Bret Stephens - As Ill-Informed On Population As He Is On Climate Change

Bret Stephens - Permanent moron on climate change and population.

Blog readers may recall just over nine months ago I skewered the WSJ toadie columnist Bret Stephens on is imbecilic takes to do with climate change while appearing on Bill Maher's Real Time, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/01/bret-stephens-conservo-climate-skeptic.html

"In the end, the fact that Stephens confuses scientists with economists in the "Copenhagen Consensus"  discloses he's not even remotely qualified to be involved in any climate change-global warming discussion. Hell, he wasn't even aware that global dimming (google!) was responsible for the aberration of cooling in the 70s and the fact that "theory" has long since bit the dust."

Now, as if to go one better - to prove he's an even bigger moron than demonstrated on 'Real Time', he unloads on the Chinese and "Malthusians" (who have predicted scarcity with increasing population) in his latest column, 'The Tyranny of a Big Idea' (Nov. 3).

He begins by castigating China for its "one child" policy which it recently revised, referring to it as "a 35 year experiment in folly and human cruelty, instituted in the name of resource conservation"  TO cap it off he ends his screed by writing this refuse:

"China's one child policy has been one of the great unrecognized tragedies of our time. It is a modern day lesson in the danger of environmental fears and the misanthropic solutions they typically inspire".

Which, to be sure, even exceeds in bollocks the assorted nonsense spouted on Maher's segment about climate change. In fact, it makes one wonder if Stephens is qualified to comment on anything environmental or to do with climate change and its prime driver, overpopulation. Indeed, it's clear this asshole doesn't even believe in overpopulation when he also writes such claptrap as:

"The idea of a population bomb was always preposterous. The world's 7.3 billion people could fit into an area the size of Texas with each person getting 1,000 square feet of personal space."

Yes, Stephens actually wrote that - perhaps in a state of drug-induced delirium given that the resource footprint of each person - to get the food, water, etc. needed would be a least 2 hectares. (The U.S. mean is 9.5 hectares per person). Next time you Google, compare the area of a hectare to Stephens' "1,000 square feet" then tell me the man isn't a moron. And now, to continue that line of thought - imagine all those people - hell, even half of them - taking a dump all at once. Where the fuck is that effluent going to go? You'd need a sewage treatment system even larger in area than that on which this bozo would place all those people! And we won't even go into the colossal traffic jams  - even if barely one tenth used cars and the rest bikes. 

And what about potable water?  Where is that going to come from to slake the thirst of all those billions in one limited area?  Would he have it pumped in from the Great Lakes? What about the energy sources? You'd need something like 6 to 7 power grids on the scale of the U.S. or European grids. Where would the grids go with people stacked cheek to jowl?  Where would the transformers, etc. go?

The point is this numbskull has no clue that supporting a massive population isn't simply based on finding the space in which to squeeze them. You also need to consider the support systems, for growing enough food to feed them all each day, as well as the water (clean water) to meet basic needs - not to mention an energy and transport infrastructure. And we aren't even going to get into the number of hospitals (or even urgent care centers) that'd be required to serve all their medical needs.

It is such limits that factor into the carrying capacity, or rather the bio-support capacity of the planet. Even now, 1 billion people live in water-stressed conditions, meaning that renewable water supplies drop below 1,700 cubic meters per capita. One notable ‘State of the World’ report (2000, pp. 46-47), warned that the ever increasing water deficits will likely spark “water wars” by 2025

Now, let's consider the implementation of China's one child policy in view of what I just noted - on the dependency of a population on accessible resources.  Nowhere in his little rant is Stephens honest enough to cite what China's fertility rate was in 1950. As per an earlier article in the WSJ (Nov. 2) it was 6.11 per woman.  (Compared to 1.55 now).

Does this bozo have any remote idea what such a birth rate would have translated into had China not acted? It would have meant a population exceeding 2.2 billion by 1990 and the Chinese never would have been able to support it, nor would the country have reached the near superpower status it has  - even being a creditor to U.S. bond debt. (Owning nearly $1.3 trillion of our bond debt). Further, China's trade capacity would never have evolved to what it become, nor would it have been able to support the military it has - now rivaling the U.S. in the Pacific.  For all intents, China would have remained little better than one of those poor, overpopulated African nations - from which hundreds of thousands are now trying to flee to get to Europe.

China chose boldly not to do that, but to contain its numbers so as to strive for higher life quality for all its people. The proof 'is in the pudding' as they say, and if anyone doubts it they merely have to look at the size of China's middle class which now is vastly greater than the U.S. And when you travel to Europe, If you do, you will see Chinese tourists all over- from Jungfraujoch in Switzerland, to Bratislava, Slovakia, to Vienna, Austria and Prague, Czech Republic. There is NO way that many well off Chinese would be turned into globe trotters had the population policy not been changed to provide more material support for Chinese citizens. So Stephens, like many other Right wing American yahoos is talking through his ass.

