Climate Change: The Coral Reef Conundrum and Solution

** Please support this blog by purchasing the book  Air Pollution's the Answer!. . .  available through Barnes and Noble and Target.  This blog receives no funding from advertising for political support.  Your support is appreciated. 

UPDATE: As world leaders differ about how to solve climate change at Cop26, studies that promote the value of volcanic ash in healing the environment are coming back around. Started nearly ten years ago, the studies mention its use as a carbon gas neutralizer of sorts. While this author questions the validity of that conclusion, volcanic ash has the potential to provide marine life with a rich source of sulfur and other minerals. Healthier sea life means higher metabolic rates. Plants would use more dissolved CO2 and release greater volumes of oxygen into the water.  That conclusion is based on basic biochemistry.  It seems nature knew what it was doing all along when it put active volcanoes so close to the ocean. 

For many with some years on us, the 1970s news of dying coral reefs was the first indication of some sudden and unexpected environmental change--a change that scientists could neither explain nor remediate.  As World leaders congregate in Glasgow for the U.N. Climate Change Conference (October 31-November 12), this lowly resident of Earth wonders if the attendees will continue to grumble about carbon gases and fossil fuel controls or finally come together to re-evaluate their own actions in what has brought the World to this point in time. Personally, I hope for the coral reefs and other forms of wildlife, it is the latter.  

National Geographic Photo    

Until the stunning and informative documentaries of The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau in the 1970s, sea exploration was nearly unheard of.  And yet, just a few years into its exploration, science was making alarming predictions about the role coral reefs played in the ecosystem.  Before even learning to walk in this new science and without looking at the big environmental picture, scientists ran to blame everything from farming to industrial waste for the demise of this small and seemingly insignificant creatures. 

Instead of approaching the problem from a fact-based physical evidence standpoint, observation and speculation became the basis for large scale decision-making.  As a result, science squandered its first opportunity to repair climate change before it had really started.  Now, forty years latter the science has become so corrupted by computer models and economic interests that countries are locked in a false narrative of what climate change is and how it should be reversed.

What is Coral?

While this may be an over simplification, coral are small basic lifeforms that act a bit like nature's water filtration system.  Still, they are animals and are subject to the same nutritional (biochemical if you want a big word) rules as all animals. Herein lies the misconception that all environment studies have failed to recognize.

Coming at environmental science from a position of something toxic impacting coral, science has never considered that there is something missing from the environment and that this substance(s) was removed suddenly in the years prior to coral reefs dying. 

Was there a light bulb that just went off in the minds of readers everywhere? There should be.

Wrong Science, REALLY?

Like the belief that the World is flat, science has assumed human intervention is needed to keep climate variations in check.  Who is to say this assumption isn't along the same misguided observation-based notion as a flat Earth?  Is climate change the result of random change in a system that has been in place for millions of years or is it that man has become a bit too confident in his ability to adapt the environment to his own preferences? Will the presenters in Glasgow finally scratch their heads and say "Oops, we made a mistake"? Not likely.  

Something is Environmentally Missing?

As mentioned previously, biochemical processes (aka dietary needs) are similar across all living organisms. In simple terms, the absence of a vitamin or mineral that makes humans sick will also make coral succumb as well. The big difference is that humans have disguised these mineral and vitamin deficiencies through modern healthcare and pharmaceuticals. Wildlife has no such method of attaining the nutrients needed to live healthy and relies heavily on an unadulterated ecosystem. 

But what is it that could be missing in the environment that would make the whole planet sick? That is the question everyone is trying to answer with little success.

Looking Back to Find an Answer

Unfortunately, history can be an unforgiving teacher when it comes to reminding mankind of its faults and in this case, the reality may be hard to swallow.  

In the 1960s and early 1970s, man's excess had caught up with him. Large cities were choking on the fumes of modern convenience.  Instead of pinpointing historically recognized toxins like lead and asbestos that could quickly contaminate air and water, leaders chose to take a full-tilt approach to the pinball game that has become environmental science. With little research to back up decisions, industrialized countries regulated a handful of ugly, smelly gases.  Still holding fast to their decisions and looking to carbon dioxide as the next culprit, the restriction of these gases has compromised an environmental cycle that had been in place for thousands of years. In the atmosphere, these breathable nutrients would help all life forms self-regulate body functions even in cases of food shortages. Without them, the result is declining populations and possible extinction.

What is Missing?

Ironically, the five elements that make up restricted gases are the same five elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur) that form the majority of the World's foods and medicines.  Sugar is made of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen while chicken is made of all five elements. All life forms, coral, plants and humans alike, require sulfur for common life functions each and every day. Had these gases remained in the atmosphere, rain would have latched on to them and deposited them into the soil and sea where all life could have benefited. This basic concept of renewal has been known for much longer than most experts wish to acknowledge.

Coral's Relationship with Sulfur

Regardless of where life forms live--bacteria in ice near Antarctic, elephants on the Savanna, or coral under the sea--all life forms are subject to the same rules of cell composition.  This interconnection makes individual species interchangeable up and down the food chain. As a food, coral is at the bottom and eaten by a great number of species. If it is deficient in minerals, then so is the species that eats it.  Each successive meal perpetuates the mineral deficiency until the who World struggles to find good health.

Sulfur is known to impact growth rates, injury repair and reproductive capabilities for all life forms. Without sufficient sulfur in the water, what scientists interpreted as a dying coral reef may have been one that simply could not reproduce itself as fast as it was consumed. There was never anything to blame other than an urban population that wanted to live large without environmental accountability.

