Views from the Vatican

Views from the Vatican——————————————

A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                In his recent encyclical letter “Laudato Si’” (Be praised), Pope Francis offers his views on man’s stewardship of the Earth, our common home, and all its creatures as well as our performance regarding the care of the poor. We get failing marks in all areas. We have despoiled the planet, plundered its resources and put profit ahead of providing for the poor or considering the needs of future generations. These teachings are contained in six lengthy chapters consisting of 245 paragraphs of eloquent but often hard to follow and somewhat redundant prose that would benefit from a concise summary of salient recommendations.

His Holiness is right, of course. We have made something of a mess out the planet through pollution, strip mining, overplanting, overfishing and excessive use of fossil fuels. We’ve wasted its resources largely as a consequence of our throwaway society and overindulgences. And we haven’t eliminated poverty, even in affluent countries like the United States, although, God knows, we’ve tried. Not hard enough, says the Pope.  But how can we ever completely eliminate poverty when there are so many poor people? Even Jesus said we will always have the poor with us. Still, I suppose, we will just have to try harder. The question is, how. What works? People of good will can and do differ on what economic model can best accomplish this.

The Holy Father says that everyone deserves a job and we need to protect employment. “It is essential,” he says, “that we continue to prioritize the goal of access to employment no matter the limited interests of business and dubious economic reasoning.” Profit cannot be the sole criterion, he continues.  Laying off workers and replacing them with machines is “another way that we end up working against ourselves”. This is a tough sell in a capitalist economy like the United States. Without profit, there would be no permanent jobs except, of course, government jobs.

Regarding the rights of property owners, Pope Francis writes, “The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable and has stressed the social purpose of all private property.” There is a social mortgage on all private property and (it) should not benefit just a few,” he continues. This sounds a bit like Socialism, doesn’t it?

“A true ecological debt exists between the global north and south,” Francis, a product of the global south, educated in Argentina, writes. “The export of raw materials from the global south to the industrialized north has caused harm locally” (to countries in the southern hemisphere). He notes that the businesses “that operate in this way” are multinationals. Developed countries ought to help pay this debt by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy. One might ask how this would help the poor in those countries. The Pope apparently has joined the chorus of those blaming the consumption of fossil fuels for much of the world’s ecological ills and feels that we must hasten the shift to renewable sources of energy whether or not they are cost effective or reliable enough to completely replace carbon-based fuels. But what about the millions of poor people in undeveloped and developing countries that continue to rely on coal or oil-fired generation plants for electricity, without which their standard of living would decline dramatically?

“Young people demand change,” the Pope warns. “They wonder how anyone can claim to be building a better future without thinking of the environmental crisis and the sufferings of the excluded.” But using borrowed money to provide for government programs intended to benefit the poor but which don’t reduce poverty and, in fact, increase dependency on the government, does little to benefit future generations and instead saddles them with a huge national debt they may never be able to repay. Is it morally responsible for governments to do this?

Young people are indeed demanding change. Ask them, for example, what they think of the church’s policy forbidding artificial means of contraception which, according to polls, is widely ignored by its members. If the earth’s resources are finite, and if we are to be responsible stewards of those resources, shouldn’t we be concerned about over-population?

In blaming mankind for despoiling the planet, shouldn’t the Pope be more selective in apportioning blame? Western nations have greatly reduced their carbon footprint but the same cannot be said for China and most developing nations. Also, the Pope appears at times hostile to capitalism. Perhaps he should look more closely at the records of capitalistic economies like the United States and compare their degree of success at alleviating poverty, creating jobs and opportunity and improving living standards with the dismal records of socialist economies.

June 28, 2015

Sorting Out the GOP Contestants

Sorting Out the GOP Contestants—————————-
A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr.
It’s awfully early for the presidential election campaign to start but it has so we’ll just have to muddle through seventeen months of it, I guess. A standard-length op-ed hardly provides enough space to list the candidates, much less discuss their merits or lack thereof, but let’s try. We won’t bother with the Democrats because we all know how that is going to work out.
The GOP contest will be a horse race. One of the horses will, hopefully, make it across the finish line without being too badly damaged by a contentious, prolonged campaign. It will be his duty then to run against Mrs. Clinton. Hopefully, the voters won’t be too turned off by then to vote.
Presidential elections draw more voters than other elections because candidates for president and vice-president are the only candidates that every voter can vote for, so voter turnout includes those who wouldn’t care enough to vote in other elections. Unfortunately, many of them choose based on superficial attributes like appearance, youth, charisma and sometimes, unfortunately, race and gender. Youth and good looks often trump age, wisdom and experience, but not always. For example, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Socialist, seems particularly popular among youthful voters who they say are drawn to his grandfatherly image. If that constitutes a qualification for the most powerful office in the world, perhaps I should run.
Donald Trump has entered the race which should provide some comic relief. Mr. Trump’s primary qualifications are his billions in assets and his talent as an entertainer. He also knows how to say “You’re fired”, which could be put to good use in Washington. Much of his wealth will be wasted in an entertaining but futile campaign. Think of all the productive ways that money could be spent.
The president is the chief executive of the world’s most powerful nation and largest economy. It is not a job for amateurs as we have hopefully learned during the past six and one-half years. Executive experience such as that gained as governor of a state is desirable. Members of Congress are not executives and run nothing except committees or sub-committees. Their committee assignments, however, may provide useful background in international affairs, finance and defense issues. Not every president who formerly served as governor was an effective president, of course, as Jimmy Carter demonstrated. And some presidents who did not serve as governor did quite well as Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy demonstrated.