And let's get it straight that lower fertility rates in correlation with greater material abundance and financial status is not peculiar to China.  South Korea is also such a success story, despite the fact its fertility rate is now so low its government is worried that its population "will go extinct by 2750". More likely, however, is that humanity will go extinct well before that year due to the runaway Greenhouse effect.

The same applies to all the European nations, e.g. Germany, Denmark, Norway, etc. to which all those poor Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis, Gambians, Zambians, Ghanians etc. are fleeing. Why do you suppose so? Well, because those destination nations have the space and resources that the others lack because of lower birth rates (To be honest, they also haven't faced the brunt of climate change, which most experts believe has been responsible for displacing at least one third of the 11 million Syrians headed out.)

So here's the essential axiom: a nation cannot at once have a vast population and material wealth. If the population outstrips its available resources it is condemned to destitution. The Chinese themselves, if the earlier WSJ story ('Chinese Face Hurdles To Baby Boom After Policy Shift')  is to be believed, are in no hurry to make more babies via the revised policy either. (And if Stephens took the time to read "ambitiously" the articles in his own paper he'd see that - before writing a column full of codswallop)  As one Chinese mother, He Yanping, said when asked about having more children:

"There are so many pressure with having a baby. It's exhausting to take care of a child and also requires so much energy".

And money too!  As one Chinese official, Li Jianmen, observes in the same article:

"To raise a child is very expensive these days. To send your child to a good kindergarten could be as much as 5,000 yuan ($787) a month".

And the cost of sending the kid to a university is vastly greater.

Maybe in Bret Stephens little pie-eyed capitalist clown fantasy world population can grow unabated with material wealth per person, and a family with seven or eight kids can afford "the best'. Alas, it doesn't work like that in most of the real world, by which I mean outside the gated enclaves of the rich.

The Cornucopians like Stephens get it wrong because they don't see population growth for the toxin it is, and can't put 2 plus 2 together to see how it leads to the Malthusian nightmare (not necessarily on Paul Ehrlich's timetable).  All of this comes back to net energy which is that energy humans need to survive. If the oil taken from the ground, say by fracking, only has a ratio of 1:1 (for energy produced to energy consumed) then it is useless to extract it. The same amount of oil-energy you are using up to get it, is basically what it carries. There is no net gain.

It is the net gain that has allowed humans to reproduce and thrive in many places around the globe. It is the erosion of net gain (reflected in ever lower GDP)  that will eliminate a majority of  humans. Right now, with humans consuming nearly the equivalent of 1.6 Earths per year there is no way even a population of 7.3 billion can be sustained - far less squeezed into an area the size of Texas as the dimwit Stephens claims.

Conservo School Board Members Get Dumped in JeffCo Recall Election - A Blow Struck For History Teachers Everywhere

Jefferson County, Colorado voters overwhelmingly chose to recall three members of the Jefferson County school board Tuesday night and elected two others to form an entirely new board in Colorado's second-largest school district. It was sweet revenge for voters - especially teachers and parents - who had watched helplessly for 2 years as these three renegades tried to impose their conservative will on the JeffCo school district, including "reforming" the AP History curriculum.

JeffCo students protested the 3 board members changes to the AP curriculum last Sept.

Susan Harmon, a Lakewood attorney who was chosen by Jefferson County voters to replace ousted member John Newkirk, said Tuesday's results show that "maybe the tide is turning" in terms of school district politics. She said:

"It sends a large message that you need to be responsive to your constituents, your teachers and your community,"

Bingo!

Conservative board members during their years in control tied teacher pay to new evaluations, advocated for more conservative spending, and, in turn, strained relations with unions in both  the Jefferson and Douglas County districts.  After years of discontent from teachers and parents, voters this year rejected conservative board members who were elected in years when less attention was paid to school board politics.

Meanwhile, the usual conservo whiners bellyached in the aftermath. But what do you expect? Just look at the Repuke candidates whining how they were the victims of the big, bad, librul media after the last debate in Boulder..  As Obama put it, if these assorted clowns couldn't even handle 3 lowly CNBC moderators, then how would they handle Russia or China? In truth neither nation would be very "afeared" of these bozos.  Putin and Xi must be howling their asses off and hoping one of these nincompoops gets elected- if Americans are dumb or complacent enough.

Now hear Julie Williams, one of the Jefferson County school board members who was recalled Tuesday, who said the election was taken over by "the liberal agenda and union bosses."