What All this Means?

There is only one conclusion and course of action that makes sense if one believes the science as it is reported here.  The rush to judgement by those who lived in unsustainable environmental conditions (cities) solved their problem by stripping the atmosphere of essential gases which made the land incapable of producing food and reduced the ability of wildlife to sustain themselves in a natural setting. Rather than acknowledge their missteps early on, the World's leadership built a massive healthcare system to treat human illness and created additives to foods and soils to make them viable.  Poor countries were left to become dependent on others and starvation became a worldwide problem. 

If one takes a good hard look at the role sulfur plays in every part of the environment, it becomes very easy to see that Clean Air policies did more harm than good and should be rolled back.  Fossil fuels are not the enemy here. Man's own ego is.

Thanks Senator Manchin: What an Elected Official Should Be (Updated)

 

New York Magazine Photo

***Over the weekend of Dec 17-19, Washington found out how easily all the work on the Build Back Better initiative could fall apart. As the analysts confer, it seems a few poorly chosen words from the White House coupled with a few too many snide and disrespectful comments from idealists were the tipping point for Senator Joe Manchin who called it quits on the President's funding proposal.  While the younger and/or less mature members of the House and Senate have commented that Manchin needs to be "run out" of the Democratic party, they better hope he remains a solid, albeit, moderate Democrat. They might just be thanking him for saving them come November 2022.

With the deadline for this year's budget and spending plan kicked down the road as expected, it has become increasingly clear who in Congress is there to serve this country and who is there to play soccer in a never-ending and generally tied game of Republicans vs. Democrats.  With members focused on following a political game plan rather than effective planning, this country has been subjected to a ping-pong approach to lawmaking instead of setting it on a path that fairly represents every demographic and business. With crossed fingers and muttered wishes, that trend may finally be cracking with a kind of action-based hope for fair and equitable government coming somewhere in the near future. 

Over the last year, approximately one percent (1%) of Congressional members have shown they can be what an elected official should be--objective, knowledgeable and flexible representatives who are not hog tied by party loyalty. Nine months ago, it was the handful of Republicans that voted to impeach Trump.  Now it is Joe Manchin (D-WV) who is standing against an over-the-top Democratic agenda that is largely a mystery to the America people. For that, he deserves a thank-you instead of the short-sighted criticism of the President and Congressional leaders.

This morning (10.8.2021), the news is about Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's speech following a stop-gap vote to extend the debt limit until early December. Without too much first-hand knowledge of this speech, it isn't hard to imagine the content.  Far too often, over the last few years, federal leaders have addressed each other and American citizens as if they were scolding children instead of being professionals. That tactic has not been successful in the past and does not seem likely to work in the future. Unless Schumer was playing to donors and extremists, what possible reason could he have had to take several minutes to berate half of the Senate chamber (and at least half of the country) with words that come off as shaming rather than reconciliation. Does he really believe the majority of US citizens want more debt?  Perhaps it is Biden, Pelosi, McCarthy, Schumer and McConnell who need to be reminded of their role in government, not the American people. 

From what little is known about Biden's Build Back Better agenda, the focus is on fixing fifty years of problems created by quick decisions and simple majority wins. Repeating a pattern that has left local government with the responsibility of maintaining all these projects, the BBB legislation is competitive by design rather than mutually beneficial across all states and demographics.  It perpetuates economic behaviors which have not served taxpayers well but have created a legacy of government dependence and mandates that keep American families in a lifestyle of debt and consumerism. Like always, rural communities are low on the priority list because they can and do support themselves. 

Joe Manchin understands this governmental trend and is right to drag his feet. What is seen as rogue or unprofessional behavior on Capital Hill might just be caution to insure fair treatment for his state as well as other rural communities.

For nearly forty years, Manchin has worked in all levels of government to protect and support a state that is characterized as bigoted and uneducated but often used by big business and big government for their own purposes.  To discount his understanding of government in favor of the ideas of young and inexperienced members of Congress is to say that only the young are entitled to the full benefits of American citizenship. Entitlement based on any single characteristic--age, location, education level, income, ethnic status or gender--damages the foundation of this country and democracy as a whole.  That knowledge only comes with experience. Manchin knows the difference and should be thanked, not ridiculed. 

All of rural America should support Manchin for two reasons. One, because it is a more reasonable course of action than the one currently proposed. And two, to finally rid this country of the notion that this is all about Trump. For far too long, rural communities have carried more than its share of the economic load while surviving policies that built up global trade and weakened local economies.  Maybe now, those in Congress will wise up and see that without rural America, this country is nothing.

Keep it up, Senator Manchin. 

infrastructure 2021-22: The Hilarity of a Carbon Tax

** Pennsylvania is--according to different news reports--the first state to adopt a carbon tax policy.  No called "carbon pricing" as if it were a purchase of goods and services, the policy is coming from President Joe Biden's old stomping grounds.  With the cost of living already high in Pennsylvania, the logic of this action is dubious. 

As Congress and the President work diligently to force through an agenda that everyone but those who answer the Polls seem to question, this concept of a carbon tax is dangled out there as a way to fund the massive, catch-all infrastructure bill.  So, while this author prefers information that is well researched and factual, it should be clear that this is conjecture and speculation and not direct knowledge as to how a carbon tax would be used.

Photo (www.itep.org)

What is a carbon tax?

Simply put, it is a potential tax on anything that produces some type of carbon emission. Since nearly every biological function or energy source produces some form or carbon gas, it is an atmospheric gold mine of tax revenue. The unknown here is to what degree Congress will use this provision and how it might be regulated.

