The Night Sky: An Endangered Species

by Justin Soutar

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.”
–Psalm 19:2

“Lead me on kindly Light of Truth, amid the encircling gloom…”
--Saint John Henry Newman, 1833

“Today we can illuminate our cities so brightly that the stars of the sky are no longer visible. Is this not an image of the problems caused by our version of enlightenment? With regard to material things, our knowledge and our technical accomplishments are legion, but what reaches beyond, the things of God and the question of good, we can no longer identify.”
--Benedict XVI, April 8, 2012

The famous nineteenth-century poem, “The Pillar of the Cloud,” better known by its hymn title, “Lead, Kindly Light,” was authored by a brilliant and influential young Anglican priest-scholar during a twofold physical and spiritual journey. Father John Henry Newman, who was sailing northwestward across the Mediterranean Sea from Italy to France in June of 1833, had also embarked on an earnest quest for the fullness of Christian truth. When his orange boat was becalmed for a week in the Strait of Bonifacio, he penned these simple, evocative lines, humbly beseeching the gentle light of divine truth to guide him one step at a time through the darkness of doubt, uncertainty, and error. God heard and answered Newman’s prayer, leading him gradually to the fullness of divinely revealed truth in the Catholic Church.

Christianity and Catholicism teach that God created “the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) out of nothing, ex nihilo, and entrusted to humanity, his masterpiece, the responsibility to develop and care for his creation. The importance of protecting nature was frequently stressed by Pope Benedict XVI, who installed solar panels on the roof of the Paul VI Hall in 2008, and it has been a dominant theme of Pope Francis’ pontificate, discussed in detail in his groundbreaking 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ (Praise Be to You). For sincere Christians and Catholics, faith in the Creator of nature and good stewardship of the natural environment go hand in hand, and care for creation is both an individual and a communal responsibility.

In his important 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), Benedict XVI, echoing his predecessors, heartily affirmed the basic goodness of the scientific progress and technological advancements that have marked the Industrial and Digital Ages. At the same time, in continuity with recent papal thinking, Benedict soberly observed that scientific and technological development detached from fundamental religious and moral values inevitably has destructive consequences for humanity and the natural environment. In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis rightly criticizes the many forms of environmental degradation and pollution with which unscrupulous human beings have flooded the earth since the dawn of the Industrial Age, driven by a lust for profit that trumped concern for our common home.

One form of environmental contamination not mentioned in either encyclical (or, to this author’s knowledge, in any official Church document, for that matter) and generally overlooked today is light pollution. Since the invention of the long-lasting incandescent light bulb by American inventor Thomas Edison in 1878, electric lighting has become a ubiquitous and essential hallmark of modern civilization throughout the developed world and has become increasingly widespread in developing countries. During the past century and a half, the marvels of incandescent, fluorescent, and LED lighting have replaced candles, kerosene lamps, and gaslights as our primary light sources, making all aspects of human life and activity much easier and safer, especially during the nighttime hours.

Unfortunately, in recent decades, especially in North America, Europe, and Asia, the steady growth of artificial illumination at night has gradually deprived the great majority of Earth’s population of a sight our ancient forebears took for granted: the starry sky on a clear, moonless night. Our naked-eye view of the majestic heavens, unprecedentedly enhanced by sophisticated telescopes and cameras, is now increasingly threatened by our excessive and irresponsible use of electric lighting, particularly in urban and suburban areas.

Satellite cameras continuously monitoring our planet since the 1960s have candidly documented the rising number and intensity of artificial light sources across populated areas of the continents at night. Conversely, these satellites have revealed that locations across the globe that enjoy truly dark nighttime skies have been constantly shrinking and vanishing. Worse yet, more recent satellite photographs indicate that this phenomenon of ever-increasing light pollution has accelerated dramatically since 2010--even as human population growth in developed countries has been slackening during this time because of the culture of death—-due to the rapid spread and largely unregulated use of outdoor LED illumination.