Please! Voters simply exercised the option to dump a trio of assholes who refused to listen to them and intended to convert the AP History syllabus into their personal, conservo fantasy land - replete with faux patriotism, jingoistic justifications, and positive propaganda, i.e. about the slave trade, Native American genocide and Civil War while the real history was whitewashed.

Williams went on to blubber:

"It's hard to fight the lies!"

Aw, boo hoo hoo, and BWAHAHAHAHA. Gimme my sippy cup!

Look, you reaped what you sowed with your arrogant over reaching and dictatorial style rule - along with your two brainless cohorts.

As of 10 p.m., the Jefferson County recall effort held a resounding 64 percent to 36 percent lead

Ken Witt, the head of the Jefferson County board, conceded his race around 7:30 p.m. The two other clowns soon followed.

Much of the drama in this year's campaign has centered on Jefferson County, where a long-standing dispute between the conservative board majority elected two years ago and a large contingent of teachers, parents and students culminated in the launch of a recall effort.

Williams, Witt and  Newkirk raised the ire of thousands in the district when they hired a new superintendent from Douglas County, proposed a review of updates to the advanced placement U.S. history curriculum, hired a board attorney and instituted a new performance-based teacher compensation plan.

Witt defended his record and that of his colleagues Tuesday. He cited a new school that the board approved to build and equal funding for charter schools among their accomplishments.

"We've implemented some great reforms that will have lasting impacts," he said.

Actually, those were "great reforms" only for knuckle draggers - of whom, fortunately, there were not enough to keep these school board conservatives at their jobs, wreaking havoc on teachers, parents and students.

Francis Must Be Wary Confronting Rats In The Vatican Bank

As the news surrounding more Vatican intrigue erupts, e.g. with headlines like 'Vatican Financial Troubles Run Deep, According to New Book', in the New York Times, the media and others appear to forget or omit the source is not the Vatican per se- but the Vatican Bank.  And it's nothing new, not at all for those of us who've done deep politics research into its issues - including ties to notorious intel and gangster outfits like P2.

As long ago as 1978 Pope John Paul I had planned to change the culture and operations at the Vatican Bank to make them more transparent and accountable. At the time of Albino Luciani's ascension it was run by renegade padre, Paul Marcinkus and shady sleaze bags like Licio Gelli .   The new Pope had become aware that the Bank had been funneling money to unsavory types such as P2 in Italy and the gangsters connected to it  didn't want any light cast on their deeds.

As documented by David Yallop, ('In God's Name').  they eliminated their primary threat, as well as took measures against secondary ones such as Roberto Calvi (P2 member and 'executioner', found hanging under Blackfriar's Bridge, London, June 17, 1982. )

In the wake of these sort of revelations it is nothing short of amazing that Pope Francis would dare to make this misshapen Bank accountable and transparent again.  But he needs to watch every step he takes because the same breed of nasty vipers are again in charge. This has been disclosed by the new book, 'Merchants In The Temple' by Gianluigi Nuzzi,  who portrays Francis as a lonely crusader. Which he is, as much as Pope John Paul I in 1978.

Among the information disclosed in the book:

- The fierce revolt against the Pope's efforts to make sweeping changes at the Bank

- A real estate portfolio that is worth seven times as much as the Vatican shows on its books

(All deep politics researchers grasp that this template is the M.O. for black budgets, i.e. to fund operations outside of the purview of the Bank or the Vatican)

And the most repugnant:

- Donations from around the world intended for the poor which actually went into a slush fund to pay running costs.

All the revelations are based on secret recordings of meetings the Pope held with senior cardinals- recordings which were then leaked and have been published by Nuzzi in his book.

A statement released by the Holy See in the wake of the book's publication read in part:

"Such actions are a serious betrayal of trust granted by the Pope"

Maybe, but as in the case of Edward Snowden releasing the transgressions of the NSA, the transgressions of the Vatican Bank superseded those of the ones who leaked the recordings. Clearly, the leakers - as in the case of whistle blowers everywhere- had to have experienced strong moral revulsion at the goings on and believed it their bounden duty to enlighten the rest of us - through Nuzzi's book. I applaud them as I do Snowden, and only rats would defend rats.

And also, let's realize the Pope's quest for action and accountability may actually have been given a serious boost by all this publicity.  With so much media light now shining on Francis and his efforts, it is doubtful the rats will come out of the woodwork to exact vengeance like they did against John Paul 1 in the summer of 1978.

Meanwhile, Francis has recently released a tweet in the wake of the kerfuffle:

"Onward with serenity!"