Why a carbon tax?

Like the Clean Air policies which began this trend of demonizing fossil fuels, this tax would draw income from actions and products people cannot easily do without but release some form of carbon into the air.  The concept is not new. King George tried it several times ( tax on tea and the Stamp Act come to mind) only to have the colonies rebel against him and his control.

Why have a carbon tax? 

As with most moves by government, taxing is best done when it plays well with voters.  A carbon tax seems innocuous enough because voters believe it will not impact them. Even some members of Congress may not completely understand the science to fully grasp its all-encompassing potential.  More important than the huge amounts of revenue it could generate, such a tax would show support for climate change initiatives adopted by the European Union which are based on Greenhouse Gas Theory. This is as much about earning points with US allies and celebrity activists as it is appearing to address climate change. 

Will this help curb Climate Change? 

Not likely.  As any Star Trek fan learned from the iconic series (1966), the Earth is a world based on carbon. How many times  did Spock explain this simple but accurate fact to viewers is hard to gauge. The average human is 18.5 percent carbon. Every plant is made of carbon as well as every animal on the planet.  With the exception of water, nearly all foods and medicines contain carbon. Building materials such as steel, wood and stone contain carbon.  Fabrics such as polyester, cotton, wool and acrylic are based on carbon.  Paper including shipping containers, hard copy books and even greeting cards contain carbon. To do without carbon is to do without most of the essentials of life. 

What could it tax?

This is where the hilarious nature of the carbon tax comes into play and why every citizen should stop for a moment and think about what that tax could mean for them.  Again, remember every living thing produces carbon gas at some point in its cycle. This is a natural environmental process that has existed since life first appeared. It is essential to life and to disrupt it will have unknown consequences.  Here are just a few things to consider as this Build Back Better agenda takes hold.

• Breathing Could Be Taxed - According to figures that are circulating the internet (which this author cannot verify), the average human exhales between 1.5 and 3 pounds of carbon dioxide every day.  Using the example of a penny a pound, that is roughly $10 per person per year for $3.3 billion dollars. In a similar fashion, pets, farm animals, wildlife preserves and stocked lakes have animals which produce carbon dioxide and methane.
  

• Any heat source could be taxed. Everything from the wood stove or oil furnace that so many rural residents depend on to the high efficiency heat pump with propane backup could be restricted or taxed.  Oil, propane, natural gas, wood, coal, kerosene, paper and even gel alcohol produce carbon emissions.

• Electricity in General could see increased costs from taxes.  According to government figures (2020) only about 2.3% of all electricity in this country is produced by solar energy. Add wind and hydroelectric plants and it leaves 80% of all electricity produced in the US subject to carbon emissions regulations. 

• Imports as well as Exports could be taxed.  This global economy that was pushed so heavily a few decades ago is one that cannot exist without carbon emissions. Container ships as well as over-the-road trucks are dependent on diesel for power.  Large amounts of carbon gases are produced over oceans where such gases cannot be utilized effectively by plants.  

And the list could go on and on and on. 

What about Climate Change?

For now, the leaders of the World believe that carbon emissions is causing climate change. Like the belief in a flat Earth that popped up in many civilizations, believing in something does not make it factual.  If carbon gas were the cause of all global ills, the planet would have ceased to exist long ago.

Perpetuated by computer models which have no capacity to think critically, leaders force people to accept incorrect science in order to financially benefit from government contracts, grants and tax breaks.  Until, the masses question this propaganda, carbon emissions will be seen as the enemy and taxed. Additional regulations will attempt to restrict carbon gasses much like the EPA has restricted other elements (sulfur, carbon, nitrogen, ozone and dust) when sent into the atmosphere.  

Sadly, by reducing these emissions, leaders may further compromise the environment and prolong the climate change debate.

Why does the Environment Need Carbon Emissions?

From the Lord of the Rings to many other Sci-Fi movies with spectacular special effects, movie goers have learned to see volcanoes, hurricanes, wildfires and drought as end-of-time events. Instead they are clear and specific parts of the environment's never-ending process of recycling itself.  Drought is the sign that the air is too clean (no dust=no clouds=no rain). Hurricanes bring moisture from the oceans that replenish ground water sources so that the land can continue to produce food hungry people. Volcanoes are a beautiful, yet drastic, way to recycle the minerals (like sulfur, carbon and hydrogen) that are needed for plants and wildlife to live healthy lives. And finally, wildfires clean up the environment when mankind shirks his responsibility to manage and use the resources the environment gives him.  

As long as mankind chooses to restrict these common and naturally occurring gases, erratic weather will be part of the global scene. Taxing an essential life element because some see it as dangerous is not only hilarious but extremely sad at the same time. 

 

Infrastructure 2021: Why Politicians Should Never Be Lawyers

On Friday afternoon (9/17), with less than two weeks before a potential government shutdown, the White House (per Bloomberg) quietly began to pressure state and local governments to support the the $3.5 trillion dollar spending bill and debt increase. The all-too-familiar process (used multiple times by both parties over the last two decades) threatened funding for Medicaid, school lunches, and Social Security recipients. After all, who better to disenfranchise than those who are so poorly and unequally represented in Congress. It is a typical and standard part of the budget process and because it is so common, it is even more disgraceful by its use in a time of apparent crisis.

One isn't sure who is crafting the messages that come out of the White House these days, but as the wording is straightforward and well-written, it is also harsh and lacking any semblance that those who make the decisions recognize that people's lives are at stake. Perhaps, this is why politicians should not be lawyers and why lawyers fail to make good leaders. 

