Are You Happy?

            The 2019 World Happiness Report (WHR) from the UN is out. It is huge. Its multiple charts are a statistician’s delight, while the accompanying explanations and commentary help to understand the methodology and interpret the findings. The report ranks the overall happiness of 156 countries, based on six categories: GDP per capita, Health (life expectancy), Social Support, Freedom, Generosity, and Corruption. The first two rely on available statistics, while the rest are the result of surveys that asked questions such as: “Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your freedom to choose what you do with your life?” and “Is corruption widespread throughout the government (or business) or not?” One could spend days immersed in this report, but for the less wonkish among us, it is best to focus on specific points. One is life expectancy, because it has gone DOWN in this country.

            Why should life expectancy go down when we have the best doctors and the best hospitals in the world, as well as the most advanced treatments for killer diseases? The paradox is that old people are living longer, but young people are dying much too soon. Why? The answer appears to be in lifestyles chosen by teens and young adults. Too many of them are self-indulgent hedonists who seek joy and fulfillment in self-destructive behavior. We have an epidemic of addiction in this country: to drugs, sex, gambling, violence, over-eating, money, and more. Substance abusers die young; so do the obese, the drunken drivers, and the murderous gang members; so do the homeless and the mentally ill driven to depression and suicide.

            The WHR ranks the United States 19^th out of 156 countries. Why should that be when we are the richest, most generous country in the world, the beacon of freedom, the model of democracy? Why is there so much hate, divisiveness, and greed where there should be friendship, unity, and care for our families, communities, and the less fortunate among us? Why are so many young people so unhappy? The WHR may not have all the answers. But it’s a good place to start looking. If we care.

           

Remembering 1969

            Those among us of a certain age can recall some of the major events of 1969. Fifty years is not enough to erase the images of that fateful year. Here are just a few:

            That year the Vietnam War was raging. Anti-war riots occurred on campuses around the country, most notably at UC Berkeley; enormous crowds massed outside the White House to protest; pictures of the My Lai massacre were released. Meanwhile, young people gathered under a marijuana haze to tune out at Woodstock and Altamont.

            Among people who died but shouldn’t have: Sharon Tate and friends at the hand of Charles Manson and his followers; Mary Jo Kopechne in a car abandoned in the water by Ted Kennedy at Chappaquiddick. Category 5 Hurricane Camille killed 262 people from Louisiana to Virginia.

            Good things happened that year, too. The Boeing 747 flew for the first time, and the Concorde broke the sound barrier on its first commercial flight. ARPANET, precursor of the Internet, linked two computers—just think how far we’ve come since then.

            My favorite memories: We put a man on the moon! Broadway Joe Namath led the New York Jets in a major upset of the Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III. My wife presented me with Marc, our third child, now himself a father and grandfather.

            I won’t be around in 2069 to recall the events of 2019. I wonder how those who are alive then will remember this year.

           

           

Socialism, Energy, and Ocasio-Cortez

            Random thoughts on socialism, energy, and Ocasio-Cortez:

            If Democrats want to defeat Donald Trump in the worst way in 2020, why are they letting themselves be bullied by the party’s most radical proponents of socialist ideology? “Fall in line, or else” seems to be the tactic employed by extremists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to get her House colleagues to back ruinous policies like her “Green New Deal” and “Medicare for All.” Socialism may appeal to young voters who are ignorant of history, but it will never garner a majority. Extremism doesn’t win elections.

            The reason Venezuela’s socialist tyrant Nicolás Maduro is still clinging to power today is the support of a military backed by Cuban operatives. With more soldiers defecting every day, it is just a matter of time before Maduro’s protective wall is breached and the Cubans are thrown out. Other losers will be Russia, Iran, and especially China, all of which have backed Maduro. Americans believe in the Monroe Doctrine, and when Washington says that “All options on the table,” these adversaries have only to remember what happened in Panama, Granada, and the Cuban Missile Crisis to know that we will not allow them to gain a foothold in the Americas.