This is good, but as he goes "onward", especially in regards to exposing the vipers at the Vatican Bank, it is critical Francis ensure he protect his "blind side". Alas, Pope John Paul I didn't. A pity! Had Albino Luciani survived his papacy I'd likely never have left the Church and become an atheist.


See also:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-05/pope-francis-reforms-a-vatican-bank-steeped-in-dan-brown-intrigue

Why The Increased Deaths For Middle-Aged White Americans?

Graph showing trend of U.S. death rate for middle-aged whites vs. those in other nations.

What's going on with middle-aged, poorly-educated whites in the US of A, dying at a yearly rate (from 1999 - 2013) now rivaling that of HIV/AIDS?  (Before 1999, this demographic had enjoyed 2 percent per yr. lowered death rates.) Sociologists have to inquire - as do curious inquiring citizens - given that unlike every other age group, or every other racial and ethnic group - and most notably - unlike their counterparts in other rich countries, the death rates in this group have been rising, not falling.

That disturbing mortality finding was reported Monday by two Princeton economists, Angus Deaton, who last month won the 2015 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, and Anne Case. Analyzing health and mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from other sources, they concluded that rising annual death rates among this group are being driven not by the big killers like heart disease and diabetes but by an epidemic of suicides and afflictions stemming from substance abuse: alcoholic liver disease and overdoses of heroin and prescription opioids.

What the hell gives? Why are Americans perishing so much more than Europeans in the same age range? Is it that life is much harder, wages and benefits too low? Addictions too great?

The analysis by Drs. Deaton and Case offers the most rigorous evidence to date of both the causes and implications of a development that has been puzzling demographers in recent years: the declining health and fortunes of poorly educated , middle-aged American whites.  Note they are now dying at such a high rate that they are increasing the death rate for the entire group of middle-aged white Americans, Dr. Deaton and Dr. Case found.

The mortality rate for whites 45 to 54 years old with no more than a high school education increased by 134 deaths per 100,000 people from 1999 to 2014. In a commentary on the Deaton-Case analysis that was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, two Dartmouth economists, Ellen Meara and Jonathan S. Skinner, wrote:

“It is difficult to find modern settings with survival losses of this magnitude,”

Samuel Preston, a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania and an expert on mortality trends, not involved in the research, exclaimed:

“Wow.  This is a vivid indication that something is awry in these American households.”

The parallel invoked bv Dr. Deaton was H.I.V./AIDS  the only thing in contemporary times " that has done anything like this,” he said.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

In contrast, the death rate for middle-aged blacks and Hispanics continued to decline during the same period, as did death rates for younger and older people of all races and ethnic groups.

Drs. Deaton and Case (husband and wife) said they stumbled on their finding by accident, looking at a variety of national data sets on mortality rates and federal surveys that asked people about their levels of pain, disability and general ill health.

Dr. Deaton was looking at statistics on suicide and happiness, skeptical about whether states with a high happiness level have a low suicide rate. (They do not, he discovered; in fact, the opposite is true.) Dr. Case was interested in poor health, including chronic pain because she has suffered for 12 years from disabling and untreatable lower back pain.

Dr. Deaton noticed in national data sets that middle-aged whites were committing suicide at an unprecedented rate and that the all-cause mortality in this group was rising. But suicides alone, he and Dr. Case realized, were not enough to push up overall death rates, so they began looking at other causes of death. That led them to the discovery that deaths from drug and alcohol poisoning also increased in this group.

Dr. Case, investigating indicators of poor health, found that middle-aged people, unlike the young and unlike the elderly, were reporting more pain in recent years than in the past. A third in this group reported they had chronic joint pain over the years 2011 to 2013, and one in seven said they had sciatica. Those with the least education reported the most pain and the worst general health.

Also, not too surprising, the least educated also had the most financial distress, Dr. Meara and Dr. Skinner noted in their commentary. In the period examined by Dr. Deaton and Dr. Case, the inflation-adjusted income for households headed by a high school graduate fell by 19 percent.

Dr. Case found that the number of whites with mental illnesses and the number reporting they had difficulty socializing increased in tandem. Along with that, increasing numbers of middle-aged whites said they were unable to work. She also saw matching increases in the numbers reporting pain and the numbers reporting difficulty socializing, difficulty shopping, difficulty walking for two blocks.

In the WSJ today, the connection of this group of Americans has also now been tied to the proportion no longer participating in the labor force. In other words, these pain-plagued, lower educated 45-54 year olds are contributing to the lower labor participation rate in that age group.

With the pain and mental distress data, Dr. Deaton said, “we had the two halves of the story.” Increases in mortality rates in middle-aged whites rose in parallel with their increasing reports of pain, poor health and distress, he explained. They provided a rationale for the increase in deaths from substance abuse and suicides.