The Law and the study of it is fascinating in its intricacy. Its special language, a combination of Old English and new phrasing, would impress any good con artist with its lack of transparency.  Then, there is the process that must be followed--a set of rules that, like poker, carries a certain amount of swagger and bluff to be successful. Cards are laid on the table only when one has the already won the hand.  

Portrayed as blind and balanced to be fair and equal to all, justice is not the goal of lawyers, nor politician, but a negotiating tool to gain support for personal and political agendas.  Sadly, the farther this country gets from the writing of its Constitution, the more there is an understanding that the law only serves to divide by elevating one group over another. 

By the early 1800s, just 25 years after the Constitution was ratified, the land owners, scholars, inventors and businessmen that sought to design a "more perfect Union" knew they had failed. Largely replaced by elected officials schooled and shaped by military service, wealth or legal education, there was little room for someone with a real world perspective on how daily problems should be remediated. Those, like Daniel Boone, and then Lincoln, who spoke for the common man, were a minority and still are. 

How did a country founded on working class values lose its edge? In the same way it happens today, those with education and wealth easily took control of a fledgling country with an uneducated and easily manipulated populace.

Many with educated and noble family backgrounds (Kamala Harris) had emigrated from countries which experienced political upheaval.  Some. like the Kennedy and Trump families, knew that government office could profitably steer business in a desired direction. Others with social connections and wealth saw it as an appropriate calling for the younger generation as a way to ensure the family legacy or to recover from financial ruin (Joe Biden).  Only in exceedingly rare cases did someone achieve political success with a background of hard work and relationships with ordinary people.

What makes law such a poor background for a leader?  Simple, the act of being a lawyer is about defending one narrow position according to the rules of law. It is not about right or wrong or even justice, but about persuading people to think in a particular manner.  Some examples  might help it be much clearer.  

• Lawyers defend a concept not a person. They are not required to know, talk to or even believe their clients. Once elected, no official is required to consider anything more than his own values and ambitions. Persons who cast their vote in support of a one-sided philosophy encourage inequality for us all.
  
• Evidence is the basis of decisions even if that evidence is manipulated or false. Have we not seen the Biden administration choose which evidence is to be used in regard to vaccine use?  Do the words "alternative facts" (per Kellyanne Conway) come to mind?  
• Lawyers are not accountable for poor outcomes.  Congress, as well as the President, are exempt from general liability and therefore have no interest in "doing their best". While a doctor can be sued for malpractice, elected officials are cloaked with protection that an average citizen cannot hope to ever obtain. A good publicist can erase every mistake from the public record.
  
• Lawyers frequently blame the system when it does not work in their favor and appeal the decision until it is one that is more to their liking. However, they readily claim success when they win the fight. Recently, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi chastised the Supreme Court for taking a more moderate stand on several provisions of on her own political agenda. 
  

Could it be that our government is not broken but a congregation of 536 (Congress plus the President) homogeneous career-oriented people whose focus is no less narrow-minded than a radical dictatorship or religious cult. Isn't the Law a kind of Bible behind which government stands when criticized?  Does government not seek to bend 330 million people to a single way of life that is much like the caste-system in India and religious extremists in Afghanistan.  Is a system based on wealth and lopsided protection under the law any less unjust for Americans? Doesn't the Law allow all three of these systems to exist openly?

Historically speaking, the American system was set up with three branches for the purpose of bringing different perspectives to the governing process.  Only the Court system was intended to be run by those familiar with the Law.  Unlike the nations that grew out of the British Empire, the US neglected to protect the "commoner" and provide equal representation so that poor and lower-income people could attain elected office as easily as the educated and well-of. 

Over the next few weeks, the country will be witness to the failing of a political system led by those who understand the law but not human nature. Wouldn't it be interesting to see how leadership changed if lawyers were banned from holding elected office. 

Who knows, it might bring us full circle to how the Constitution is supposed to work--of the people, by the people and for the people.  An interesting thought, isn't it? 

Kamala Harris Background Link  

Kennedy Family History in Politics

Trump Family Background

Joe Biden's Family Legacy

Climate Change: Air Pollution's the Answer--It REALLY Is!!

With another hot, dry summer winding down, the question remains, Why do governments not act on Climate Change? In a new book, Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health, author Sarah Schrumpf-Deacon chalks up global hesitation to one simple reason—leaders hate being wrong!

“All too often, we, as a modern society, believe in our infallibility. It's just human nature,” explains Schrumpf-Deacon,“If you look at climate change in a broader context, it is fairly easy to see where society turned down the climate change path and how to easily get back on track—even in the middle of a pandemic.”

The book looks at a century and a half of human behavior, scientific progress and environmental responses. Using practical science rather than computer modeling, the author focuses on well-documented environmental cycles that have been disrupted by human meddling. At just over 100 pages, its twelve chapters divide topics into small chunks with everyday object lessons that explain principles rather than dictate theory and change.

“The difficulty will be getting people to accept that a couple of simple mistakes had the power to derail the environment. Even recent reports which acknowledge human intervention as a cause of climate change perfer catastrophic predictions rather than trusting nature to reset itself in the short term,” continues Schrumpf-Deacon, “For too long, civilization focused on making the world perfect for mankind, not understanding that the environment was perfect to begin with. Even the idea that climate change can easily be 'fixed' will be hard to accept.”

