Mining Remains Important Despite Recent Job Losses

Many materials mined around the world (coal, limestone, copper, gold, silver, iron ore, etc.) have a wide variety of uses. These uses include building and highway construction, cell phones, cooking utensils, and even solar panels and wind turbines.

Steve Gardner (2015 SME President) spoke today (April 21, 2016) in Lexington, Kentucky about the importance of mining and the current situation of mining around the world. Among other things, Gardner noted that drops in commodity prices, environmental regulations, etc., have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs around the world although mining is important and will continue.

According to a January 8, 2016 Mining.com piece over 100,000 mining/mining support jobs were lost in the U.S. alone in 2015.

Coal Mining
Coal mining may be especially impacted as most folks in Kentucky where I live probably know due to the number of mines shut and miners put out of work in recent years, and as a February 1, 2016 Kentucky.com article noted. Furthermore, a February 22, 2016 Reuters article stated that China (the world's largest coal consumer) plans to close over 1,000 of its own coal mines this year.

Coal mining will continue. However, as I see it, coal mining may never rebound to its levels of a few years ago. It's unfortunate for miners though that its decline has happened so fast with environmental regulations, cheaper natural gas, lower oil prices, and renewable fuels, along with a recession all impacting it negatively.
 
Concluding Thoughts
Though I strongly favor reasonable environmental regulations and am glad for many major improvements made that reduce pollution from coal-fired plants in the U.S., automobile exhaust, etc., let's not forget that mining and materials mined fueled the Industrial Revolution and remain important now and will in the foreseeable future.

I am impressed with worldwide efforts to improve safety and environmental standards and to explore alternatives to fossil fuels. It's also great to reduce unnecessary energy consumption and to avoid buying or making unnecessary products. But try to think a bit about all the products that you (or others) own and use daily and think about how many materials had to be mined to produce them.

Let's try to keep things in perspective. Mining is important and will remain so for many years to come as I see it.

Disclosure: Although I am not a practicing mining engineer, I do hold a mining engineering degree from the University of Kentucky, worked two summers in the mining industry during college, and some of my relatives worked in the mining industry, including both my father and paternal grandfather who worked as mining engineers. I wrote this article after hearing Steve Gardner speak this evening. Though I didn't hear all of his talk, I got there in time to hear most of it, and this article is based on my own knowledge and research as well as his talk.

Is Global Warming Occurring?--If Not Let's Still Take Action

I am not convinced that global warming will be a problem in the upcoming decades and centuries. Still, I think it makes sense to take many actions that a lot of environmentalists advocate. Please let me explain.

First, Is Global Warming Really a Problem?

I want to make it clear that a lot of the talk about global warming may be hyperbole.

Scientists claim that the Earth is over four billion years old (a claim I dispute, but that's another story). Furthermore, scientists believe that we are in an ice age, with current temperatures significantly lower than the average temperature over Earth's lifetime. These are well documented facts (according to scientists) that you can find in various articles.

The trend toward warmer temperatures is very short term compared to the planet's supposed lifetime of a few billion years. When I was in high school in the 1970s, after a few years of cooler than average temperatures, scientists warned about coming colder temperatures. Probably the best known of numerous articles about this is an April 28, 1975 Newsweek article titled "The Cooling World."

What about the future? In another ten, fifty, or one hundred years currently unknown factors may result in cooler temperatures again. I am not convinced of the accuracy of scientists' long term forecasts based on short term data.

Second, Let's Take Action Regardless

However, point number two, my other main point, is that regardless of whether or not global warming is occurring, many of the actions that persons advocate taking to combat global warming are worthy to do.

For example, reducing our use of fossil fuels is a wise move. I grew up in southeastern Kentucky and know firsthand that the production, transportation, and consumption of coal involve health risks. We need to at least gradually progress toward cleaner alternatives to coal.

And, for better or worse, a lot of people living in coal mining areas need to find new jobs, even if it means relocating. Sadly, the fact is that due to mechanization, limited coal reserves that are easily and cheaply minable, etc., the mining industry in Kentucky will never again employ as many people as it did when I was a child in the 1960s and 1970s or even a few years ago.      

