Not A Laughing Matter

Or should I say NALM?

A couple of days ago, Rush Limbaugh made reference to an article at U.K Telegraph which stated that, according to a survey, in the United States seventy percent of people between the ages of 16 and 24 had never heard of Mao Tse-tung and 40% of them had never heard of Joseph Stalin.

Perhaps that's why I received so little response to a MAO - LMAO meme I had posted on Facebook or the jpeg of Hillary Clinton dressed like the Chairman. I guess nobody understood the reference.

I'm reasonably sure that even though these young people might not know of Mao Tse-tung and all the horrendous things he did to the Chinese people, they should recognize Bernie and AOC.

A Few Thoughts on Bernie's Green New Deal

U.S. Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders recently released his plan for fighting climate change, which he - like A.O.C.,  is calling The Green New Deal. The plan can be found on the candidate's website.

I'm not going to argue whether anthropogenic global warming is real or a hoax. For the sake of this post, I'm going to assume that the climate of our planet is changing for the worse, and mankind is the chief culprit. I want simply to look at Sanders plan and see if it is at all feasible and if he is capable of achieving the goals he has put forth.

The plan is quite long. At over 13,000 words, the plan prints out to 20 pages. Addressing every point in the document for this blog post would be almost as difficult as Bernie Sanders getting his plan accomplished. I will only address a few points.

Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization by 2050 at latest :

Wikipedia defines renewable energy as energy that is collected from renewable resources, which are naturally replenished on a human timescale, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. I'm not quite sure how electricity can be produced using rain, tides and waves.

As one article from spectrum.ieee.org explains -To Get Wind Power You Need Oil 

"Wind turbines are the most visible symbols of the quest for renewable electricity generation. And yet, although they exploit the wind, which is as free and as green as energy can be, the machines themselves are pure embodiments of fossil fuels."

Solar powered electricity looks inviting to many, but along with the advantages, there are disadvantages: 

"Transportation and installation of solar systems have been associated with the emission of greenhouse gases. There are also some toxic materials and hazardous products used during the manufacturing process of solar photovoltaic systems, which can indirectly affect the environment."

There are several upsides to using geo-thermal compared to fossil fuels, but geo-thermal sources aren't available everywhere where electricity is needed. As someone who lives on an island where geo-thermal is the primary source of electricity, I can say the price of electricity isn't cheap.

Ending unemployment by creating 20 million jobs needed to solve the climate crisis:

Not quite sure how this number was attained. Does it factor in the number of jobs that will be eliminated by killing the fossil fuel industry?

Directly invest an historic $16.3 trillion public investment toward these efforts:

Not sure where this $16,300,000,000,000 will come from.

A just transition for workers:

"This plan will prioritize the fossil fuel workers who have powered our economy for more than a century and who have too often been neglected by corporations and politicians. We will guarantee five years of a worker’s current salary, housing assistance, job training, health care, pension support, and priority job placement for any displaced worker, as well as early retirement support for those who choose it or can no longer work."

I suspect this will work as well as Joseph Stalin's Five Year Plans.

As president, Bernie will: Fully electrify and decarbonize our transportation sector.

  Does he really believe he can replace every diesel and internal combustion powered vehicle with ones powered by electricity? Even allowing for his plan to provide grants and trade-in programs for people to obtain electrical vehicles, nothing short of outlawing gas powered automobiles, as well as gasoline itself, will prevent people who want conventional cars from buying one.

Progressives, such as the writer of an article at belatina.com support the idea that - ".......if elected as President, Sanders would immediately forgo Congressional approval and declare a national emergency using his executive powers from the White House, a move that would allow his administration to act quickly in implementing sweeping changes to our energy system."

Those on the Left are completely aware that Sanders must employ dictatorial powers and probably martial law to fully implement his Green New Deal. Without such powers, Sanders will find his plan even more difficult to pass than Trump's plan to build a wall.

Paul Simon Can't Save this Election

I'm hardly the first person to compare the 2016 election for POTUS to the 1968 slugfest. Racial tensions, violent demonstrations through out the country and, not one, but two Nixonian candidates. The Baby Boomers, who were coming of age politically in 1968, and who haven't elected one of their own since 2004, appear to be on the receiving end of political Karma this election cycle.