The premise of the book begins by throwing out the current focus on 'greenhouse gas theory'. While a significant discovery in its day, the principle was discarded by 19^th century scientists as too limited in its focus. Once science accepts this historical reality, other possibilities become much more relevant. In the end, the book's conclusion is that carbon-based gases do not cause climate change but the absence of what is labeled 'air pollution' does. Environmentally the world was crippled when a few essential gases were removed from the atmosphere by reactive and short-sighted legislation known as Clean Air policy. Put back what was removed and the environment is likely to recover quickly.

“What does humanity have to lose by considering a different climate change solution, particularly one that is historically proven to work well?” concludes the author, “By rolling back Clean Air legislation to more moderate and regionally specific levels, all we are doing is returning the environment to a time during which the Earth was healthy and so were the creatures that lived in it. Computer models only parrot the fears and bias of those who use them. What if COVID-19 is the World's object lesson that teaches us that humanity's view of perfect environment is both unhealthy and dangerous?”

Sarah Schrumpf-Deacon is a retired Family and Consumer Science (FACS) teacher, farmer, and freelance writer. She refers to her background as 'eclectic' and brings a broad-based science perspective to her writing. While acknowledging that the book may never have been written without the keen observations of professionals who questioned current climate change theory, she strongly advocates for rural communities in climate change recovery and reminds her readers that cities are, for the most part, environmenally unsustainable.

Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health was self-published through the IngramSpark platform (Nana Janes Books) and is available in digital and print versions.

***We prefer to not provide a link to a particular seller but searching by author name                can make it easier to find the book.  

DACA Citizenship: It Could Have Been So Easy

What is it about political leadership that gravitates to the sneaky and underhanded while avoiding simple and practical solutions?   As  today's headlines (9/20/2021) report the breakdown of a plan to slip a massive immigration overhaul into a $3.5 billion dollar budget, it seems our leadership has sunk even further into a state of poor character and winner-take-all tactics.

The definition of good character in politics has popped into my head many times over the last few decades. It first came to my notice during the reign of Newt Gingrich, a Republican version of today's Nancy Pelosi.  Gingrich's 100 day agenda conflicted with the plans of then President Bill Clinton.  The tactics then were very similar to those employed now. Gingrich may have ushered in our modern era of aggressive House leadership but that is not to say other officials have not been just as ruthless and uncompromising in the Senate.   

I pose some question to those in Congress: Is your job to manage government and do things by procedure, or were you put in office to lead and do what is right even if the solution cannot be turned into a political advantage?  Did you ever think there was a simple solution to the DACA and immigration issue?  Did you ever look for one or is this all just about winning the fight?

I suppose both parties believe that, as leaders, they do the right thing while excusing themselves from any real ethical issues.  But the question as always is--does Congress (and any President) bother to look for a practical answer to the problem or is it more of an ego boost to strong arm resolutions and create more division in this already divided country? Isn't DACA, like abortion, nothing more than a polarizing issue that is valuable only when it is unresolved?

My first experience with a child of illegal immigrants came long before DACA existed.  As a teacher in an area with a large Hispanic population, it was normal to have diversity in the classroom. Even under those conditions, it was a surprise when a particularly bright and capable young woman revealed that she was not, nor could she become, a US citizen as she had crossed the border illegally when she was but three years old. Unlike her younger siblings, who had been born in this country, she alone lived without a path to citizenship and planned her after-graduation future in the shadow of uncertainty.

Immigration has never been a hard and fast policy in this country. Perhaps that is why it has become such a problem. But, there was a time when Congress acted to shore up immigration rules and put limits on who could and could not stay permanently. The focus was not paperwork but meeting certain requirements that helped future citizens assimilate into the local community. These requirements are clearly and easily found here. 

 

The provisions for citizenship set up more than a hundred years ago (1882) were, and still are, simple and straightforward. Citizenship can be achieved in as little as three years if the person is so inclined. Every President and member of Congress in the last decade has apparently forgotten that such laws are firmly in place and preferred to make this situation another 'never-ending political campaign debate. Choosing a signature on paper and political posturing over thought and creativity, an estimated 800,000 young people live in limbo since former President Barrack Obama created the Dreamers initiative in 2012.

 

By design, the requirements for citizenship are quite similar to the requirements of graduating from public high school. Students typically are required to provide proof of residence and to attend a minimum number of days to earn this credential. If education law is adhered to, students must demonstrate the ability to understand and converse in standard English and obtain a marketable skill before graduating. Frequently, students must be near or have passed the age of 18 and must have demonstrated some level of good character and ethical understanding for confirmation. All of these are found as a requirement for naturalization to this country.

There is, of course, the issue of the Citizenship test, but that is a relatively new provision in immigration law (established in 1986 and revised in 2018). That requirement is also a general part of the high school curriculum. Without realizing it, many native born Americans take the test for a grade in a Civics, Government or US History class. Some do not pass.

 

So what is all the fuss about and why are young people who have lived in this country for nearly their entire lives being denied citizenship? Clearly, it boils down to a lack of paperwork. Could Congress not put an end to this torture by simply adopting a procedure whereby DACA individuals provide proof of graduation from an accredited public high school in lieu of visa or permanent residence applications. Rather than the eight year timeline proposed by President Joe Biden punctuated by Supreme Court challenges and political grandstanding, citizenship could reasonably be granted without further delays.

 

While this will not end the debate of the current open border policy, it could provide a reasonable path to citizenship for children left in the care of what is supposed to be a good and caring country.