Dr. Preston of the University of Pennsylvania noted that the National Academy of Sciences had published two monographs reporting that the United States had fallen behind other rich countries in improvements in life expectancy. One was on mortality below age 50 and the other on mortality above age 50. He coedited one of those reports. But, he said, because of the age divisions, the researchers analyzing the data missed what Dr. Deaton and Dr. Case found hiding in plain sight.

Ronald D. Lee, professor of economics, professor of demography and director of the Center on Economics and Demography of Aging at the University of California, Berkeley, was among those taken aback by what Dr. Deaton and Dr. Case discovered.

“Seldom have I felt as affected by a paper. It seems so sad.”

Sad indeed that a half million more people died in the 14-year time interval that shouldn't have, according to one economist.

My own take is that this group is one that has been majorly left behind in the Neoliberal economy so that the one percenters can grab more of the national 'cake'. This is yet another reason to vote for Bernie Sanders, without whom the death rate for these middle-aged folks will likely triple.  Bear in mind that to make ends meet many have had to hold two or more jobs to get a living wage - especially to pay for housing. Years of that kind of labor are bound to wear out their backs, lead to addictive behavior and even serious medical problems. And now, they've been warned by the repukes that Medicare eligibility is "on the block" and ought to be delayed until 68 or 70. No wonder they see little hope for life quality betterment.

Will Collapsed Oil Prices Drive Your Kids' College Tuition Sky High?

While many people may have read about the collapse in oil prices, from a high of $100 a barrel in June, 2014 to an international benchmark of $50 a barrel now - few may have made the connection to how these prices adversely affect college funding in energy- heavy states.   As a recent Denver Post piece ('Millions of Reasons for Colleges To Worry') has noted, however, there is lots of cause to worry. In particular, how colleges in the energy states (TX, OK, AK, LA) may have to jack up tuition to make up for donation losses.

As the piece observes:

"The latest bust and tumbling crude prices are now pinching off the largesse that helps universities in oil-rich states afford what they want when state budgets are strained, which is especially the case now. Already the consequences are becoming obvious"

A few examples cited (ibid.):

- Campus construction projects are being stretched or put in limbo (the Univ. of Oklahoma has already scaled back a planned $370m stadium renovation)

- Scholarship funds are taking a hit across the Southwest

- Donors are asking for more time to make good on pledges (at LSU, energy sector gifts have fallen from a quarter of all fund raising to one tenth)

All told, U.S. colleges received some $38b in charitable donations in 2014, according to the Council for Aid to Education - a "sum that helped to make up for the continuing appropriations from state governments".  That sum now stands to be decreased, with the result that "tuition hikes are back on the table" at many colleges and universities such as in Texas. (Ibid.)

As the piece notes (ibid.):

"Texas' public universities are closely tied to oil because the royalties from the state's 2.1 million acres of oil and gas lands go directly to the University of Texas and Texas A&M system. But only a dozen of the previously 100 -plus rigs in the Permian Basin shale are working".

It has simply become too unprofitable to run them when the price dives below $60 a barrel because the extracted energy is too near the breakeven point. (Cost of energy extracted equals cost of energy put in to get it.)

Is there any sense this might soon change for the better? Not according to a headline article in the Wall Street Journal Business & Tech section, 'Oil Giants See No Relief On Prices' (October 30,p. B1).  As noted therein:

"Continued oversupply means that next year, Brent crude prices will average $58 a barrel and West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. oil benchmark, will average $54 a barrel,  according to 13 investment banks polled by The Wall Street Journal. Many of the same banks were predicting $70 a barrel in 2016 just a few months ago."

Recall that as recently as Aug. 21,  the Wall Street Journal ('As Rout Deepens, Oil Producers Keep on Pumping',  p. A1) reported:

"When oil prices started to edge down a year ago, most energy mavens thought the drop would be small and short lived. Instead the price of crude has plunged by almost 60 % from its 2014 peak  - and suddenly looks likely to stay low for years and months to come."

What happened? The oil producing nations including the U.S. (with fracking for shale oil or kerogen) simply couldn't put a lid on their production even when it was blatantly obvious more oil would drive prices lower - because of oversupply. Everyone appeared to be "locked into pumping as much oil as possible" (WSJ, 8/21) to the detriment of all.  As the Journal noted (ibid.) even the Saudis had increased their production in the face of falling prices.  The result has been "an energy version of trench warfare, with producers all trying to gain an inch of market share no matter the cost."

(Note:  On Thursday, according to the 10/30  WSJ piece, "Brent crude settled at $48.80 a barrel while WTI ended at $46.06 a barrel.")

