on human produced carbon dioxide, which is supposed to reflect the earth's heat and sooner of later is going to turn us all into cinders. The curious thing about this is that the earth has held higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide and it hasn't melted yet. In fact some of those periods were cool periods.

There are many atmospheric gases and the most common is water (vapor) which you see in clouds almost daily. Without those rain clouds our planet would indeed be in sad shape. We need the rainfall.

Curiously — and many seem to forget this — carbon dioxide, a common gas — is on the things than keep the planet going. We and all other breathing creature exhale carbon dioxide at every breath. All things dying exude carbon dioxide. And, leaving out the sky above us that does indeed hold carbon dioxide, the oceans are the largest reservoirs of that oh-so-common gas. We cannot survive without. High amounts of carbon dioxide ensure good crops, even bumper crops, and while plants are using carbon dioxide grow and mature, they are exuding oxygen.

It's kind of a cycle: a life cycle.

When the earth gets much colder than it is now, which could happen quite soon, there will be fewer plants growing, maturing, dying, and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and taking it in and converting it back into oxygen and carbon. It is likely that there will be less land available — on a world scale — for growing crops.

It is a pity that we — human beings — are so gullible as to preach that the great god global warming, being fed human-caused carbon dioxide, is going to turn us all into cinders.

Frankly I think we should just ignore that myth, but get ready for what will happen.

It's going to get cold.

See: iceagenow.com
co2science.org
icecap.us

November and the non negotiables

It's September and as an old song suggests, the days "dwindle down" as the main event of the last four years draws closer and closer to its November decision.

Curiously, although the complete herd of candidates offers lots of comments, there really don't seem to be any issues that voters can — if you can say such a thing — get there their teeth into.

There is a topic, however, mentioned quietly, and attacked quietly. Everyone seems to ignore or forget its importance. Stay tuned.

The big topic, forced onto us mostly by the media and accepted by the candidates, is the economy, often treated as though it were someone's female relation hiding out somewhere and about to be ravished. The economy is not something that can be controlled by the governing body in this or any other country, although it has been tried in many.

The economy of state or nation or any other entity is controlled by other things that the government has no business tampering with, except, perhaps, enforcing laws against theft or swindling (a kind of theft) or related crimes.

An elected government, regardless at what level in this country, is supported by and is expected to protect its electorate, which is what funds the government through taxes. Despite the antics in Washington (or elsewhere), the money does not belong to the congress, nor to the president, nor even to the secretary of the treasury. It belongs to the people who provided it and should used for those people.

Because he is the head man, the president is often held responsible for everything bad that happens and very little of the good. This would seem even to include natural disasters. This country was founded on the idea of liberty. The idea remains, but personal liberty always has a price. The Europeans to settled what is now the United States knew this and many of them paid a heavy price. Americans have continued to pay the price.

But liberty has changed. Liberty is, to a certain extent at least, the right to do whatever you want, even if it is stupid. When that happens — a financial debacle, say — suddenly the liberty-loving groups who foolishly lost their money, want the government to fix it. I throw my money away and expect you to pay.

Of course this issue is negotiable, and will be the subject of chatter through the rest of the campaigns.

This is a large part of the current economic problem, the "economy" our candidates are talking about.

But some issues, if they surface, at not negotiable.

What they are not talking about are the life issues, in particular the abortion issue, although there are four more, including one almost as active at the abortion issue: euthanasia.

If the Republican candidates want strike is an issue the other party cannot fight except with whines and complaints, those issues, especially the two listed, are good ones to use. Some voters, because of their faith, may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. The issue is considered non negotiable.

Quite a number of people seem to feel that way. Yet it has not become an issue so far in this campaign except for Sarah Palin who is castigated for not aborting her youngest child and for not forcing her pregnant — and planning to marry — daughter to have an abortion.

Interesting. No?

Probably no one noticed I was gone

I have ignored my blog for most of the summer, having got myself embroiled in the process of book publishing, a slow, tiresome, mistake-ridden and aggravating task, worsened by the fact that, although I have been both a small magazine and a daily newspaper editor, I have never before been burdened with the task of formatting for the print process.