]
The GOP has several successful current or former governors who are in the running or will probably soon be. They include Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Jeb Bush of Florida, Rick Perry of Texas, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. Messrs. Bush and Perry, as governors of the fourth and second most populous states, presided over robust economies. Gov. Walker stood up to organized labor in largely Democratic Wisconsin. Jindal is very popular and extremely bright. They could be strong candidates. So could Ohio’s Gov. John Kasich. Mr. Huckabee had his chance and he also opposes the Pacific trade agreement. Gov. Christie seems too rough around the edges and there’s the bridge closure scandal that he should have known about. These last two should do the party a favor and bow out early.
Among the Senators seeking the nomination, Florida’s Marco Rubio has good foreign relations credentials, is intelligent and charismatic and will appeal to most Hispanic voters. Texas Senator Ted Cruz is a darling of the Tea Party and a rising star. Kentucky’s Rand Paul is a Libertarian who promises to downsize government, shrink the Pentagon, reduce foreign entanglements and push for a flat tax. I like all of that except shrinking the military which hasn’t much left to shrink. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina favors a more assertive foreign policy and a stronger military.
Among the long shots certain to be eliminated are Dr. Ben Carson, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carlie Fiorino and the former senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum. Carson, a physician and the only black candidate, is smart but lacks executive or political experience. Fiorino, the only female GOP candidate, has executive experience but, like Carson, lacks name recognition and she lost her recent Senate contest in California. Santorum also has had his chance at the nomination, lost a bid for re-election to te Senate and probably couldn’t even carry his own state. These three also should do the party a favor and get behind one of the candidates that has a reasonable chance.
The field needs to be narrowed before the debates, preferably to eight or less, to prevent the debates from turning into a circus. My choice for the elite eight at this point would be Bush, Walker, Rubio, Paul, Perry, Cruz, Jindal and Kasich if he’d run. Perhaps Trump could tell the others that they’re fired and then fire himself so we could get really serious and focus on those with a chance.

19 June 2015

National and Personal Security at Growing Risk

National and Personal Security at Growing Risk—————————–
A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Americans have been flooded in recent years with revelations of cyber attacks against banks, other businesses, government agencies and their own personal and financial data and the frequency rate of such incidents is growing. The latest publicized major episode was the raid on the U.S. government Office of Personnel Management by hackers, believed to be in China, who gained access to huge amounts of secret background investigation material on current, former and even prospective government employees. This is highly sensitive information that could be extremely useful to foreign governments, including those with hostile or malicious motives, in counter-intelligence operations. Additionally, the compromise of personal information, including social security numbers, could and probably will result in identity theft, financial loss, damage to credit and more.
The perpetrators of this massive hack attack are believed to be in China and probably include the Chinese military which reportedly has been engaged in this kind of activity for years. The People’s Republic denies it, of course, and feigns indignation over the allegations. U.S. government officials express outrage but outrage isn’t enough. Actual action is required because the threat of massive cyber attacks is growing with time and so are the potential consequences.
A well-coordinated, successful cyber attack on the electrical grid, for example, could cripple our country or any other country that largely runs on electricity. Transportation and communications systems could be paralyzed for days, perhaps weeks. Food, fuel and other essentials could not be distributed. Gas pumps and ATMs would not operate. Stores would quickly run out of food stocks. Panic and looting could ensue. Police might be largely immobilized. On a lighter note, environmental activists would finally realize a dream. People would have to actually walk or ride bicycles instead of driving those polluting vehicles. No more TV for a while, at least. We could get back to basics. But I digress.
Damaging cyber attacks are not just a remote possibility but an existential threat so what are we doing about it? I wish I knew the answer. That has to come from the government. But so far, we are hearing little else but expressions of outrage and assurances that the damage from the latest hack is being assessed and possible responses are being weighed. What might these be? We’ve known about this threat for years and have experienced damaging attacks but what are we actually doing to prevent or mitigate future attacks? Americans deserve answers.
Many if not most nations including the U. S. engage in intelligence gathering activities. These include hacking into computer-based systems and databases. China and Russia are the most aggressive players, being largely unhampered by the same ethical concerns as Western nations. Attempting to forge agreements with countries like China to constrain such activities is an exercise in futility. They will be no more successful than were attempts to get them to stop violating patent and copyright laws. They would either deny such activities or ignore any mutual agreements to desist. Most nations will do whatever is in their best interests regardless of agreements or diplomatic protocols. We cannot deal with this threat by diplomacy or protests, however strongly-worded.
In cyber warfare, the best strategy is to combine strong defensive measures with an even stronger offense. We certainly can make our systems and databases more difficult to hack but probably not completely impervious to attack. Some nerd somewhere will figure out a way. We need to have more and smarter nerds than a potential enemy does. Above all, we need to be taking this risk far more seriously than this lame duck administration seems to be. Meanwhile, think about stocking up on some non-perishable food supplies just in case. You might also stock enough to share with the many neighbors who won’t bother to.
With respect to personal security and the risk of identity theft, realize that there is a ready market for your personal information, including your social security numbers. Dozens of organizations, government agencies, businesses and medical offices have your social security number in their computer files and none of these are impervious to hacking. Ask them what measures they are taking to safeguard your information and don’t settle for vague assurances that they take your personal security seriously.
–
June 14, 2015