In his infinite goodness and perfect wisdom, our loving Creator designed Earth’s atmosphere to be transparent to visible light, allowing us to explore from our home planet the vast and beautiful cosmos that he fashioned to surround it. In a truly dark rural location on a clear summer or winter night when the Moon is absent or less than half illuminated, the gentle glow of a star-spangled sky bisected by the delicate white ribbon of the Milky Way Galaxy is a marvelous sight to behold. The light from most of the 3,000 individual stars sprinkled across the firmament has taken anywhere from dozens to hundreds of years to reach our eyes because of their great distances from us; yet these are only our nearest neighbors in space. The Milky Way itself is visible to the unaided eye thanks to the combined light of many billions of stars so much further distant that they appear to form solid masses despite most of them being light-years apart from each other. Binoculars, telescopes, and megapixel CCD cameras allow us to penetrate much deeper into the universe and further back in time to see many more stars, as well as nebulae and other galaxies, as they appeared long ago.

The great medieval philosopher and theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote that human beings come to know about God through their senses. By seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting the amazing variety of good things God has created, we can learn something about the nature of their Creator. The intricate design, sheer diversity, and mutual interdependence of plant and animal life on Earth’s surface and in the rivers and oceans reveals to us God’s intelligence, wisdom and providence. While Scripture tells us that all aspects of creation manifest the glory of God, it says so most specifically of the heavens. And while a person can conceivably come to know God by seeing only what he has created on this Earth as well as the Sun and Moon, for so many of our contemporaries to go through their entire lives without ever witnessing the gentle light of the Creator’s celestial handiwork in a dark sky with their own eyes is a terrible impoverishment!

In far too many places in our country and the world today, more electric lighting is used than is necessary for the purposes it serves, and it is installed and utilized without any consideration for the cumulative side effects of artificial light emissions on humanity and the natural environment. This is especially true of the harsh and unfriendly LED lighting that has gradually invaded every nook and cranny of our nighttime lives from streetlights and car headlights to flashlights and solar lights within the past ten years, rightly hailed for its cheapness and energy efficiency. Apart from its aesthetic offensiveness to which we have been dulled by constant exposure and increasing evidence of its negative effects on human health, the major problem with this currently dominant form of artificial illumination is that most of it radiates strongly in the blue portion of the visible light spectrum. As professional and amateur astronomers are painfully aware, blue light scatters very easily throughout the atmosphere, rendering it the primary cause of the global light pollution disaster we now face. With the inexorable spread of “white” (i.e., blue-emitting) LED brilliance into rural areas, even the last remaining bastions of dark sky country are now at risk of being lost.

Regrettably, there is so little knowledge and awareness, let alone discussion and debate, among the general public on the issue of light pollution that it is not even on the radar screen of most local, state, and national policymakers. Until citizens are sufficiently informed and motivated to insist on legal protections for the vanishing treasure of the starry heavens, there will be no reason for our elected representatives at any level of government to enact direly needed artificial lighting emission regulations or to provide incentives for the general manufacture and installation of environmentally friendly lighting.

The principle of subsidiarity, a core tenet of Catholic social teaching, indicates that wherever possible, change for the better should begin at the grassroots level, one person at a time. Regardless of whether we live in an urban, suburban, or rural location, our individual choices and examples can contribute to either exacerbating or eradicating the modern plague of light pollution.

I live in the mountains of western Virginia where nighttime skies are still some of the darkest in the eastern half of the continental United States. Even here, however, within the past several years there has been a perceptible increase in artificial skyglow on the southern horizon caused mainly by gradual LED infiltration in the nearby small town. As a longtime amateur astronomer who has been concerned about this issue for many years, I decided to take a few simple measures to make my own home more dark-sky friendly.

The biggest offender on my premises was a heart-shaped rosary light on the east-facing wall of the house almost entirely made up of bright blue LEDs (the worst kind), which threw a lot of stray light into the eastern front yard and the sky above even with a substantial porch roof overhang. Rather than turn it off altogether, I tried applying an inch or two of masking tape to each of the 53 blue light bulbs. This dramatically cut the blue light emission into the yard while allowing the harmless red and nearly harmless orange bulbs to show up better, and the whole rosary light pattern is still clearly visible from half a mile away. This is a win-win situation as I can witness my Catholic faith and protect creation at the same time.

