News Burst: September 20, 2017 (Patreon)

Greetings and Salutations!

I hope this News Burst finds you all doing very well. This week has already been a busy and eventful one on my end: Today, I’m adding the finishing touches to Part II of the Hypothetical Presidency of Colin Moriarty video that you all voted for. Additionally, I’m continuing to work with my merch guy to hopefully roll everything out as soon as this coming week; we’re just ironing out some wrinkles (pardon the pun) so that everything is perfect (as you deserve). Stand by for more announcements on that front, hopefully somewhat imminently.

Otherwise, it’s been a pretty eventful week for news, and, as always, I’ve trimmed it all down to something a little more digestible. Let’s get into it. I hope you enjoy!

5.) Devastating Hurricanes and Grappling With Global Warming

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-storm-maria/hurricane-maria-brings-destruction-heavy-floods-to-puerto-rico-idUSKCN1BT1RW

One of the week’s biggest stories surrounds yet another hurricane doing massive damage to heavily populated locations of the western Atlantic. This time, the American territory of Puerto Rico is taking the brunt of the storm. These storms are becoming such a recurring fact of life over the last month or so that we’ve become almost immune to the gravity of the numbers: 140 mile-per-hour winds. 20 or 25 inches of rainfall. An entire island without electricity, an island that’s going to be devastated by a storm at a time when it can least afford such an event, both figuratively and literally. As we spoke about in a previous News Burst a month or two ago, Puerto Rico’s economy is depressed, the people there don’t have much money or much hope, and something like this has the unfortunate effect of compounding an already dire reality.

I think it’s instructive, at this point, to talk about what I’d deem to be a pretty valid line of inquiry revolving around the following question: Is global warming making these storms worse? As many of you (if not all of you) already know, I’m far from a global warming alarmist. In fact, I think global warming alarmism has done just as much harm as global warming itself, as people watch apocalyptic prediction after apocalyptic prediction float by without coming to pass. But I’m also a man of science. The Earth is getting demonstrably warmer, and the warming seems to be at least partially tethered -- if not mostly or entirely tethered -- to the sometimes destructive activities of man over the last century and a half. The Earth has been much hotter than this, yes. The Earth has also been much colder. But these shifts take time. Climatic shifts -- not shifts in weather, but in climate -- can take thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years. With what little knowledge we do have, we know that this warming is unparalleled.

Hurricanes aren’t caused by man. They’ve existed for as long as atmospheric cycles have been running over the Atlantic Ocean. But one story (link below) indicates that their strength, rainfall, and more may be strengthened by a warming planet by perhaps 30%. And it seems to be the scientific consensus -- which I trust -- that these storms are certainly being made worse in other ways by a warming planet (link below). I hope that, with such an historic and devastating hurricane season hopefully mostly behind us after Puerto Rico is out of harm’s way, that we take the time to reflect on what’s going on, and what the planet is perhaps trying to tell us. No matter what answers we arrive at, at least we endeavored to get to the bottom of things.

Related Story | Climate Change May Intensify Storms: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/did-climate-change-intensify-hurricane-harvey/538158/

Related Story | Yes, Climate Change is Making Hurricanes Worse: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/us/climate-change-hurricanes-harvey-and-irma/index.html

4.) Obamacare Repeal Redux

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/upshot/obamacare-repeal-bill-offers-both-enormous-flexibility-and-uncertainty.html

In the world of politics, it’s important to keep in mind the old adage: What’s old is new again. Early in Barack Obama’s first term, the House and the Senate narrowly passed Obamacare, revolutionary -- albeit minor, by some standards -- changes to the American health care system that promised to fix a whole lot that was wrong with the United States’ bizarre insurance scheme. I liked some of what Obamacare did, and found a few particular provisions completely within bounds. Letting 20-somethings stay on their parents rolls sounded fine to me. Capping out-of-pocket expenses only seemed fair, since insurance is supposed to, well, insure your finances against the unexpected. And, most critically, I loved the ban on denying people with pre-existing conditions. As someone with three rather critical pre-existing conditions -- a bum stomach, a bum colon (LOL), and [cured] skin cancer -- this seemed fair.