Again, bear in mind oil - including shale oil - doesn't emerge from the ground without cost. It takes a lot of energy just to extract it, not to mention store it and transport it.

You might want to consider that if your kid is attending college in an "oil state" his tuition will likely go up next year which means also higher college loan debt. It's much better to be prepared for this beforehand than get surprised at the last moment.

Yet Another History Prof Misfires On Oswald And The JFK Assassination

Adjunct history prof ( from Northeastern University in Boston) Edward H. Miller's salon.com essay was superb, until I got to the part where he totally blew it on Lee Oswald's role in the Kennedy assassination. All was going well reading Miller's 'When Texas Fell To The Wingnuts: The Secret History of the Southern Strategy, Modern Conservatism and the Lone Star State', until I got to this sentence which blew all Miller's supposed history competence to smithereens:

"Although President Kennedy's killer was a Marxist who lived in Dallas for only two months, many columnists had concluded the city and its right wing had created an environment which contributed to the assassination".

And at that juncture, the perception of original quality was spoiled,  analogous to a fine punch ruined by a bird's droppings, dumped in flight. 

The reason is that as diligent as Miller was in laying out the travails of  Dallas, the Lone Star state and their inherent image and political problems, he totally messed up on the key event that "slandered" the state: JFK's assassination. Fortuitously, serious reporters existed at the time who got it right, that the fingering of Oswald simply didn't fit what was already known. Kenneth Crawford, for example, in his Newsweek piece ('The Enemies He Made’,  Dec. 2, 1963, p. 35) accurately noted the real culprits: the radical right wing and its ‘better circles’ and their elitist enclaves.  Enclaves replete with extremists like oil billionaire H.L. Hunt, responsible for putting up the 'Wanted for Treason' posters on the day of the assassination, e.g.

At the time, however, most reporters couldn’t or wouldn’t see, as Crawford put it,  "the suspicious irony inherent in a lone-pro-Castro gunman being fingered in a city (Dallas) regarded as a citadel of right wing strength". (ibid.)

Indeed, merely four weeks earlier Adlai Stevenson had gone to Dallas for a UN Day meeting, and was attacked – spit upon, and smashed over the head with placards - by fulminating,  reactionary right wing pickets (Newsweek, Dec. 2., 1963, p. 21). It was after that encounter that he warned JFK to reconsider his forthcoming trip.

 Kennedy mulled it over, but LBJ had boxed him in, playing to his machismo instincts. 'What would it look like for a feller like y'erself to be frightened of goin' to Big D and settlin'  party issues,  huh?"

He was referring to the (then) feud between John Connally and Ralph Yarborough. Kennedy, placed in a no-win, no bailout position had no choice but to put himself right in the middle of this cauldron of hate  - where numerous actors - from LBJ and his Texas cohort, to the Dallas PD (full of white extremists who hated JFK for his integration stand) cooperated to get rid of a "traitor" - who negotiated with communists. It wasn't a "Marxist" that killed Kennedy, but extremist Marxist haters (about whom I will have more to post in a future blog, along with links to the CIA).

 But given Miller's evident commitment to the lone nut myth it's no surprise he makes no mention of how the CIA had compiled a compelling false narrative and guilt trail using phony cables, photos  phone calls etc. that the Warren Commission (a creature of LBJ)  bit into it hook, line and sinker and never remotely considered (or seriously considered) the alternative: that a right wing based- military- intelligence operation had targeted Kennedy in Big D using affiliates in that city - most of whom hated Kennedy's guts. They also included powerful forces enraged at his backing down (from invasion) during the Cuban Missile Crisis, his removal of Gen. Edwin Walker from command, his intent to pull out of Vietnam and his efforts at rapprochement with Fidel Castro.

Most of this was due to the resourceful work of John Newman and Peter Dale Scott, among others, from whom we’ve learned that Lee Oswald actually had a CIA file : 201-289248 CI/SIG[1], opened on December 9, 1960, more than one year after his defection to the USSR (Oct, 1959) The ostensible reason given for opening the file in the first place was Oswald's defection, and possible “continuing intelligence interest”.

To Prof. Newman (a REAL historian, at least on this issue) we owe the exposure of the Oswald CIA files, i.e. in his monumental book, 'Oswald and the CIA'. To Scott, we owe using the files to making the connections to the CIA setting up Oswald as the decoy or pawn.  Scott was the one who pointed out that no one had informed the Warren Commission that the letter ‘D’ – on the cover sheet of Oswald’s 201 file – indicated CIA Staff D, a SIGINT or signals intelligence operation run in concert with the National Security  Agency or NSA. As he observes (Deep Politics Quarterly, Jan. 1994):

“In 1961, when William Harvey headed Staff D, he was assigned the task of developing the CIA Assassinations Project, ZR/Rifle”

Thus, it was William Harvey - in conjunction with fired (by JFK) former CIA Director Allen Dulles - who decided to use Oswald as the dupe to set up the assassination and cover the identities of the actual mechanics. We also have to thank Scott for exposing the fake cables concocted by the CIA to frame Lee Oswald.  If Miller is such a grand historian why didn't he gain access to this material - which has been available since its release under the JFK Records Act? Is he just plain lazy, or incompetent?