But, remember that coal is just one of the fossil fuels. Gasoline is another polluter. I have bicycled down Lexington's Nicholasville Road during rush hour (rarely thankfully) and strongly disliked breathing the automobile exhaust from a long line of cars—cars that often were moving slower than I was on my bicycle. I advocate for persons to drive less, drive more fuel efficient vehicles, carpool more, use mass transit more, bicycle more, walk more, etc.

Furthermore, global warming supposedly will lead to ocean levels rising enough to flood many islands and coastal areas. Even if such horrible flooding does not occur, it makes sense to build a bit away from the ocean, as I see it. This helps protect against hurricanes, if nothing else. We don't need millions of people living near ports or other coastal areas, especially in the age of jet aircraft travel. Let's reduce construction in such areas and gradually relocate many who currently live there.

It also makes sense to build smaller houses and apartments that require less energy to heat and cool. Most of us have more space than we need.

Common sense actions can improve our lives much, whether or not global warming actually turns out to be a big problem. And those of us who don't believe much in predictions about the horrors of global warming may need to take the leadership role in this, because many who speak so strongly about the horrors of global warming seem to choose to drive SUVs and live in large houses.

Please, let's all seek to take actions to help improve conditions in our world. If we do, we may live happier, healthier, longer lives.

The Importance of Truth and Love

This evening (February 24, 2016) I heard Ravi Zacharias give a lecture followed by a question and answer session at the University of Kentucky's Memorial Coliseum before what I estimated to be a crowd of about 8,000 people. For me, the highlight was Mr. Zacharias quoting a statement from Martin Luther King, Jr., that we need "unarmed truth and unconditional love."

Zacharias followed that up by adding that "truth is the most powerful weapon in the world," a statement which I found afterward (via an online search) in an editorial in the August 14, 1944 LIFE Magazine, which may have been his source. Then he added that love is the "most supreme ethic in the world." I feel there is a lot of wisdom in the simple but profound words in the three quotes I just cited. 

Zacharias has spoken to many audiences around the world, in addition to writing and editing numerous books. You can read more about him on the website of his organization, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

As I see it (my words, not Zacharias's), if we all sought to find the truth and to implement it in a loving way, we could perhaps eventually attain world peace and unite all the diverse religions in the world. Obviously, when the various religions of the world disagree with one another, at best only one can be right. Even within the Christian faith there are a huge number of denominations with various views about the Trinity, methods of baptism, alcoholic beverage consumption, speaking in tongues, how literally to interpret the Bible, etc.

Far too many who claim to be Christians disobey Jesus' teaching to love even one's enemies, seeking to go to war or fight others for selfish reasons. Furthermore, far too many who claim to be Christians (or Muslims, or followers of another faith, or of no faith) deliberately teach false doctrines to defend their particular denomination, church, some religion other than Christianity, or another group.

If we could just all seek to unselfishly seek what is the best, what is the truth, what is right, in a loving way, I am confident that as a whole we could live happier, healthier, longer lives and make our world a better place. I hope and pray that we will seek to do so.

Medicaid and Expanded Medicaid: Two of Their Weaknesses

Having Medicaid is better than not having any type of medical insurance or money to pay for medical expenses for a lot of people who can't afford insurance. But two weaknesses of Medicaid are: (1) many (most?) health care providers dislike treating Medicaid patients at the present payrates; (2) Medicaid seems to be ineffective at getting its recipients to properly care for their health.

First, many of the best medical professionals refuse to treat Medicaid patients. In addition, some medical professionals who do treat Medicaid patients dislike the relatively low payment that they receive for it. Also, some who treat Medicaid patients engage in fraudulent practices to make it more profitable. You can find numerous news reports online discussing the problems mentioned in this paragraph, if you so desire.

Second, a study published in November 2015 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (discussed on the webpage http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p1112-smoking-rates.html) noted that Medicaid recipients are more than twice as likely to smoke as persons with private health insurance. Medicaid recipients are also more likely to be obese and consume more junk food according to other information (http://www.naturalnews.com/049727_obesity_SNAP_food_stamps.html#).

Further studies might indicate that they are more likely to engage in some other risky behaviors. Medicaid patients relatively low incomes correlate with poorer health, too, in all likelihood. It would be great if more is done to help low-income persons live healthier. 