            I will never understand why the most efficient, affordable, and clean source of energy is hardly ever mentioned by starry-eyed proponents of green energy. What is it? Nuclear energy. All the arguments against it have been de-bunked, and the countries that have expanded its use are reaping the benefits: low costs, clean air, and expanding economies. One example should suffice. Sweden, an Ocasio-Cortez favorite, has doubled its energy output with nuclear energy, while dropping fossil-fuel use by 40% and reducing carbon emissions by 50%. That’s why its capitalist (YES, capitalist!) economy has been able to fund its expansive social programs so loved by Ocasio-Cortez.

            Our publicity-seeking congresswoman is still hissing and yowling like a drenched cat after seeing that Times Square billboard: AMAZON PULLOUT – 25,000 Lost NYC Jobs - $4 Billion in Lost Wages - $12 Billion in Lost Economic Activity for NY – THANKS FOR NOTHING, AOC! Would her constituents vote for her today?

Searching for Honest Journalists

            I have a soft spot for journalists. My dad was a journalist. He was also the most honest man I’ve ever known. The ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes, who was known for holding a lantern as he walked the streets of Athens looking for an honest man, would have liked my father. But Diogenes would have a tough time today looking for honest journalists in the mainstream media. That’s because most reporters who call themselves journalists are nothing more than propagandists or political operatives. And that’s not just my opinion.

            South African Lara Logan is a celebrated freelance journalist. She has covered the news for ABC, NBC, and CNN, and was a foreign correspondent for CBS News from 2002 to 2018. She reported from Afghanistan and Iraq, and gained notoriety when she broke news stories on what really happened in Benghazi. In 2011 she was brutally beaten and sexually assaulted in Cairo while reporting on the Egyptian Revolution. She has earned her stripes and the right to speak out.

            “It is a fact that the vast majority of journalists in this country are registered Democrats,” she stated in a recent op-ed in the New York Post. She blames colleges “dominated by one political ideology,” with the result that “reporting has become so one-sided,” and “people have lost faith in journalism.” Unsurprisingly, Logan has been reviled and castigated by the mainstream media for speaking the truth.

            But she is not alone. Jill Abramson, executive editor of the New York Times has said, “We have become political activists…and some could argue propagandists.” She recognizes that all the negative coverage of Trump all the time is a distortion of the truth.

            By speaking out against their Leftmedia colleagues, Lara Logan and Jill Abramson have committed professional suicide.

            Diogenes, meet Lara Logan and Jill Abramson.

The Growing Marijuana Crisis

            The rush to get on board the crowded train of candidates seeking the Democratic nomination to oppose President Trump in 2020 is almost comical. To distinguish themselves from the crowd, the would-be nominees take on the most extreme positions: abolish ICE, defund Homeland Security, confiscate rich people’s assets, Medicare for all, ban fossil fuels, and so on. Climate change has been declared the number one universal crisis requiring drastic measures, or else we will all be dead in 10 years.

            Some have sensibly identified the opioid crisis as a serious threat. But there is one threat that not a single candidate mentions: the disturbing number of deaths than can be traced back to the increased use of cannabis, especially among our young people aged 18 to 25.

            Advocates for the legalization of recreational marijuana minimize the dangers of cannabis addiction. Yet, there is mounting evidence of the connection between cannabis addiction and psychosis, a leading cause of violence. Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon, the first four states to legalize recreational use of marijuana, have experienced a combined increase of 37 percent in murders and 25 percent for aggravated assaults since legalization.

            True, more research must be done to connect cannabis addiction with violence, but statistics on this connection are already trickling in not only from states where marijuana is legal, but from states where it is not. Texas, for instance, has provided data on child abuse and neglect that point to a greater connection between cannabis and this type of psychosis-induced violence.