Wow! I ought to go back and count the words in that paragraph, but will not because it is too intimidating.

I initially started this blog with the intentions stated at the top of the page ("Not much news, but plenty of opinions. Controversial? Sure. Sometimes a little nostalgic? Sure. Sometimes a little silly? You bet.") and planned to update it at least several times a week. Now that I may have go the hang of formatting (is that possible?) I plan to attempt to continue or perhaps resume the plan and also to use the site for comment and occasionally to promote my literary efforts.

Apocalypse sometime

In 1957 Nevil Shute wrote, or more properly published a book titled "On the Beach," a sort of post-apocalyptic novel set mostly in Australia: The world was ending — at least all animal life was ending — because of a nuclear conflict which left the Earth ravaged by radioactive fallout.

Pat Frank, who earlier had addressed nuclear war effects ("Mr. Adam,"1946) and averted nuclear war ("Forbidden Area," 1956) in 1959 addressed actual nuclear war and its effects in "Alas Babylon," a novel which remains popular and in print almost 50 years later. In a manner of speaking, "Alas Babylon," is a sort of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic novel, in which Russia, much of Europe and much of the United States have been largely depopulated and ruined industrially and agriculturally by the effects of nuclear war.

Robert A. Heinlein earlier had written a longish short story titled "The Year of the Jackpot," which also dealt with the end of the Earth, perhaps more realistically, because after violent storms, earthquakes and an invasion of the United States, the planet is put out of its misery when the Sun — our sun — explodes.

"On the Beach" and "Alas Babylon" deal with what at the times they were written seemed a fairly realistic human-caused end of civilization, as we knew it.

Heinlein, a science fiction master, realistically dealt with a situation which at sometime — some billions of years hence — will in fact put and end to the planet.

Nuclear war and its effects as described in the stories, like the modern end-of-world terror, global warming, was the result of the arrogance of human beings. For a brief time, because of the almost automatic retaliation, the aggressive arrogance needed to start a war was quelled.

Now, because of the arrogance of modern people, who can't seem to even step out to the public library where they can learn the Earth, which orbits the Sun, is in its orbit because of the Sun's pull. It survives as a viable planet because of its position relative to the Sun appears to be ideal for all the sorts of life that occupy the Earth.

Now we are told by the green screamers that carbon dioxide, a gas that along with oxygen and nitrogen makes life possible on this planet, is going to destroy us all because it is causing the planet to heat up and will eventually fry us all.

The fact (fact!) is that what mild global warming that was taking place stopped 10 years ago seems to mean nothing.

So now, we're told, we can only save the planet with something called biofuels, more specifically ethanol, which can be mixed with gasoline to make a "cleaner" fuel. Of course in order to do that, grain — primarily corn — production must be directed toward automotive food supply rather than human food supply. For us to continue eat grain products, it will be necessary to create more croplands, thereby destroying the wilder or more natural lands the screamers for ethanol say we must preserve. Those lands, in addition to croplands, all absorb great quantities of what is essentially a benign and useful gas, carbon dioxide, which makes plants grow.

The screamers seem to forget — perhaps don't know — that this multi-billion-year-old planet, daughter of the Sun and with its help has been warming and chilling for most of those billions of years. Colder periods, like the Earth's very first colder period when the icecaps were initially formed, are preceded by warm periods. Or, I suppose, you could say it the other way. But cold periods the geologic (and some fossil) records tell us, last far longer than any warm periods.

Neither warmer periods nor colder periods appear, by the fossil record, to be greatly influenced carbon dioxide.

But of course the Sun influences everything on this planet. Sunspots appeared to have a greater influence during warming periods, but guess what? There are no sunspots nor have there been any since a brief spot was noted Jan. 4 and started the new cycle.

So what's that mean? It means the Sun is entering what they call a solar minimum cycle: A cooler period, perhaps much cooler.

Maybe we should stop worrying about carbon dioxide from cars and worry about growing food for people and animals.

If the Earth gets on a few degrees cooler we'll probably need it. You do need more in colder climates, like that very likely coming.