Attaining and Maintaining Good Health
In my opinion, emphasizing better preventive care to lead persons to live healthier lives could do much more good than expanding Medicaid has. Whether or not one is blessed with excellent health is more important than whether or not one has health insurance coverage through Medicaid or a private insurance company. Attaining better health may come through:

• Eating a well-balanced, nutritious diet with plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, beans, lentils, and nuts.
• exercising regularly.
• avoiding too much stress.
• getting adequate rest.
• enjoying great friends and relatives for a support group.
• and faith in and a willingness to seek to obey the highest righteous authority, which I call God. Seek to "be good and do good" as English translations of words credited to Buddha put it.

Concluding Thoughts
Turtles who lack any medical insurance and move slowly seem to fare better than many humans as far as health and life expectancy are concerned.

We people in the United States spend an enormous amount on a per capita basis on healthcare, yet we are not as healthy as a lot of persons in many other countries. I support a single-payer healthcare system for basic healthcare. But regardless of the type of health insurance available, better preventive care is the key to better health, as I see it.

Though I am confident Medicaid does some good for many, it seems to be failing to do what it is supposed to for both health care providers and Medicaid recipients. Medicaid coverage may do little good if one has trouble finding a quality doctor who accepts new Medicaid patients or the patient fails to listen to his or her doctor's instructions regarding his or her lifestyle (smoking, eating junk food, etc.)?

NOTE: This article was last modified on February 23, 2016.

Abortion: Two (Logical?) Views

Views on abortion run the gamut from those opposing all abortions to those willing to allow abortions under all circumstances. Perhaps the most logical views are the two extremes, prohibiting all abortions or allowing all abortions. Below I explain.

Prohibiting All Abortions

I have talked with women who state that feeling an unborn baby inside of them is a fabulous experience and they could not think of any circumstance in which they would sacrifice the life of that baby, even if it cost them their own life. That makes sense for persons who care about lives and are unwilling to take the life of another individual.

This makes more sense than for persons to oppose abortions except in case of rape or incest. If one feels it is wrong to kill an innocent unborn baby, why murder the unborn baby just because it came into being through rape or incest?

Opposing all abortions may also make more sense than opposing abortions except when the health or life of the mother is at risk. Why deliberately murder one innocent life to help another life that may be at risk? After all, medical professionals cannot be 100% certain of how great the health risk is to the mother, but they do know with 100% certainty that an abortion will murder the unborn baby.    

Allowing All Abortions

For some persons who think a fetus is not a living person or that unwanted babies would suffer child abuse, etc., allowing all abortions may be a logical view to hold.

For such persons it would make sense to have an abortion during the first three months of a pregnancy. But an abortion during the second three months or the last three months of the pregnancy could make just as much sense.

What if an abortion is botched and a child is born alive during a late term abortion? Such persons could logically support killing the newborn baby, since it is unwanted anyway.

What if a couple doesn't have an abortion, but after taking their baby home for a week decides they can't afford a child and don't want the responsibility of raising one. They might feel unable to care for the baby and desire to prevent it from suffering a long miserable life in their household. Maybe such persons could logically support killing a one-week-old baby.

 Where does it end? Maybe at the very extreme persons could state (logically?) that on the planet Earth there is so much violence, pollution, selfishness, and other evil that to save the rest of God's vast universe, all life on the entire planet Earth ought to be aborted. After all, from a statistical point of view it is highly likely that somewhere in the vast universe advanced life forms far beyond those on Earth exist. If a map of the known universe (and the universe may be vastly larger than we know) were created that were a thousand miles wide and a thousand miles high, the planet Earth would be an extremely tiny dot too small to see with the unaided human eye. Would it be better for the universe if all lives on Earth were aborted or sacrificed as an effort to make the universe as a whole better and more successful? Perhaps someone could make a logical argument for this.

Best Solution? Eliminating or Virtually Eliminating Unwanted Pregnancies

The part above about aborting all life on Earth seems ludicrous to me from my biased point of view as a human being. I think all of us humans (or almost all of us) want to save life on Earth if reasonably possible. Since Earth is the planet I live on, I want to make it better rather than destroying it or life on it. And, in general, I think it is great to help unborn babies and others to live happier, healthier, longer lives rather than ending lives prematurely, though I desire for no one to suffer.     