Another significant source of light pollution was the set of inexpensive solar-powered lights in my yard. A few years ago, I had purchased and installed twenty of these to illuminate the walkway leading from my driveway to the kitchen door. While observing the night sky one evening, I glanced over and was alarmed at the brilliant glow of bluish-white light they were collectively emitting in the western front yard. I quickly reduced their number to ten and subsequently lowered it to just six, which provided adequate illumination with much less light pollution.

Additionally, I have good old-fashioned 60-watt incandescent light bulbs in the two porch lights on the north and west sides of the house. Unlike fluorescents and LEDs, this traditional bulb type radiates mainly in the red portion of the visible light spectrum. Red light does not scatter, so it does not contribute to light pollution. However, incandescent bulbs do also emit quite a bit of yellow light, which scatters somewhat, so I decided not to use any 75 or 100-watt bulbs outside.

Finally, the emergency propane-run electric generator on the west side of the house has a little bright green light on the side to indicate that the unit is functioning properly. Green light is terrible for the night sky because it scatters nearly as much as blue light does, so I cut out a square piece of plastic from a one-gallon water bottle and attached it to the generator with masking tape. The green light is still easily seen at night but without unnecessary radiation into the yard.

The global epidemic of artificial light pollution is getting worse all the time, with fewer and fewer people able to see the star-spangled, Milky Way-strewn night sky as the Creator intended it to be seen, and very little is being done to address this problem. The good news is that, unlike some other forms of environmental contamination, light pollution is entirely reversible. The night sky may be a critically endangered species, but with a bit of common-sense research, planning, ingenuity, and legislation, it can and should be well preserved for current and future generations of humanity. This author makes the following recommendations for the United States:

1) All incorporated cities, metropolitan areas, towns, and counties throughout the nation should enact lighting ordinances to reduce and eliminate sources of excessive and poorly designed outdoor artificial illumination that contribute to light pollution at night. These emission regulations should be tailored to the specific needs of each community; for example, a densely populated urban area with severe light pollution will require far more stringent and detailed laws than a sparsely inhabited rural location that enjoys dark skies. These ordinances should restrict both the types and amount of outdoor artificial lighting installed and employed along public thoroughfares and in commercial, industrial, residential, and rural areas during nighttime hours. They should set target dates for full implementation that allow their communities sufficient time to make the necessary changes in outdoor lighting infrastructure. Finally, they should carry fines for noncompliance.

2) These outdoor lighting emission regulations should be most strict during—or could even only apply to—the fully dark hours of the night between evening and morning astronomical twilight, when the Sun’s light is completely absent from the sky and the faintest and most distant stars and galaxies are visible to the naked eye and through binoculars and telescopes. While astronomical darkness typically begins about two hours after sunset and ends about two hours before sunrise, this varies considerably with latitude and time of year, so lawmakers in each locality will need to consult accurate sunrise/sunset and astronomical darkness timetables to determine what portion of night the ordinance should be in effect during each part of the year. (Due to perpetual twilight, locations north of 50° north latitude, including Alaska, do not experience any astronomical darkness from mid-May through late July.)

3) By state law, the number of flashing blue lights on state police cars at night should be limited to four of 200 lumens each, with no more than two illuminated at any given moment.

4) By federal law, all LED, fluorescent, and other light bulbs and fixtures designed for outdoor use, whether manufactured here or imported from abroad, should be subject to spectral analysis before they reach the market to determine the colors of light they emit. Any bulb or fixture producing more than 500 lumens that radiates primarily in the green, blue and/or violet portions of the visible light spectrum should be banned or limited to indoor use only. This policy would eliminate most factory installed and aftermarket LED headlights in automobiles, semi-trucks, motorcycles, and ATVs, which are now major contributors to light pollution nationwide; it would also proscribe green and blue LED price signs at gas stations and holiday light strings consisting entirely of green, blue, violet, or white LEDs. Finally, this rule would require that green LED traffic and railroad signals either be dimmed slightly at night or replaced with another type of green bulb to reduce glare.