            There is no denying that today’s marijuana is far more potent than ever before. In fact, studies estimate that the 1.5% of Americans who have a cannabis addiction now account for 11% of all psychosis cases in emergency rooms. In states like Colorado, emergency rooms physicians have had to become experts in dealing with cannabis-induced psychosis.

            Simply put, we ought to be very concerned about the growing incidence of mental illness among young adults who are heavy users of cannabis. It far outweighs climate change not only in its seriousness, but also in its immediacy. Democrats who aspire to the presidency and who boast about their ability to reach young voters should take note.

Fertility Rate at Risk

            Back in the 90s I spent a week in Beijing on business and another with my wife as tourists. We have great memories of that trip and many images still fresh in our minds, like the endless rows of bicycles lined up on city sidewalks, the army of women with long brooms keeping the streets clean, and the ubiquitous vendors aggressively hawking food and merchandise of all kinds. But one sight in particular got my wife’s attention: mothers strolling in the city parks with only one child, almost always a boy. This was the period of China’s strictly enforced One-Child policy, one of whose nefarious consequences was the abortion—and sometimes infanticide—of millions of girl babies.

            The One-Child policy, meant to keep China’s exploding population in check, proved to be a huge mistake. It has since been reversed, but because of the preference for boy babies exacerbated by the policy, its effect is now starkly evident. There are an estimated 333 million more men in China than women of child-bearing age. Worse, because of China’s rapid economic development, many of these women are entering the workforce and becoming career women rather than mothers. As a result, weddings in China have gone down for five consecutive years and there have been fewer births than in previous years—two million fewer in last year alone. China is now looking at the growth of an aging population no longer balanced by a corresponding birth rate. The government fears that in the long run there won’t be enough workers to sustain China’s economic growth. And this poses a threat to China’s dream of becoming the world’s greatest economic power.

            China is not the only country facing this problem. It is worse in Germany, for example, and much worse in Japan. But the United States is not far behind. It takes 2.1 births per woman for the population to replace itself. However, the fertility rate in this country last year was 1.76. If it weren’t for immigration, the population of the United States would be in decline.

            The widespread practice of abortion is not helping. Last year Planned Parenthood alone performed 332,757 of them. It is an ironic coincidence that our booming economy produced over 300,00 new jobs last month, many of which are likely to remain unfilled because there aren’t enough skilled workers to fill them. There are many thousands of Central American migrants who would love to have a shot at those jobs, if only we would let them in. But then that’s another problem that needs to be dealt with.

Disgust Anyone?

 I have rarely been so disgusted as I was when I saw a video of New York State legislators cheering wildly upon passage of the hideously misnamed Reproductive Health Act. The law codifies once and for all that in the process of human reproduction that begins at conception and concludes at birth, the unborn “thing” called a fetus has no rights whatsoever.

 Until the passage of this law, late-term abortions in New York were illegal. No longer. That “thing” in the mother’s womb can have its spinal cord snipped right up to the moment of birth, no penalty attached. That “thing” whose heart is beating, who can feel pain, who may be perfectly formed and ready in every way to meet life outside the womb, that “thing” is not a person and therefore has no rights. The only one who qualifies as a person with rights is the mother. She can decide to kill her unborn baby for any reason right up to its emergence from her womb. There are no longer any criminal penalties associated with abortion. In fact, if the abortion fails and the baby is born alive, it still has no rights: it can be allowed to die. To me, this is nothing less than infanticide, nothing less than the ultimate in moral depravity.

Is anyone disgusted by this? Certainly not Virginia's Democratic Governor Ralph  Northam who has publicly endorsed infanticide (he claims he was mischaracterized). Certainly not the Democrat party that has moved so far to the left that it no longer tolerates anyone who supports Right to Life within its ranks. Who can support a party that no longer believes in the rights enumerated in The Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the first of these being Life. But the unborn and the just born, according to these Democrats, are not among those endowed with this right by our Creator.

 Anyone else disgusted?