In Search of Balance and Good Taste in the Media

In Search of Balance and Good Taste in the Media—————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr

                As anyone who even occasionally reads my rants knows, I am of the conservative persuasion. I even wear neckties sometimes. I strive, however, to maintain at least the appearance of balance, so I read liberal publications and watch mainstream news broadcasts, mainly to find out what liberals are ranting about. Now and then, I even agree with them which I hope isn’t an early sign of senility. Usually I don’t, though, and my wife says I frequently mutter to myself or talk to the TV while watching the evening news.

I’m a news junkie and confess to the very bad habit of frequently watching the evening news on TV during dinner, something my wife would never tolerate while our children were living at home or while our granddaughter is visiting. Millennials have to stay connected to each other and I have to stay connected to the news. It’s just the way I am.

The NBC, CBS and ABC evening news broadcasts between 5:30 and 7:00pm coincide roughly with dinnertime at our house. These are prime broadcasting times and very young children are probably exposed to this programming, too. During a typical hour and a half of news programming, the TV audience is treated to dozens of commercial messages, mostly having to do with medical problems, personal hygiene or sex, dealing with such delicate topics as the annoyance of gas, bloating and diarrhea, the heartbreak of constipation and the embarrassment of incontinence. These are not pleasant topics at any time, especially at dinnertime, and may not be at all suitable for very young audiences.

These commercials are inevitably followed by dramatizations depicting the inconvenience of male ED or low testosterone, usually narrated by a sexy-looking female who advises male listeners and anyone else who might be listening that women would rather cuddle up with a man rather than a good book and he’d damn well better be ready. You just never know when. There follows then the commercial describing the agonies of post-menopausal sex, featuring a sequence of facial images of attractive women with pained expressions.

Many of these commercials are likely to generate questions from children who may be watching. Many are undoubtedly too young to have to know or care about such topics. Call me old-fashioned and prudish, but I can remember when such topics were not even mentioned in polite, mixed company or on prime-time TV, let alone discussed in detail during dinnertime. I guess you have to be really desperate for news to wade through this stuff in order to get to it.

On a recent evening, the lead story on all three of the major network evening newscasts was the Caitlyn Jenner sex transformation story, which, I concede, is of interest to some. (Am I the only one who really doesn’t care all that much about it?)The coverage continued at some length until, in desperation, I tuned in to the BBC channel to get some actual world news.

The local TV news programs have become a wasteland of largely bad local news covering the day’s murders, rapes, knifings, assaults, broken water mains or hydrants and traffic accidents with the occasional story of some fool who fell off a cliff he shouldn’t have been climbing or had to be rescued from surf he shouldn’t have been swimming in. This is followed by a lengthy sports summary and an even lengthier, extensively-detailed analysis of the weather presented by a comely woman enthusiastically explaining  weather charts comprehensible only to meteorologists, which usually forecast the weather somewhere else in the country but not ours, which is best predicted by calling someone in Los Angeles to see what it’s doing there. Most of the rest of the news broadcast is consumed by commercials or content-free small talk by the reporters, punctuated by much laughter. As for national or international news, forget about it. We’re out of time.folks.

San Diego is America’s eighth largest city. When it was much smaller, it boasted two independent daily newspapers.  Now its only newspaper is published and printed in Los Angeles. First they take the city’s only newspaper. Then they’ll take the Chargers. Someday, the city will probably become a suburb of LA, which it already would be if not for Camp Pendleton. But wherever it’s printed or published, don’t count on the Union-Tribune for complete or in-depth coverage of national and international news, either. Its opinion and commentary section is a shadow of what a big-city newspaper should have and its opinion section is usually dwarfed by the sports and entertainment sections..

Sadly, the mainstream media seem pre-occupied with trivia, social issues and the bizarre and sensational stuff. In its news and political coverage, liberal bias and editorialized news coverage often make it an unreliable source for objective news reporting. In trying to stay informed, as in investing successfully, diversification is key. If you rely on just the liberal media or just conservative sources, you’re probably just reinforcing your own biases.

June 7, 2015