5) Congress and the president should reverse the legislative ban in effect since 2012 on the domestic manufacture of incandescent light bulbs. They should also enact legislation that includes tax incentives to encourage the domestic research and development of artificial outdoor lighting that is both dark-sky friendly and energy efficient.

6) Also by federal law, permanent zones of specially restricted outdoor lighting should include and surround each of our national parks, extending at least ten miles from their borders to protect the darkness of their skies.

The idea is to form an interlocking matrix of local, state, and federal outdoor lighting emission regulations that would effectively halt and reverse the raging pandemic of artificial light pollution. Regardless of whether they live in the inner city, the suburbs, a small town, or the countryside, all Americans who can see should have access to sufficiently dark skies that at least a few hundred stars are always visible on a clear night when the Moon is absent or less than half full.

It is no accident that the recent worldwide jump in visible light pollution has occurred at the same time, in the same places, and in the same proportion as the spiritual light of faith in God has been dimmed and extinguished in modern society. Indifference to the Creator and disrespect for his creation go hand in hand. As Benedict XVI wisely points out in the quote at the beginning of this article, the polluted night sky is merely a symptom of our version of enlightenment in which we are so dazzled by our own inventions and accomplishments that we can no longer see beyond them to the great religious and moral truths of our own existence or the origin, destiny, and meaning of the universe itself. The kindly light of divinely revealed truth has a difficult time penetrating the bubble of a radically secularized society and culture determined to navigate by human lights alone.

As believers in the perennial truths that an infinitely good and loving God created the cosmos and that human beings are stewards of creation, Catholics and other Christians should be at the forefront of a mass movement to restore, improve, and protect the visibility of the night sky in the United States and around the world. They should work together with people of goodwill everywhere to ensure that the open book of the Creator’s handiwork in the firmament above can be read by anyone with eyes to see. When that day finally comes, then the “kindly light of Truth” will have a chance to penetrate the darkness of error enshrouding the minds of so many more modern men and women, beckoning them to emerge from their self-constructed cocoons and embark on the fulfilling adventure of faith.

Copyright © 2021 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Our Shepherd Among Us: Reminiscences and Reflections (Part One)

by Justin Soutar
________________________________________________________________
(NOTE: Here is the first installment of a three-part article series recapping Pope Francis' unforgettable visit to the United States earlier this autumn. This series was originally published on the popular website Catholic Online and can be read there as well. God willing, I will post Part Two next Monday and Part Three the following Monday. J. S.)
________________________________________________________________

Towards the end of September 2015, our Holy Father Pope Francis made his eagerly anticipated Pastoral Visit to the United States. Like those of his saintly predecessors—the cerebral trailblazer Paul VI, the energetic actor John Paul II and the scholarly gentleman Benedict XVI—Francis’ visit to America was an historic and memorable occasion that was shared and experienced by millions of Catholics and non-Catholics alike, both here at home and around the world, thanks to extensive national and international media coverage and the power of modern communications technology. Like his three predecessors who came to this land over the course of the last fifty years, Pope Francis was afforded a personal glimpse of the vitality and vicissitudes of his substantial flock here in America—and, conversely, we American Catholics experienced the blessing of encountering our Shepherd in person and the opportunity to renew our love for and allegiance to the Successor of Saint Peter.

Of course, each papal visit to this country has been unique. That of Blessed Paul VI in 1965 was confined to New York City, where he became the first pontiff to address the United Nations Organization. The great Saint John Paul II crisscrossed America like no other pope before or since, touring nearly all of our major cities during his five pastoral visits in 1979, 1987, 1993, 1995 and 1999. With his rock-star charisma and passionate fidelity to the truth of the Gospel, these spectacular visits sparked a much-needed revitalization of the Catholic Church in America at a time of profound doctrinal and liturgical confusion resulting from erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council. During his single pastoral visit in 2008, which was restricted to Washington, D.C. and New York, Benedict XVI was respectfully welcomed by President George W. Bush and endeared himself to the American people with his humble and genial personality; that, along with his firm condemnation of priestly sexual abuse, took many of his critics by surprise.