But there was plenty wrong with Obamacare, too, and, as people like me were saying from the beginning, it was going to enter a death spiral due to their being a major emphasis on sick and very sick people entering exchanges where there are few healthy people to balance them out. When you’re talking about a literal sixth of the American economy, nothing is easy, nothing is small, and nothing works quite right. Ultimately, the plan remains, and, as you may remember, the Republican House already tried -- and failed -- to pass an Obamacare repeal that would fix the problem (link below). And I use the word “fix” lightly, because most people on both sides of the political spectrum agreed that the bill was terrible.

For a little while, it seemed like we weren’t going to get Obamacare repeal, at least not before the midterms, but then, seemingly out of nowhere, a bill reemerged from the Senate, and this bill seems worse than anything before proposed, even though I understand the rationale behind it. The idea is to simply let states take the money the government gives them in the form of a block grant instead of with strict guidelines, so that they could literally do exactly what they do now, or do something different. The choice is theirs. This injects massive uncertainty into a marketplace that must thrive on the exact opposite, so it’s a problem. Though the odds of passage are decent (link below), I still don’t think it ends up happening, because the GOP isn’t a cohesive caucus in either legislative chamber. Plus, the left is going to throw a fit if and when the bill passes, which could cause massive electoral disruption in 2018 (link below).

Related Story | How the First Attempt at Repeal Failed: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-obamacare-repeal-failed/

Related Story | The GOP Just May Have the Votes: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/351464-gop-odds-rise-on-obamacare-repeal

Related Story | The Left Ain’t Having It: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/20/obamacare-repeal-left-liberal-activists-242941

3.) US Military Spending Goes Through the Roof (Even More)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/ct-defense-policy-bill-20170918-story.html

Maybe it’s because I have a deep love for American history and American politics, or maybe it’s just because I’m a patriotic American, period, but I have a fascination with and adoration of our fighting men and women, and the various structures and organizations that make the world’s greatest fighting force go. Hell, my dad was in the Air Force, I have two cousins in the military, and plenty of friends, even from college, where ROTC and history/political science majors seemed to go hand-in-hand. But, I have to call it like I see it: The military is too expensive. Indeed, it’s unacceptably expensive, and the latest move out of the Senate in particular shows a striking level of apathy towards our mounting fiscal crisis here at home, all in the name of perpetuating a war machine that doesn’t serve a practical purpose in the 21st century.

Somehow, some way, the Senate voted to inject $700 billion into the American military, and that number only represents funding for a single year. What was even stranger was that the bill passed the Senate by a vote count never seen in such a thickly partisan Washington: 89-8. This is even more money than Donald Trump himself requested. Trump -- who ran on an anti-war and isolationist platform that I actually supported a great deal -- isn’t living up to his promises in yet another way, but it doesn’t really seem to matter. With that kind of vote ratio, any sort of veto threat from the executive could be easily overcome. And listen, there’s some good stuff in the bill, including a well-deserved pay raise for all servicemen and women. This isn’t their fault. This is The Pentagon’s fault, and the Department of Defense’s fault. The military is such a sacred beast that no one dare vote against the appropriation bill. Even Elizabeth Warren voted yes.

I want to be clear: $700 billion is an obscene amount of money for the military to spend. I don’t buy Senator McCain’s garbage about how the military is unprepared and under-equipped. How is that possible when we spend three times more than China on our military, and more than about 20 other major countries combined? It’s absolute nonsense. And, listen, when the government deficit spends every year, gives this much money to our war machine, and then tells people we don’t have the cash to pay for other things some deem essential? It’s understandable why people are upset (link below). I, for one, think we need to scale this thing down, and I have a plan to do so, but I don’t wanna ruin tomorrow’s video… so you’ll just have to wait!

Related Story | No Money For Health Care, Plenty of Money For Military: http://www.salon.com/2017/09/20/republicans-want-to-give-military-700-million-debate-cutting-health-care-spending/

2.) The Unpredictability of Earthquakes

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/americas/mexico-earthquake/index.html

Take it from me: There’s something uniquely ominous and ever-present about living on The Ring of Fire. For those that don’t know, the Ring of Fire is a term used to describe the outrageously tectonically active Pacific Rim, rife with earthquakes and volcanic activity, ranging from the eastern Russian coast, down through Japan and eastern Asia, into the archipelagos east of Oceania, right on up the coast of Chile, into western Mexico, up through California, Oregon, and Washington, into British Columbia, and finally to Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. If a bad earthquake happens on Planet Earth, it’s likely in one of those regions. And, sadly, the most recent one was a doozy: Mexico City was hit with a 7.1 earthquake just yesterday, epicentered south of the city. The death toll ranges over 200, and the sights on social media were horrific, with buildings collapsing, people caught under debris, and along with all of that, a glimmer of hope and humanity, as Mexicans banded together to save who they could.