As noted by Scott (‘Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics’, 2013, p. 25) : “at least three show signs of CIA doctoring and the first, which does not, was nevertheless so misleading as to be possibly dishonest.” This was the cable from the Mexico City Station on Oct. 8 that claimed Oswald had appeared at the Soviet Embassy on Oct. 1, claiming  he had spoken with Valeriy Kostikov three days earlier. (Kostikov was top man in the KGB's "Department Thirteen" - responsible for assassinations. As Scott notes, ibid., this is why American Rightists made use of any sources they could to try to parlay this into something to force the WC's hand into a "phase one" conclusion. That included using Oswald's brother, Robert.

More sobering is Newman’s apt reflection on Oswald’s activities in New Orleans from May –Sept, 1963 (Oswald and the CIA, p. 292):

"The record of Oswald's stay in New Orleans, May to September 1963, is replete with mistakes, coincidences, and other anomalies. As Oswald engaged in pro-Castro and anti-Castro activities, the FBI says they lost track of him. The Army was monitoring his activities and says it destroyed their reports. The record of his propaganda operations in New Orleans published by the Warren Commission turned out to have been deliberately falsified."

Even more vexing and worrisome, is that the CIA had spies squirreled away inside the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City  who could have pulled off all manner of chicanery, including altering the impostor Oswald's documents (substituting the real Oswald's photo, signature, etc.). As HSCA Investigator Fonzi  notes (using research by two staffers, Dan Hardaway, and Eddie Lopez - whose work led to the  Lopez Report, still in CIA files)[2]:

"In questioning (David Atlee)Phillips, Hardway was also working from information that had been dug up on a couple of secret trips to Mexico City made by Lopez, and investigator Harold Leap. Without the Agency's permission, they had located and interviewed a couple of CIA assets who had worked inside the Cuban Consulate at the time. The Agency never revealed this to the Warren Commission, but it actually had planted spies within the Cuban compound. That may be relevant to the fact that, in the end, the only 'proof' that the real Oswald was inside the Cuban Consulate were his photographs and his signature on his visa application.”

David Atlee Phillips - responsible for framing Oswald with phony CIA cables.

 

Fonzi noted that Lopez and Hardway observed that David Atlee  Phillips seemed to be especially nervous when Hardway began questioning him about the lack of photographs of Oswald. He maintained that the surveillance cameras at both Soviet and Cuban Embassies were “not functioning at the time of Oswald's visits” . Phillips stuck to the story that the Agency didn't maintain an around-the-clock  and weekend surveillance of the Soviet Embassy. He also said the Cuban Embassy camera “happened to be malfunctioning”  during the time of Oswald's visit.

So, despite the fact that Oswald had allegedly made five visits to the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy, there were no photographs to substantiate it.

As Gaeton Fonzi observes (p. 295)

"In the end, Phillips couldn't explain the contradictions in his testimony about the Agency's surveillance capabilities or why, if the cameras at the Soviet Embassy were working on October 1^st -when it photographed the unidentified man passed off as Oswald, there was no photograph of the real Oswald."
 

The 'Oswald in Mexico City' caper, like so much else, also provides a cautionary tale about accepting anything in this case at face value, especially if it emanates from 'official sources', departments, or agents- who have a vested interest in keeping the “lone nut” myth alive and well.

Neither does Miller tell us anything about the top man, George de Mohrenschildt, linked to the CIA and known to be Oswald's "handler" in Dallas. Why this huge gap? Didn't Miller consider it important enough?
 