Groundless Apprehension

In the weeks and months preceding this latest papal visit, a good deal of discussion in both Catholic and secular media revolved around the question of whether Pope Francis would really click with American Catholics and the American people in general, and there was some apprehension that he might not, for several reasons including the following: 1) he didn’t speak English, our official language and that of the great majority of American Catholics; 2) he was largely ignorant of our country’s unique history and culture; 3) he was highly suspicious of, if not downright hostile to, the capitalist free-market economic system through which our nation has achieved unrivaled wealth and prosperity. Polls showing Francis’ favorability ratings among US Catholics dropping somewhat in advance of his visit seemed to confirm this sense of apprehension. Based on these assumptions, some observers even ventured to assert that Pope Francis himself was not at all eager to visit the United States, dismissing the Holy Father’s own statements to the contrary as merely exercises in formal courtesy.

Thankfully, however, all of these fears turned out to be groundless, due in large measure to the efforts of the pope himself. Of course, Francis has by now amply demonstrated his ability to transcend language barriers by speaking the universal language of Christ’s love to everyone through his simple lifestyle and deeply meaningful gestures. But he knew that gestures alone would not be enough to fully connect with the American people. So despite his advanced age and the difficulties involved, Pope Francis took it upon himself to learn the American language so that he could communicate verbally with us in our familiar native tongue. It must have been a great sacrifice for him to do this, but the result was definitely worth the effort. It was truly wonderful to hear our Argentinian Holy Father speak directly to us Catholics and Americans without the need for an interpreter in his brief prepared remarks at the White House and in his lengthy, well-written address to Congress; hundreds of thousands of English-speaking worshipers also appreciated that he said parts of the Masses at Madison Square Garden and the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in their language. And then there were those brief spontaneous remarks he ventured in English at key moments that added extra flavor to many of the gatherings, which usually concluded with “Please don’t forget to pray for me” and “God bless America!” that endeared him to us all the more.

It is true that until recently, Francis could boast only a passing knowledge of American history and culture. However, during an in-flight press conference on his return trip from South America to the Vatican back in July, he promised to read up on these subjects in preparation for his visit here. He obviously kept that promise, for in his addresses and homilies given during this visit, he demonstrated a good working knowledge and understanding of, as well as a keen appreciation for, our nation’s rich historical and cultural heritage. This was quite evident in his masterfully written address to Congress, in which he acknowledged that we are a nation of immigrants and discussed in some detail the different contributions of four well-known Americans to the political and spiritual development of our country. Francis’ grasp of our history and culture was even more clearly evident in his address at Independence Mall in Philadelphia, in which he reminded us that the inalienable God-given rights enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, especially our fundamental right to religious liberty, must be protected and defended.

And finally, there was the claim that Pope Francis regards free-market capitalist economics in general with suspicion and hostility. The Holy Father deflected this inaccurate criticism in his address to Congress by clearly affirming the important role played by entrepreneurship and the creation of wealth in the fight against poverty. He underscored his point by quoting a brief passage from, of all places, Laudato Si' (Praise Be to You), his lengthy encyclical on the environment: “Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good.” Like his predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Pope Francis is not opposed to business or capitalism per se; he is only opposed to the selfishness and greed that can, and often do, transform them into destructive forces that negatively impact human society and the natural environment.

By learning our language, getting acquainted with our history and culture, and affirming the proper role of our free-market capitalist economic system, Pope Francis dissolved all remaining psychological barriers between himself and the American people, enabling him to seamlessly connect with his immediate flock and his wider audience. Having first won us over and gained our full trust, we were then receptive to his message, which was the authentic message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ—a message of truth and love, a message of faith and hope, a message of mercy and forgiveness, a message of personal responsibility, of respect for human rights and dignity, of peace and justice, of care for creation, of the beauty of marriage and family life according to God's plan. The three overarching themes of Francis’ visit were the centrality of religious freedom, the importance of caring for the natural environment, and the critical role of the family in the life of the Church and civil society. I followed EWTN’s live coverage of this remarkable papal visit as it unfolded, and I appreciated the faithful Catholic commentary offered by news director Raymond Arroyo and his guests Father Gerald Murray and Robert Royal.