 

 

Time for the Covid Talk, Mr. President

 Good Morning Mr. President:

While it may have been more respectful to send this directly to you as a citizen comment, I, like many citizens, long-ago realized that the chances of unsolicited input having any real impact on an elected official is approximately the same as winning the Power Ball Lottery with an EasyPick ticket. Nonetheless, there is always hope that these words will someday make an impression on you and your staff.

Mr. President, it is time for the COVID talk.

Too often in this country, federal and local officials have focused on the image of prosperity rather than long-term sustainability as a yardstick for change.  Never considering that these actions would have far-reaching consequences for millions of average citizens, you and other politicians took this country down a path to massive healthcare that thumbed-its nose at nature and broke the one abiding principle of medicine--to do no harm.  Like the opioid crisis that continues to kill an indeterminable number of poor and elderly, COVID-19 is not some freak occurrence of nature but the natural response of caring more about a political platform than healthy and practical living. 

Mr. President, what is this all about?  Do you really believe in vaccines so much that you are willing to threaten people with the loss of their jobs and income? Are you just now realizing that the millions of doses of vaccine that you and your predecessor mindlessly purchased are never going to be used?  What is this really about?

From the beginning of this pandemic, specialists cautioned leaders against banking on a one-time vaccine.  They knew the Coronavirus was endemic (common) and a natural part of building immunity for a healthy life. It has always changed rapidly for the purpose of challenging the body's immune system over time and it will continue to change regardless of the production of millions of vials of vaccine.  Ironically, the Coronavirus is easily kept in check when the environment is healthy and people live within those environmental guidelines. That, Mr. President,  is what Americans no longer have--a healthy and functioning environment.  

The enemy here is not a simple virus that will survive for centuries to come. The enemy here is fifty years of government acting like God to change the environment. If you want to bring an end to COVID-19, it won't be through semi-annual shots but when sulfur (a natural disinfectant) returns to the atmosphere and minerals like magnesium again dirty our water. 

Your strength as a leader is not in following a prescribed political agenda.  You did not rise to the top because you were better than the others but because you had a blunt ring of truth in your words. Now, you follow the advice of a paper-pushing doctor who is as responsible for this crisis as anyone in government.  Not once has Anthony Fauci recommended daily vitamins or more protein in the diet as a way to combat COVID. Not once has he acknowledged that immunosuppresant drugs counteract the very vaccine he promotes. Not once has Fauci laid out a path of  healthy living that does not promote the healthcare industry he has been tasked with supporting.  Is this about public health or public healthcare?

COVID will never end but the end of this crisis will come only when you listen to someone other than Fauci and consider that for all its perceived benefits, clean air and clean water are anything but healthy.  Thus ends the lesson.  

COVID-19: Prevention through Nutrition

(Original Date of this Article was August 22, 2021. At the time it was written, the CDC and WHO had yet to release the extensive list of risk factors for COVID patients.  In the weeks that followed the approval of booster shots, Dr. Fauci continued to proclaim that the only way to avoid the disease was strict restrictions and boosters. Within weeks of getting boosters, several high-profile individuals came down with Covid quickly putting putting the Biden administration in the position of supporting Fauci's high handed approach to the pandemic or bypassing CDC and WHO guidelines. ANow 2 years after the first diagnosis, the CDC and WhO still tilt to medically restrictive forms of prevention instead of good, old-fashioned health.  Interestingly, the two studies here have never been encorperated into standard treatment options. What does Fauci support, science and prevention of disease or the pharmaceutical companies he works with.)

The discussion of what is the best way to handle the COVID-19 pandemic is far from decided. 

Even now, eighteen months into this very real pandemic, it is difficult to understand the apparent panic that has overtaken those in power. To further exacerbate the fear and distrust that has hung over this crisis since day one, media outlets merely beat the drum of social guilt rather than provide plausible, science based reasons for a dictatorial response to its vaccines.  Why has there been such an emotional response by those who should be using objective information to advise citizens?  What are we not being told and why?

The answer may have come in two recently published studies that give new insight into exactly what makes this virus so dangerous to so many people.  

Nutrition as Factor

The first study by the Switzerland-based Blue Brain Project reviewed COVID-19 records to determine the one factor that tipped the scales in determining the difference between a mild case of COVID-19 and a stay in the ICU ward.  Irrespective of other disease, that one factor came down to blood sugar level in the days or weeks before infection.  

A second study conducted through an Asian-American partnership between Taiwan, Chinese and US(New York) based institutions looked at the opposite end of the question and found that a specific protein particle (lactoferrin) reduced the severity of illness for participants in the study. Interestingly, the full report of this study was uploaded to the US National Institute of Health's website over a year ago.  

Without getting into detailed principles of how this all works, the bottom line is simple.  The severity of a person's COVID-19 response may have more to do with their diet than with vaccination or exposure.

Blood Sugar Levels

Since early in the pandemic, the word was out that persons with "underlying medical conditions" were at greater risk of contracting the disease. But the why to that statement was never really explained.  By identifying high blood sugar levels as a common denominator in severe disease, it allows people to look at preventing the disease with or without vaccination. 

High blood sugar levels, while thought to be a sign of diabetes, can occur at any age, in good and bad health and be intermittent.  Typically, the condition is a result of a  plant-based diet and one that in turn is low in high quality protein. Alcohol can also cause blood sugar to spike or be higher than desired. Identifying diet prior to infection as an important factor easily explains why so many people fall ill following social events such as weddings, sports events, birthday bashes and church gatherings.  It may not have been contact with an infected person that was important but the high carbohydrate foods and drinks that are so often served at such affairs. With out high quality protein, the body's immune system is depleted and allows the virus to enter. 