Even those who strongly support legalized abortion would prefer to avoid the risks, pain, and expense involved. Sexual abstinence would eliminate the need for abortions. Practicing abstinence can be a joyous life. Even many who claim sex makes them happy admit being unhappy for most of the 168 hours a week. In contrast, many who practice sexual abstinence feel happy and fulfilled.

However, if those who are sexually active but desire no children would consistently and properly apply effective birth control methods that would eliminate most desired pregnancies. Using the rhythm method to avoid having sex the few days each month when a pregnancy is most likely, combined with using both birth control pills and condoms consistently and properly, would virtually eliminate the possibility of a pregnancy occurring. Unfortunately, many sexually active people lack the discipline to keep the necessary records for the rhythm method or to abstain those few days each month when the female is most likely to become pregnant. Furthermore, many using oral contraceptives and condoms fail to take them consistently and properly. And even used consistently and properly, birth control pills and condoms are not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.

So, the best solution may be sexual abstinence for those with the discipline to keep practicing it, as millions of people do.

I Am Willing to Be Considered for the United States Supreme Court

If President Obama and the Senate can't agree on a Supreme Court pick to replace Scalia, I am willing to consider being nominated. Please remember that Supreme Court Justices are not required to have a law degree (though they generally do).

As an independent, I feel that I might make better decisions than most of the current justices who seem to be either ultraliberal or ultraconservative on some issues. Do you like the way I showed a little humility by inserting "might" in the last sentence?

I consider myself a moderate conservative similar to Chief Justice Roberts. But I am probably very conservative on some issues and very liberal on others, as well as middle of the road on some.

I actually considered going to law school when I was in the eighth grade and a freshman in high school, but ruled it out for various reasons. In freshman English class we had a debate, and I loved debating. But I decided not to join the high school debate team because debate team members must be willing to argue both sides of a case, and I wouldn't have wanted to argue the side I disagreed with.

I was told that law students also had to argue both sides of a case, and I wouldn't want to do that. However, I do sometimes change my mind on various issues though, so at one time or another I might agree with both sides on several issues, and I generally can at least see the other side's point of view.

However, I guess I'll stick to my writing and won't hold my breath waiting for President Obama to phone me asking me to accept the nomination--which I would probably decline anyway. I love freelance writing, and that was my first career choice in the eighth grade--before I postponed choosing it due to data indicating its poor job prospects, low pay, etc.

If you took time to read all of this lengthy somewhat self-centered post, thank you very much for your time!

NOTE: This post is virtually identical to a Facebook post I made on my Facebook timeline yesterday (February 15, 2016).

Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

The unexpected death of United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia leaves a Supreme Court vacancy that President Obama will seek to fill. My guess is that Obama will nominate a moderate liberal on the assumption that an ultraliberal will not have a chance to be confirmed.

However, I believe that the Republican-controlled United States Senate will not confirm even a moderate liberal until after the November election. If the Democrats win the Presidential election, then the Republican Senate may confirm Obama's nominee before the newly elected Democratic President can potentially nominate someone even more liberal.

If the Republicans win the Presidential election and retain control of the Senate, Scalia's seat may remain vacant until the new President takes office and nominates a new candidate.

Polarization of the Supreme Court

Personally, I think it is sad that the Supreme Court is so polarized. We have what I would call four ultraliberal Supreme Court Justices, two ultraconservative ones (three before Scalia's death), perhaps one moderate liberal, and one moderate conservative. Chief Justice Roberts (the moderate conservative) probably best reflects my own beliefs.

It might be great if the Supreme Court had nine persons who possessed no bias. But that is not likely to happen any time soon. And if Obama or his successor nominates another ultraliberal (or ultraconservative) to replace Scalia, the Supreme Court will remain polarized even longer.

However, if Obama nominates an ultraliberal and that individual is confirmed, the small liberal majority on the Supreme Court could take much more control thanks to the added member. This polarization with a stronger liberal majority could make the Court even worse than it is with its current polarization, at least in my view.

Concluding Thoughts

If one or two other Supreme Court Justices pass on from this life in the next few years, President Obama and/or his successor may be able to greatly influence the Supreme Court for many years to come—for better or worse.

This vacancy illustrates how important the Presidential and Congressional races are. I pray for the best qualified candidates to win in all the races and for the best qualified candidate to be nominated to and appointed as a Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia.

NOTE: Minor changes were made to this article on February 14, 2016, the day after its original posting on February 13, 2016.