The sad reality of plate tectonics is this: There seems to be no conceivable way to predict when an earthquake will happen with any degree of certainty (link below). What I always think about, however, and what that last link indicates, is that California -- itself a prominent member of the Ring of Fire -- isn’t only due for an earthquake, but that earthquakes the size of, say, the one that his San Francisco in 1906 would leave thousands dead, and many, many billions of dollars of damage in its wake. It’s a scary thought. And when you see that earthquakes seem to happen around the Ring of Fire everywhere but in the US, you have to imagine the plate tension is building, and the big one is coming. Chile gets earthquakes. Mexico gets them. Hell, Japan just got one today (link below). California? Nothing more major than the ~5.0 I felt eminating from Napa when I lived in San Francisco. 1994 was the last sizable shake. I’ve felt a few. They’re scary. But nothing like what Mexico City experienced.

I guess I wanted to throw this into the News Burst simply to encourage everyone to remain prepared, not only for an earthquake (if you’re in an in-danger location), but for any natural disaster, whether it’s tornadoes in the midwest, hurricanes in the southeast, or nor'easters in New England. Have water on hand. Canned food. A way to power your phones. It’s better to be safe than sorry, and I want CLS’ audience to remain snug as a bug. I, for one, have enough food and water to last 10-14 days, as well as a small, electric generator that could power our iPhones. Hey. You never know. 

Related Story | How California May Deal With an Earthquake: http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/09/19/major-earthquake-san-francisco-los-angeles

Related Story | Japan Experiences 6.1 Earthquake: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-earthquake-today-latest-updates-fukushima-damage-tsunami-warning-news-a7958111.html

1.) Trump Does the UN

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/19/trump-un-speech-2017-full-text-transcript-242879

I gotta be honest with you: I didn’t hate this speech. Quite the opposite. This speech represented a Donald Trump that I can easily deal with and accept. Forceful, wide-ranging, and America-first, which is perfectly fine with me. Interestingly, I read the speech -- I only watched portions of it -- and I was digging through it, I was happy to see that Trump was calling out the countries that need to be called out. North Korea is an obvious one that we can all agree on -- remember, the United Nations Security Council just held two votes on North Korea that both passed 15-0, with China and Russia included -- but I was also pleased to see the likes of Iran and Venezuela also called out. Iran is exactly as Trump described; a faux democracy that is absolutely at the very heart of Middle Eastern destabilization. Venezuela’s failed socialist policies speak for themselves. I was disappointed, though, with him glossing over Saudi Arabia. That country, with its incredibly, unbelievably archaic social structures and norms, needs to be called out. Ah, but it’s an “ally,” and, of course, it has lots of oil. Mustn’t upset them.

Anyway, you should read (or watch) the speech when you can, because I felt like it was definitely one of Trump’s strongest performances (or, really, a strong performance by his staff of speechwriters). Reading responses to the speech was also interesting (link below), because it shows a continued, hyper-partisan rift, where the left will never be pleased no matter what, the right is desperate to believe again, and the center is, well, the only hope this country really has. Pictures of the reactions of some of the various countries’ coalitions at the UN are also worth taking a look at (link below), since everything is written on their faces. I thought the Israeli group’s reactions were the best, along with North Korea’s, since it was just an empty table. Walking out of speeches at the UN isn’t exactly a unique occurrence, of course.

I think what mustn’t be lost on us today is that the United Nations sits at a sort of crossroads. It is a largely toothless, bloated, and somewhat laughable organization that does very little, all over the world. Some people think I’m crazy, but I have serious questions about whether the United States should even stay in the UN, and I say that knowing that we’re never going to leave. But we should consider it. Like I said above in discussing a separate story, though, I don’t want to ruin anything in tomorrow’s video, because I talk about this issue a little bit. I, for one, am all about bilateral and multilateral alliances and diplomatic relationships, and I don’t think for one second the UN bests that approach. If anything, it hinders it.

Related Story | The Left, Right, and Center React to Trump at UN: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/us/politics/trump-un-speech-right-and-left.html

Related Story | World Leaders React to Trump at UN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/politics/trump-un-speech-world-leaders-react/index.html