Lactoferrin

The discovery of lactorferrin as a possible preventative for respiratory disease has, for the most part, gone unnoticed.  Moreover, the simplicity of this finding is not only supported by decades of nutritional practice but is cheap, easily available and comes in many forms.  What is the best source of Lactoferrin? COW'S MILK  To confuse this issue, media has reported that the substance which aids iron absorption and boosts the immune system is found in breast milk. A quick Google search shows it is readily available as a dietary supplement and can be found in milk, cheeses, ice cream yogurt and other diary products.  Keep in mind the same is not true of nut, soy, and oat milk products which have low levels of plant-based protein.  Why would the medical industry want to push vaccines when a natural preventative is already available?  

Vaccines and Boosters

Certainly, vaccines have made it possible to live long lives and reduced the rate of childhood death to near zero but vaccines cannot replace the body's immune system.  Vaccines only introduce a small level of infection.  It is still up to the body to create the antibodies necessary to fight infections. Without high quality protein in the diet on a regular basis, even the vaccinated person can become a convenient host to a virus as aggressive as COVID-19.  Vaccines cannot replace good nutrition nor can they improve overall health. Only good nutrition has that power.  

The Take-Away for the Future

For decades, environmentalists and health care providers have steered wealthy nations into believing health was something to manage and monitor. With COVID-19 that assumption may be far from reality. As people base more and more of their lives on plant based diets and drug regimens, the incidence of health issues climbs.  These two studies clearly support naturally reducing blood sugar levels and adding animal protein as a way to resist disease.  These findings are not new and were similarly identified a century or more ago by the March of Dimes and US Department of Agriculture when they identified poor nutrition as a major factor in childhood death. Childhood vaccinations are not the only reason a greater number of children now live into adulthood. 

It is regrettable that the largest health care industry in the world would push expensive drugs, vaccines and food choices rather than acknowledging a natural, proven preventative for major illness.  One can only hope that such information circulates throughout the general population and is not labeled as misinformation by those in control.  

Blue Brain Project Articl

Lactoferrin Article

Back to Work: Changing Focus

 In two weeks, Labor Day weekend will be here and Summer will unofficially end. For me, and I suspect for many Americans, this vacation season was something of a reckoning.  The pandemic gave too many of us a feeling that life was at a standstill.  So many times, we were told that hopes and dreams, even responsibilities, had to be put off until a single, nasty virus was wrangled into submission by modern medicine.  For a few short months, it even seemed like life would follow that plan and go back to normal.  Except it didn't. 

At the same time that we dealt with a new unknown, the World was given a gift.  Some of us took this time to reevaluate the direction of our lives and how cultural mores warp our vision of the future. Now, even as leadership and media tells us otherwise, people are beginning to understand COVID was never more than a naturally occurring illness that has been a part of the world since the beginning of time.  Like all pandemics, this one has highlighted the weaknesses in civilization and taught the world lessons it would not have otherwise learned.  The bottom line is that we are human but we are not invincible. Nature is the ruler here and we must remember that. Understanding our individual place in this mix has great potential for improving human existence globally but for now we must focus on chipping away at what doesn't work here and now.

It does not take a psychic to see a change of focus is in the offing for the months and years to come. There will certainly be political posturing implying effective handling of this situation that was, and still is, out of our control. There will be businesses that come to a sudden and sad end leaving their owners heartbroken and financially wounded. There will be fewer products to buy and higher prices for them. To be expected, public health advocates will want to mandate masks and vaccines for every illness and, sadly, the medical community will side with them rather than admit their miscalculations during this crisis.  It is not surprising that the media never focused on those who adapted and kept this country going? How do the resilient millions who quietly paid their bills, managed their jobs, fed themselves and battled the disease feel about politicians and journalists who still focus on the emotional upheaval it created? What does that say about American values? Is a change of focus in order?

With Summer ending, there will be time to attend to the everyday details of life. People will begin to see the slight increases in bills for no apparent reason as companies change their policy to force customers into paying higher costs.  Food shortages will continue as product lines are cut  and distribution goes to large companies rather than small local suppliers.  Gasoline and heating costs will go up as climate advocates seek to limit production on natural gas and other fossil fuels. And, of course there will be the social guilt and petty penalties for refusing the unapproved and barely tested vaccines which would not be allowed on the market under normal circumstances. As families realize their stimulus payments are being eaten up by the need for corporate profits, the ultimate response may not be reluctant compliance but strong and stubborn defiance settling into a basic and hearty distrust of American leadership. 

This pandemic was a gift to the World--a chance to see society for the economically motivated system it has become.  Now it is time to make use of that gift and change the focus of what is important. Question higher prices. Shop local small businesses whenever you can and tell the owner when something isn't right?  Buy quality instead of junk and build wealth, not only by paying down debt but by refusing to be herded into services that have no long term gains.  Look for alternatives and stand up to the quilt and pressure of those who want your business for their benefit instead of your satisfaction.  A change of focus is just what is needed and it is time to say goodbye to getting back to "normal". 

Covid-19: Did US Surgeon General Just Ask Social Media to Censor Covid-19 Vaccine Posts?

Original Image on BBC.com

On July 15, 2021, the White House and the US Surgeon General released a statement expressing concerns that social media was allowing average citizens to spread Covid-19 misinformation that conflicted with the stated goal of herd immunity and a 70% vaccination rate for all adult populations.  Additionally, there was a clear request for these outlets to curb the publication of such information.  Was this a not-so-subtle way of telling social media to get with the program or else?