A few links:
http://www.iceagenow.com/
http://www.co2science.org/
http://www.spaceweather.com/

Decoration Day

Memorial Day or Decoration Day as it was often  called some years ago, is a holiday, which like so many others, I think, has been spoiled by moving it to the last Monday in May, so that observers — celebrants — if there are such, can have a whole weekend for the celebration, which then becomes something along the lines of Labor Day:  Baseball, hot dogs and apple pie.

Memorial Day originated probably as Decoration Day when, in the south, people went out the graves of the Civil War fallen and decorated them, mostly one suspects, with flowers.  The observance fairly quickly moved north and eventually became a more-or-less national observance on May 30,  After World War I the observance was expanded to commemorate all of the veteran dead, which is more or less where it is today.

None of this is to suggest that there should be no celebrations on Memorial Day or games, no travel, no weekend fishing, just that moving days to make an observance — any observance — into nothing more important that just one more long weekend is somewhat degrading to remembrance and maybe to the people involved, which is what has happened.  

Of course some of us still go out and place flags and perhaps flowers at the graves U.S. servicemen and former U.S. servicemen, but making it into another long weekend spoils the focus.  This is not to suggest that we should run around with long faces and spend the day praying at graveside, or go around hugging veterans, who would probably be embarrassed.  But the focus should be at least to some extent on the men and women, who over the years have preserved this nation through the sacrifice of their lives, their limbs of even just years of their youth.

It wasn't — or doesn't seem — too many years ago when many or perhaps most men in this country were military veterans.  This no longer is the case and even though men are still required to register for the draft, no one gets drafted.  Our military services are now made up of volunteers,

Our veterans from Vietnam, many of whom were draftees who really didn't want to go to war, received no welcome when they came home;  in fact they were often vilified, especially by young (college) people.  They were the targets for all kinds of insults and even attacks.  To a lesser extent this also had applied to returning Korean War vets and no one wonders how long it will be until the young elitists begin — if they haven't already — calling troops in the Mideast "baby killers" and worse.

Without trying to justify Vietnam for example it should be noted that when, under political pressure, our troops were withdrawn from Vietnam, and almost immediate bloodbath followed.

So, anyway, why should we care about veterans, especially those didn't go to Korea or Vietnam or Iraq or any of a dozen other places.

Well, the men and women serving in the armed forces from about 1946 to about 1990, whether at home or overseas, are almost certainly the reason the world has so far escaped nuclear war.  I'm think here especially of SAC (Strategic Air Command) aircrews waiting on the flight lines for orders to go; and the Navy with its battle groups constantly on patrol around the world.  Then there were Marine Corps and Army men and women, any or all of whom could have been sent off to some distant and probably very dangerous place on very short notice.

These are the forgotten troops, the peacekeepers who kept the peace just by being available, but they were the reason that even though there were abundant nuclear weapons available, not one was used.  Ronald Reagan's MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was nothing new; it simply sort of codified what came before.

I'm really rattling on here, but the point is that willing or unwilling members of the large veteran population in the United States are — or were — the reason that the people who complain about our "vicious" troops somewhere in the world are still free to do so.

Memorial Day, even though it has been reduced to nothing more than a long weekend, should still be a time to remember why we still have a free nation.

Politrickle issues

I feel like I need to write about political stuff, but with the onset of very annoying cold or something I don't really feel much like thinking and sorting. Sorting? You know, sorting lies.
If you're not up to dealing with lies or evasions or something resembling double talk, it is probably impossible to deal with politics.

Politics seem to be all about what are called "issues."

Sounds important, but what are issues?

I'm not sure. However, I am pretty certain that "issues," as defined in politricks — oops, that's misspelled. It should be politics. Or should it? Politricks? Maybe that should be the buzzword. "Politricks" is all about issues. Or maybe one just grows out of the other.
But issues are not real things. Issues, most of them, are created, often from some existing activity, but some, seemingly out of the air. They're made up.

The party or group with the most politricks (issues) gets the jump on the others.
Look at the last Congressional election, it and the presidential election preceding it. George Bush was returned to the White House, but how? Having won the office in the preceding general election the Republicans seemed to feel they were fat cats. Fat cats don't do much but sit around, look good and eat.