The Personal Touch

Pope Francis arrived on schedule at Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, D.C., his American Airlines jet touching down shortly before 4 PM on Tuesday, September 22. Overcast skies and windy conditions seemed to reflect the general sense of apprehension surrounding this particular papal visit. However, that anxiety almost immediately began to dissipate a little. As the pontiff disembarked and set foot on American soil, closely shadowed by his security detail, he was warmly greeted on the tarmac by a brightly smiling President Obama and his family, Vice President Biden and his family, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, and other dignitaries, as well as by an enthusiastic crowd of about 1,000 people who were completely fenced in. The unusually high level of security at Andrews was maintained with remarkable uniformity throughout the pope’s stay in America, and it was reassuring to see our Holy Father so well protected at all times. After exchanging a few words of welcome with President Obama in a nearby building and then briefly greeting the crowd, Pope Francis boarded a small four-door silver Fiat and was driven under police escort to the papal nuncio’s residence, where he stayed during his visit to Washington.

Sunshine greeted Pope Francis as he emerged from the nunciature around 9 AM the following morning; he proceeded to personally greet several of the three hundred lucky Catholic schoolchildren assembled nearby. Then he was driven to the White House for the official welcoming ceremony accorded to him as a head of state. Although the ceremony was scheduled to begin at 9:15, Francis did not arrive until ten minutes later because of the time he spent with the schoolchildren. Running a little behind schedule for most of the public events, with the notable exception of the Masses, was a pattern throughout his visit which is typical of his quaintly slow personal style. Although some might be annoyed by this lack of strict punctuality on the Holy Father’s part, I find it charming and even somewhat refreshing. Unlike so many in our excessively fast-paced and self-centered world today, Francis is never in a hurry regardless of the importance of the appointment awaiting him. Of course, he does take his appointments very seriously, but he believes that taking sufficient time to encounter persons along the way is more important than maintaining rigid adherence to predetermined schedules at the cost of avoiding contact with people around him or gruffly brushing them aside. In this regard, Pope Francis gives us a valuable lesson in Christian charity that many of us need to hear, bombarded as we constantly are by the selfish ideas and attitudes of modern post-Christian secular society.

Two Speeches

A chorus of cheers from a crowd of some 15,000 people gathered on the south lawn of the White House greeted Pope Francis as the Fiat came rolling up. In his eloquent yet highly propagandistic welcome address to the Holy Father, President Obama stated that the pontiff’s visit “reveals how much all Americans, from every background and every faith, value the role that the Catholic Church plays in strengthening America.” Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s approach to the role of Catholicism in our national life has been dictated by its own radically secularist agenda. This was manifested by the fact that, for this very occasion, the President had deliberately reserved choice seats on the White House lawn for a slew of notorious Catholic dissidents and homosexual activists. Continuing his polished speech, Obama remarked to Francis, “You call on all of us, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, to put the ‘least of these’ at the center of our concerns…to stand up for justice and against inequality, and to ensure that every human being is able to live in dignity—because we are all made in the image of God.” True enough words, but here again they rang quite hollow; under the elitist Obama administration, the US poverty rate has soared to 19 percent, the wealthiest 1 percent are richer than ever before, and taxpayer funding of abortion is the order of the day. But the worst hypocrisy came a little later when President Obama turned to the subject of religious freedom, declaring, “Here in the United States, we cherish religious liberty.” I cringed when I heard that. By forcing its unprecedented HHS mandate on our country and repeatedly refusing to rescind it, the Obama administration has clearly exhibited its utter disdain for the religious liberties of Catholics and other Christians in America.