Normally, I take the position that the difference between free speech and libel is in the mind of the reader/viewer and I take my lumps when my opinion is too sharp for others to handle.  But after Facebook has refused to run ads for a well researched, six month project that intends to bring out alternative lines of climate change thinking, some warning bells have sounded.  Why would anyone be interested in censoring productive discussion whether it be about Covid-19 or climate change unless it interfered with a stated agenda?  

Still, I am not ready to slide into the mindset of a police state and prefer to maintain a tone of civility when I point out government actions which fail to rise to the level of "smart".  At the same time, I look at the federal government as an institution that has simply painted itself into a corner with years of bad decisions based on economically driven advice and Intel.  The last time our country saw this level of misinformation, it lead to the war in Afghanistan. This time, however, the war is being fought on native soil and the combatants are its own citizens. 

By its nature, government cannot be completely transparent, especially in the case of national emergencies.  The deals that occur behind closed doors are a necessary part of the process but when those making the decisions have little or no education about what they are deciding, then "revolutionary" ideas have to surface for the good of everyone.  What the administration has labeled as "misinformation" has come about by trying to force nature to comply with economic demands in a way that goes against practical and common science. That is the reason people are hesitant to follow this lead. It doesn't matter whether the administration is Republican or Democrat. Shoving a one-solution-only decision down the throats of Americans has never worked well and the federal government should know that by now. 

Contrary to what the government has tried to spin, there is a great deal of evidence that the Covid-19 vaccines are far from perfect and that they were never going to have the desired results of a quick and timely end to this all too common virus. it is the assumption that citizens are not rational and knowledgeable enough to add value to the discussion that rankles this author.  Allowing barely educated social media addicts as well as self proclaimed social justice experts to judge the validity of science are just two reasons to be  outraged. 

Here are a few evidence-based points that the administration has avoided mentioning.  Interestingly, this research comes mostly from studies filed on the government's own National Institute of Health research archives.  The reader can decide what is and is not reasonable information.

• Domesticated animals and wildlife are often carriers for a type of coronavirus that is specific to their species. Veterinarians are well informed about the virus and its nature. Coronavirus is not manufactured in a lab but is found anywhere there are colonies of animals living in high numbers. Bats and feral cats are two of the most common.  A main characteristic of the virus is its ability to mutate quickly and infect other species such as humans. That contamination can happen without warning and anywhere animals and people live in close contact. 
• Because it can often be dormant in the body for long periods of time, a test for Covid-19 may not always pick up the active virus.  If there were no testing protocols in place, this would just be seen as a bad allergy or cold season and deaths would be attributed to pneumonia, heart failure, stroke or several other respiratory conditions.
  
• Many rural communities may have experienced widespread Covid-19 outbreaks in the weeks before the government identified the virus and went into lock down. Rural populations are not as isolated as might be thought. Over-the-road truckers along major highways, holiday trips and special vacations during school breaks could have spread the virus to every part of the country before professionals even knew it existed. This possibility is pushed to the side in dealing with vaccination recommendations and mask mandates. Rather, rural populations are seen as stubborn and uneducated.
  
• For decades, pharmaceutical companies have tried to produce human and veterinarian vaccines to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.  There has been little success. Using a computer to help speed the process of identifying the infection did not change the nature of this highly adaptable, commonplace virus nor does it seem that it was more effective than past attempts.
  
• Testing of the Covid-19 vaccine during lock down and during mask mandates would have compromised drug trial results.  Using natural methods of infection prevention such as social distancing and face coverings made the vaccines appear more  effective than they are/were.  In a recent news article from the Israeli Times, that country, which was one of the first to be fully vaccinated, estimates the overall effectiveness of the vaccine to be less than 40%. Other sources speculate the protection period to be no more than 70 days.  Attempting to force vaccinations with low efficacy rates serves little purpose in bringing this pandemic to a close but makes huge profits for the drug companies that produced them.  What is the real goal here?
  
• Healthcare methods that use immunosuppressants as part of a regular treatment put people at risk for contracting the virus multiple times. First, these drugs interfere with the vaccine and second, they weaken the natural response to additional infections. In a study published on the CDC website in August 2020, even health care professionals could not estimate the number of people using these drugs and expressed concern about how vaccinations would react to their use.  Could these break-through cases be more about conflicting medical treatments or is the vaccine just not worth taking? Unfortunately, no one knows the answer for sure.
  

To be clear, vaccines are a significant way to prevent major illness, but natural immunity builds over time and the effectiveness of receiving multiple vaccines each and every year has not been studied, especially when patients use medications that conflict with these vaccines. Vaccines should not be an automatic substitute for good nutrition, reasonable personal space and healthy living. 

Now two weeks after the original statement first hit the news cycle, there are other developments which impact this topic. On July 16, 2021, the FDA announced that it would take up to 6 months to act on final approval of the Pfizer vaccine and recently, the CDC has reversed its decision on indoor masking of all people, vaccinated and unvaccinated.  These precautions should not be needed if these vaccines did the job they are supposed to do.  

 

So, who is promoting misinformation--people like me who look at the history and nature of this virus or those who want to fix this medical issue quickly so that wealth can again flow in the States. That is the question which is ultimately up for debate.  

 Covid-19 may be the force this country needs for government to finally realize there is more to life than world trade, stock market prices and an ever higher standard of living that only some enjoy.  Sometimes, good health that comes naturally, personal safety and a reasonable level of comfort is all that is really needed to be happy and successful.  That, after all, is what is guaranteed by the Constitution.