With the election of Barack Obama, many believed that George W. Bush and Bill Clinton would be the last Baby Boomers to serve as POTUS. Sadly, with Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the race, it looks like the boomers will get at least one more shot.

We here in Philippines are 12 hours ahead of the Eastern Time zone in the U.S.. This morning, I had plans to watch a live, Major League Baseball game on television. When my only option for that turned out to be the Kansas City Royals versus the Los Angeles Angels, I decided to  waste  spend my time instead watching some of the Democrat convention coverage.

Changing the TV, I was just in time to see my least favorite politician - Al Franken - and my 2nd least favorite comedian (after Al Franken), Sarah Silverman try to convince Bernie Sanders supporters to fall in line behind Hillary.

I actually stuck around to see if Silverman would get booed for her betrayal to the Bern man.

Before leaving the stage, Silverman and Franken introduced singer/songwriter Paul Simon, who sang "A Bridge Over Troubled Water" in what some might call an attempt to bring about unity within the Democrat Party.

In 1968, I was a huge fan of Paul Simon and his partner, Art Garfunkel. In 1968, a political endorsement from Paul Simon would have impressed me and could have actually swayed my decision (had I been able to vote in 1968). Today, Paul Simon could never convince me to vote for anyone, not even for old time's sake.

Naturally, RollingStone.com and Breitbart.com have contrary views on Simon's performance. RollingStone said Simon's singing was "spirited" while Breitbart said a "Hoarse Paul Simon Croaks Out 'Bridge Over Troubled Water.' ". As much as I hate writing this, I have to agree with Breitbart.

Simon's singing was pitiful. Simon was never a strong singer, but it was always pleasant enough. Not now. I was embarrassed for the soon to be 75 year old. I was also embarrassed for the hand holding, side to side swaying Democrats in attendance.

Can the up and coming, young Bernie Sanders Democrats relate to Paul Simon? In 1968, Frank Sinatra was twenty years younger that Paul Simon is today. I can't imagine anyone in 1968 expecting to win over young voters with Frank Sinatra.

I really don't enjoy knocking Paul Simon. He was, at one time, one of my musical heroes. I wish, however, he would stay away from political endorsements and for the sake of our memories, retire from singing.

The Most Insane Comment Ever Made On The Internet

While reading an opinion piece at medium.com recently - Why I’m Not Voting for Jill Stein — No, this isn’t About Clinton or Trump - I came upon what could be the most insane comment ever made on the Internet.

The writer of the piece, Mark Haim is described as "an activist working for peace, social justice, sustainability and climate sanity" and although he is a former Bernie Sanders supporter who finds Jill Stein (the Green Party of the United States candidate) the candidate with "more integrity than any of the other presidential candidates who’ll be on the ballot in November", he is not the individual making that most insane comment. That dubious honor belongs to a woman leaving a comment following Haim's piece.

As a matter of fact, in spite of his being an avowed Progressive with "bona fides in terms of Green Party activism" most of Haim's opinion piece is surprisingly reasonable. His basic premise is that, because of the inherent flaws in the U.S. electoral system brought about by Democrat and Republican shenanigans, no third party candidate can ever win the U.S. Presidential election.

Although he is writing mostly about the Green Party (GPUS) his points are equally valid for the Libertarian Party.

He writes, "The success of the Greens, the Libertarians or any other 'third party' tends to be self-limiting as the more successful such a party is, the less likely those who voted for their candidate will be pleased with the outcome."

He goes on to write, "The Green Party needs to build itself from the grassroots base up, not from the top down. One of the Ten Key Values the Greens articulate is 'Decentralization'. They really need to apply this to their own organizing model".

The Libertarian Party wants a decentralized government as well. The rubber galoshes still fit.

No, the winner of the most insane comment ever made on the Internet goes to someone other than Haim. A woman left this comment in response to Haim -

"I’m sorry, but we hear the same 'don’t split the vote' every four years. My vote, is my vote. I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. The Democratic Party has moved so far to the right that I no longer recognize them as being 'democratic' in any respect and they have therefore, lost my respect! The Dem Primaries were a SHAM! Am I angry? YES, but I am voting logically for a candidate who stands for MY VALUES as a Progressive! If Bernie is is not the Nomimee,[sic] I’ll vote for Jill Stein. I’m sick of voting for a PARTY! "

I can sympathize with her on her frustration over hearing the the same 'don’t split the vote' every four years and, like her, my vote, is my vote and I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils, but where she loses me, and wins the award is with her next sentence - "The Democratic Party has moved so far to the right that I no longer recognize them as being 'democratic' in any respect and they have therefore, lost my respect!"