In his brief address thanking President Obama for his welcome—-his first public speech given in English on US soil—-Pope Francis emphasized that religious freedom “remains one of America’s most precious possessions…all are called to be vigilant, precisely as good citizens, to preserve and defend that freedom from everything that would threaten or compromise it.” This was a clear reference to the Obama administration’s egregious assault on our religious liberties with the HHS mandate. In his subsequent remarks, which were dedicated to the need to take responsible care of the Earth, “our common home,” Francis approved of President Obama for offering a proposal to reduce air pollution and highlighted the need to address the pressing concern of global climate change. “Climate change is a problem which can no longer be left to a future generation,” the pope declared. “We still have time to make the changes needed to bring about ‘a sustainable and integral development, for we know that things can change’ (Laudato Si’, 13).”

Initially I was somewhat put off by the fact that our Holy Father devoted nearly half of his introductory remarks to the topic of the environment, partly because I am convinced that global climate change is due principally to changes in solar activity and is thus largely beyond our human ability to control, partly because the global warming hypothesis which Pope Francis accepts does not square with the scientifically documented fact of declining global temperatures in recent years, and partly because I felt that His Holiness could have used the occasion to talk about an even more pressing issue such as abortion or radical secularism or the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. However, a close reading of what Pope Francis actually said reveals that the pontiff carefully avoided making explicit political or scientific statements. He was essentially laying out the Church’s perennial teaching on good stewardship of creation within the context of the present situation as he perceives it. He was apparently inferring that climate change is primarily a human-generated problem, but even if it is not, we do need to develop a strategy to deal with it because of its negative impacts on millions of people around the world. And even if increased carbon dioxide levels are not actually fueling a rise in global temperatures as the pope believes, we should still work together to reduce air pollution for the good of the planet and its inhabitants. Then too, it is the Holy Father’s prerogative and even his duty to speak about and emphasize whatever he believes is important for us to hear and think about, and it is clear from Francis’ choice of name, the length of his encyclical on the environment, and many of his addresses and homilies as pope that the responsibility to protect creation is a major theme of his pontificate. And while we Catholics are not obliged to agree with everything the Holy Father says on a matter of prudential judgment such as climate change, we should still listen respectfully to what the Vicar of Christ has to say to us on the matter, and we must not allow our prejudices to prevent us from accepting the Church’s basic teaching on the issue.

(To be continued)

Article Heritage Series #2: "The Two-Party System: A Catastrophic Failure"

Continuing with my "Article Heritage" series begun last fall, installments of which appear every few months or so, I here present a second article from my early days as a writer. This one, originally written and published in 2007 and entitled "The Two-Party System: A Catastrophic Failure," became my most popular article published that year. It was accepted for publication on five different websites (some "conservative," some "liberal") and generated dozens of reader comments, most of which were positive, a few of which were negative. Furthermore, it was reprinted in its entirety without my permission on a website called "Nigeria Village Square" by a certain Dr. Gary K. Busch, who in addition inadvertently neglected to credit me as the author. When I contacted him to complain about this, he apologized for failing to properly credit me and put my name at the top of the webpage where he ran the article. He added that my article was well written and informative, and that he had re-published it to give it additional exposure. That mollified me somewhat, so I did not insist he remove it from the website. However, this experience did highlight my predicament as a starving writer (which I still am today), since I never received a penny for this article (ditto for most of my other articles).

This article expresses my honest opinions regarding the American two-party political system. In it, I contend that this system has inflicted and is continuing to inflict great harm on our nation by dividing the American people over fundamental moral issues on which our nation is built and on which we should be in agreement; by hampering clear and objective discourse on national issues through the excitement of emotional partisan fervor; and by corrupting politicians of both parties to support big business interests that have nothing to do with the common good of our nation. I point out that our nation's Founders objected with good reason to the establishment of a partisan political system, and argue that the two-party system must be abolished for the good of our country. Reading this article today, I find it still pertinent to our country's current situation, and even (if I may say so) a bit prophetic. Below is the article as originally written, albeit slightly revised to incorporate the emergence of the Tea Party and polished a bit to bring the style more in line with my current authorship standards. Your civil and constructive comments are most welcome.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Two-Party System: A Catastrophic Failure

by Justin Soutar May 23, 2007

For a number of years now, respected pundits have lauded the American two-party political system as an excellent balance between the dictatorship of a one-party system and the instability of a multiparty system. Yet the two-party system has done and continues to do our country great harm. The Republican and Democratic parties have divided the American people over fundamental moral values; they have failed to rectify longstanding national problems; and their existence chiefly benefits special interest groups, politicians, and mega-corporate executives. Most unfortunately of all, however, the two-party setup does not represent the people of the United States.