The party really didn't set much up. Both Bush presidential elections were close, but then the party controlled the Congress. Not by much. Then it came time to try and reelect the president (or get a new on).

The party really didn't set an agenda and almost lost the office because the other side figured a way to bring up some issues. They weren't especially good, but the race was very close and, although the Republicans retained control of the Congress, but only until the next congressional election.

The Republican Party once again had no agenda. They had won the preceding (Bush) election and were home free. Or were they. They probably won that that round on an issue they didn't consider terribly important and currently are completely discounting, probably to the delight of both Democratic candidates. The big difference between Bush and his opponent was the "life issues."

These include, but are not limited to abortion, euthanasia and fetal stem cell research. For Catholics, for example, the "life issues" are not negotiable. They are not supposed to vote for a candidate who supports things like abortion. If you could get all the Catholic voters in the country to support one candidate, that candidate could probably be elected. And there also are the evangelical Christians, most of whom have the same attitude toward the life issues. Between the groups there are a lot of votes. Yet no one has called out for them. It's surprising, too, because the next president will almost certainly have the opportunity of picking a new Supreme Court justice.

I think the biggest "politrick" right now is the climate thing.
Global warming? Global cooling?

Anyone who can read this has access to a lot of information on the web and incidentally there is some weather stuff not put there by Al Gore.

This old (literally) planet has been around for more than four billion years, which I think that most of us would consider is a long time. During that period, the Earth, which was probably pretty warm until it got an atmosphere, cooled enough to allow life to exist on it. Sometimes we forget that we live in an ice age. If we didn't we wouldn't be here.

We have always had this idea that we should be in control of things. Now we're trying to control the climate, which is the absolute height of arrogance. This earth, which a rather exciting old man I knew years ago called a spinning ball of mug, is here because of the Sun, we continue to exist because of the Sun, which does far more than merely light the world and give those of us who are careless springtime sunburn cases.
The cry right now seems to be against carbon dioxide, which is interesting and becomes a truly great politrick: We can't live without carbon dioxide. Atmospheres enriched with carbon dioxide provide bigger and better crops. I've heard and read all sorts of things about minimizing carbon dioxide. We're trying to convert motor vehicles to ethanol. But burned ethanol emits carbon dioxide, too. And production requires a lot of grain. Which should primarily be a food source.

You may have noticed that everything getting more expensive. Food prices have really starting soaring lately, partly because the raw materials for food have become more expensive. There is a practically worldwide shortage, now, of grains.

All because someone has played the ultimate politrick and convinced thinking people who should know better that gasoline and diesel engines are turning the earth into a cinder.
Actually Earth temperatures have not risen in ten years.

About this blog

I'm new to blogging, so, despite the personal description above, I'd like to make some comments about this blog and some lesser comments about the writer.
For a number of years I wrote columns for daily newspapers in different areas of the western United States, and for one three-days-a-week paper for a few years. Mostly the papers were metropolitan dailies of various sizes.
So anyone can assume that I have opinions, sometimes pretty strong opinions. Right now — this instant as I am hammering at my Mac — the opinions are focused on about what everyone else is focused on or should be:
The political races; the war called variously the "War Against Terror" or the "War in Iraq" or maybe just the war; the terror(!) generated by the weather terrorists (if you come back to this you'll probably get several doses of my opinions in that regard); and many other things, some related, some not. Oh, and I forgot (wow, a lie already!), I will probably push my writing a little. As noted above somewhere, I write novels and will no doubt introduced readers to them with the suggestion of course that they purchase and read them.
Some special interests that appear in my novels: Travel in the West, geology and paleoanthropology, history, especially American history, literature in general, maybe even some religious stuff. Other interests, not necessarily appearing in other current writings might include sometimes motion pictures (generally "oldies"), the evil beings that inhabit computers when you are tying to use them, maybe even some humor. Coming from me, who is sometimes regarded (politely) as an "old sober sides," that might be funny indeed.
Some current bugaboos are the climate controversy and of course the election campaigns. Perhaps because I am veteran (no questions, please) the war, which may not address, remains, always, a major concern.