Believing that the Democratic Party has moved to the right has to be the ultimate in insanity. If you believe the Democratic Party is Right Wing, then I have to wonder what the color of the sky is on your home planet. Does it match your green skin?

Naturally, I had to post a screen shot of the woman's comment below.

Bernie Sanders at the Vatican

It is not without a bit of irony that Democratic Socialist, Bernie Sanders was the only U.S. Presidential candidate invited to speak at a conference at the Vatican,hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences to mark the 25th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Centesimus Annus.

Sanders' "reflection" can be found on his website.

Having read Sanders' speech, I have to say that there is little, if anything, that I can disagree with Sanders on in his speech. There are areas where his worldview actually aligns (in a limited way) with Catholic teaching.

Sanders says:

"In the year 2016, the top one percent of the people on this planet own more wealth than the bottom 99 percent, while the wealthiest 60 people – 60 people – own more than the bottom half – 3 1/2 billion people. At a time when so few have so much, and so many have so little, we must reject the foundations of this contemporary economy as immoral and unsustainable."

Sanders misses the mark in many areas, however. The encyclical, which the conference was commemorating, was itself, a commemoration of Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum. In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII praises private property and condemns Socialism.

There may be ideas in Centesimus Annus which are appealing to Bernie Sanders, but he ignores one in particular:

"Now, as then, we need to repeat that there can be no genuine solution of the 'social question' apart from the Gospel, and that the 'new things' can find in the Gospel the context for their correct understanding and the proper moral perspective for judgment on them."

I don't have the answer as to how we eliminate poverty and income inequality. I'm sure it can't be achieved without some governmental intervention. The question is how much governmental intervention is necessary and at what point does governmental intervention make the situation worse?

I'm certainly willing to give Sanders' economic ideas a look-see, but I could never support him outright due his views on abortion and same sex so-called "marriage".

The Press Misunderstands Pope Francis. What Else is New?

Recently, Bernie Sanders announced that he had received an invitation to speak at a small, invitation-only scholarly conference at the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.
Of course, that's not exactly right. Sanders has led us to believe that he would be speaking to Pope Francis. He was neither invited by the Pope, nor will the Pope be attending the conference. It is highly unlikely that the two will even be in the same room together - much less have a conversation.

Now, we have a number of opinion writers telling us just how much Mr Sanders and Pope Francis have in common.

Kathleen Parker believes the two might share a similar worldview, and Brent Budowsky maintains that Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis Stand Together on quite a few things.

First, let me state the obvious.Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis are worlds apart on the issues of abortion and same sex so-called "marriage". There's no point in even going there.

Folks like Parker and Budowsky want to put the two together because both speak out on matters of economic equality, social justice, combating poverty and human rights. Earth to Parker and Budowsky: Sanders and the Pope may agree on the problems, but not the solutions.

Socialism is not the only system fighting inequality and poverty.

According to an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia Socialism is defined as -

"A system of social and economic organization that would substitute state monopoly for private ownership of the sources of production and means of distribution, and would concentrate under the control of the secular governing authority the chief activities of human life. 

The term is often used vaguely to indicate any increase of collective control over individual action, or even any revolt of the dispossessed against the rule of the possessing classes. But these are undue extensions of the term, leading to much confusion of thought. State control and even state ownership are not necessarily Socialism: they become so only when they result in or tend towards the prohibition of private ownership not only of "natural monopolies", but also of all the sources of wealth. Nor is mere revolt against economic inequality Socialism: it may be Anarchism (see ANARCHY); it may be mere Utopianism (see COMMUNISM); it may be a just resistance to oppression. Nor is it merely a proposal to make such economic changes in the social structure as would banish poverty. Socialism is this (see COLLECTIVISM) and much more. 

It is also a philosophy of social life and action, regarding all human activities from a definite economic standpoint. Moreover modern Socialism is not a mere arbitrary exercise at state-building, but a deliberate attempt to relieve, on explicit principles, the existing social conditions, which are regarded as intolerable. 