Gaeton Fonzi, affiliated with the HSCA investigation, and author of 'The Last Investigation" notes this concerning de Mohrenschildt:
 

The Assassinations Committee discovered  that George de Mohrenschildt, a prominent Dallas social figure who mysteriously befriended a working class ex-Russian defector, had been asked by the CIA's resident Domestic Contact Agent to debrief Oswald. When Committee investigator Fonzi tracked down De Mohrenschildt in South Florida, the longtime CIA asset was found dead before he could be questioned. However, in the skewered world of Washington politics, De Mohrenschildt's sudden death was a factor in keeping the Assassination Committee alive"

George de Mohrenschildt - murdered at his home before he was to testify before the HSCA about his connections to Oswald in Dallas

 How so? The answer emerges in a post-script addendum authored by Gaeton Fonzi, referencing the date (March 29, 1977)  of de Mohrenschildt's killing (by CIA contract killers) and what else transpired, after he was notified by Fonzi that he was being sought to testify in the HSCA hearings:

"That evening in Washington,  with the Committee on the verge of losing a House vote for its reconstitution and funding Chief Counsel Sprague resigns. The next morning the news of de Mohrenschildt's death and Sprague's resignation produce a victory for the Committee's continuation."

Be assured this was no coincidence. While de Mohrenschildt was a key witness (who would have disclosed how Oswald was being manipulated or "sheep dipped" in Agency parlance) Richard Sprague - the original HSCA head - vowed to "dig deeply into the methods of the FBI and CIA" and also hold them to account. But as per its usual wont, the CIA began a smear campaign in the media against him  - and also rounded up useful collaborating 'whores' in the House (like Henry Gonzalez- who told the spooks to "ignore all Sprague's subpoenas") to ensure Sprague had to depart. That it occurred simultaneously (the same night) as de Mohrenschildt's death probably led Sprague to see what would also happen to him if he didn't leave. The CIA takes no prisoners, as we've beheld with their torture routines- and how their henchmen solved the Roselli problem (recall Roselli had flapped his gums and blabbed that Ruby had actually killed Oswald to silence him.)

 

All of this is pertinent to what transpired before and after Kennedy's assassination, and Oswald's role - which was no more or less than a dupe, a patsy - just as he said.
 

It is understandable, of course,  if an adjunct history prof author is averse to "getting in the weeds" on such issues, especially when he may not have done much relevant research on the assassination itself. But in that case it is his responsibility to avoid making bald statements about principals in a way that portrays the statements as factual. This is the major mistake Prof. Miller commits in his essay.  It may mean little or nothing to lone nuts but it makes a big difference to the rest of us.

----

[1] CI/SIG =  'Counter Intelligence/ Special Interest Group'

 

[2] Fonzi. op. cit., pp. 293-94.

Poor Nations Getting 'Ambushed' By Global Warming

In his popular essay, 'Ambushed - The Warming of the World' - in the book 'Billions and Billions', Carl Sagan left open the possibility that much of our planet would indeed be 'ambushed" if we didn't pay enough attention. Now, it turns out that this is happening especially to poorer nations, which are going to be taking a disproportionate hit.

As reported recently (Denver Post, Oct. 22, p. 9A) with each upward degree "global warming will singe the economies of  three quarters of the world's nations and widen the north-south gap between rich and poor countries". This is according to a new economic and scientific study authored by Marshall Burke of Stanford University and Solomon Hsiang an economist and public policy professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

The pair examined 50 years of economic data in 160 countries and even county-by-county data in the U.S.  and found what Burke calls "the Goldilocks zone in global temperature at which humans are good at producing stuff" and relatively comfortable. This turns out to be for an annual temperature of 55.4 degrees give or take a degree. For all those nations at or above that temperature, every added degree slows productivity and increases discomfort.

The authors note that right now the U.S. is "close to the global optimum" - ignoring all the recent rain events including in South Carolina and Texas,  which are surely tied to global warming (given a warmer atmosphere holds much more moisture).  But, as it warms the U.S. will fall off that peak and become more like poorer nations now. For example, the authors calculate a warmer U.S. in 2100 will have a GDP per person that's 36 percent lower than now.

The authors' main figures are based on the premise and assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise at the current trajectory. But if it is out by as much as 50 percent (and many climate scientists now assert warming by 2100 will mark an increase of 4C not 2C) all the forecasts will collapse. The loss in GDP per person could easily be as much as 70 or 80 percent - especially if power grids are also adversely affected.

Meanwhile, if heat trapping CO2 continues to grow at the current rate they forecast the average global income will shrink by 23 percent at the end of the century. Again, if the increase is 4C and not 2C the gutting of income will be much worse,

As Prof. Hsiang puts it(ibid.):

"Climate change is essentially a massive transfer of value from the hot parts of the world to the cooler parts of the world. This is like taking from the poor and giving to the rich."

But left out of the authors' projections is that as the world continues to warm it will set off a mass migration of those from the hot regions that will dwarf the current migration to Europe. Some estimates put the humans fleeing the hot - destitute regions as high as 200 million and possibly 300 million, by 2025. They will assuredly all be seeking that elusive "equality".

Will the cooler regions be ready for that? We will have to see. But if the current migration from the Middle East to Europe is any indicator, we won't.