The great inequalities of human life and opportunity, produced by the excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of a comparatively small section of the community, have been the cause and still are the stimulus of what is called the Socialistic movement. But, in order to understand fully what Socialism is and what it implies, it is necessary first to glance at the history of the movement, then to examine its philosophical and religious tendencies, and finally to consider how far these may be, and actually have proved to be, incompatible with Christian thought and life."


True Socialism calls for the abolition of private property, and is in opposition to the teachings of the Church.

Every Pope since Pius IX has written and spoken out against the evils of Socialism.

Sanders isn't a religious Holy Man because he is against oppression, poverty and inequality. We are all against those things. It's the methods and solutions Sanders presents that are questionable. More government control is not the answer and I don't believe I've heard Pope Francis call for that.

Sanders wins Democrats Abroad Primary

On March 06, I learned, via Facebook, of the Democrats Abroad’s Global Presidential Primary . Rather than vote in the Primary, I left a comment on the Facebook page - "Vote Democrat?!?! You SOBs are why I left the country!!" - to which I received 6 likes.

Today I read on the Al Jazeera website, that Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in the Democrats Abroad global primary contest - 69% versus 31% - giving Sanders 9 delegates. Clinton received 4.

According to results listed on the democratsabroad.org website, 139 Democrat ex-pats in Philippines voted in the primary, giving Sanders 79 votes to Clinton's 59. You can be certain of one thing......there are many, many more ex-pats in Philippines than the 139 who voted. I don't know the exact figure, but 139 is a drop in the bucket.

From my experience in the U.S., it appears to me that American men with Filipina wifes tend to be, more often than not, politically Conservative. Of course, that being said, the American/Filipina couples I know are living in the Southern United States which tends to vote Republican. That's anecdotal evidence, but I feel reasonably confident that the majority of American/Filipina couples in the remaining areas of the U.S. would yield similar results.

As an aside to a friend currently living in the United Arab Emirates, there appears to be more active Democrat voters in UAE compared to Philippines. The website shows 880 Democrat voters with 541 of those going to Bernie. I'll leave it to him to explain that.

Dems Extinguish the Bern with Preparation H.

Dems Extinguish the Bern with Preparation H.

Trump Gives Sanders Supporters Major Butt-Bern.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm no fan of Donald Trump - I do not support his attempt to become POTUS, but when I see a foul ball, I have to call foul.

Moveon.Org is raising funds from Trump protests, and warns more disruptions to come. Certainly, just as Trump has the Right in the U.S. to speak his political views, the folks in Moveon.Org have the Right to protest his rallies. However, many on the Left and the Right want to blame Trump for inciting the violence. Bernie Sanders believes that Trump is provoking these violent protesters. He holds Trump responsible for his followers. Shouldn't then, Sanders be held responsible for the action of Bernie supporters?

With the continued disruption of Trump rallies by Leftists, it is simply a matter of time before some Trump supporters return tit for tat. How long before the violence spills over onto the Clinton and/or Sanders gatherings? I have no political crystal ball, but I think our witnessing such violence by the first political convention this summer is not an unreasonable prediction.

Al Jazeera - "Women should support Sanders not Clinton".

At aljazeera.com, Catherine Rottenberg says, women should support Sanders not Clinton.

Bernie versus The Donald

Looking at the U.S. from the outside, I can see a real and distinct possibility - if not downright probability - that when the dust finally settles after the Presidential primary elections, the two candidates chosen to run for the job of POTUS, will be Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

The American people are unhinged and angry enough to select these two impractical and irrational candidates as the Democrat and Republican combatants.

Both Sanders and Trump. in their own way, will be a continuation of the Obama legacy. Trump, as the ultimate, narcissistic empty suit candidate , and Sanders as the Santa Clausian provider of everything we desire.

The only difference between the two is that Trump appeals to the Right-Wing Lunatic Fringe, while Sanders appeals to the equally insane Left-Wing Kooks.

The Democrat voters seem to be falling head over heels for their only major candidate not headed for Federal penitentiary. The Republicans want to tar and feather those that they perceive as "Establishment".

After years of political divisiveness, the country is as conflicted as it can possibly become. Just how the U.S. will continue to survive the 21st Century is beyond me.

On the bright side - if one can call it that - neither President Trump nor President Sanders will be able to accomplish the changes each one wants to bring about. Nothing productive will come about and the country will continue to be divided.