Many people believe that political parties are essential in a democracy such as the United States. These individuals claim that since a democracy encourages dissent and disagreement, it is only natural that such differences of opinion will find expression in organized factions. But this strain of thought clashes with the judgment of our nation’s founders. In his Observations on History, Benjamin Franklin wrote that parties engender confusion. In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay warned against the evils to the general public that a “spirit of faction” would cause. And George Washington refused allegiance to any political party during his eight-year service as first president of the United States.

Despite this initial rejection of partisanship, opposing factions emerged at the end of the 1700s representing two different opinions about the role of the federal government. The emergence of these factions marked the beginning of a two-party system that would dominate American politics for the next two hundred-plus years. The Federalists urged a strong central administration that would dominate the states and ensure national unity, while the Republicans believed that the individual states should have more power than the central government. In fact, the form of government officially established by the Constitution was a federal republic, so these parties were emphasizing the importance of either national or state power. Alexander Hamilton became the leader of the Federalist camp, whereas Thomas Jefferson sided with the Republicans—although neither prominent national founder held the rigidly partisan or doctrinaire outlook typical of many American politicians today. Moreover, the chief disagreement of these early parties was over the distribution of power within the United States government. Members of both camps initially saw eye to eye on most moral, economic, social, and foreign policy matters such as slavery, domestic trade, traditional family values, and isolationism.

During the 1800s, the parties evolved and grew further apart, especially over the issue of slavery. Federalists changed their name to Republicans and opposed slavery and the secession of the South, while the heretofore Republicans became Democratic-Republicans and declared support for both slavery and secession. At this stage, one party was championing a grave injustice which most Americans instinctively understood was evil. The Democratic-Republicans received backing primarily from wealthy Southern landowners, who insisted on keeping Negro slaves for cheap labor. After Republican president Abraham Lincoln waged the Civil War, declared emancipation, and brought the South back into the Union, the Democratic Party remained the faction of Southern landlords’ continued rebellion against the North and repression of Black political rights. However, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Democrats also gained membership from blue-collar workers in Northern cities as the Industrial Revolution created a new underclass. Meanwhile, Republicans attracted backing from the new class of wealthy Northern capitalists and from supporters of African-American civil rights nationwide.

Around the turn of the twentieth century, the importance of economic and foreign policy issues increased. The Republican Party came to stand for Northern farmers, retention of the gold standard, fiscally disciplined government, and isolationism, while the Democratic Party represented Southern landowners and Northern industrial laborers, a flexible money supply, growth of the federal government, and foreign engagement. During the Cold War, the two parties achieved a significant level of bipartisanship, agreeing on the necessity of confronting Communism and promoting freedom abroad. Another major change occurred in the 1960s, when Democratic president Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. From then onward the Democratic Party took up the “liberal” causes of civil rights and urban workers, leading the “conservative” faction of farmers, limited government and big business—the Republican Party—to dominate the South.

Another element was added to the American political landscape with the social upheavals of the 1960s and the Supreme Court’s decision of Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion in 1973. When a number of Democrats who had favored the abandonment of traditional social and moral values came to realize the bitter failure of those upheavals, they converted into social “conservatives” and found a new home in the Republican Party. President Ronald Reagan emerged as the standard-bearer of these new Republicans, who established their party on the firm foundation of God’s Law and strove to restore our nation’s identity as a Christian country.

The end of the Cold War signaled the arrival of two more simultaneous factional changes. One was President Bill Clinton and the “New Democrats”, who championed unrestricted globalization and free market economics alongside social spending. The other change had been planted during the Reagan administration, hibernated under the Clinton administration, and blossomed fully after the events of September 11, 2001: the ascendancy of neoconservatives within the Republican Party. Led by President Bush, these individuals likewise championed unrestricted globalization and free market economics, but they also demanded an aggressive military response to “Islamic” terrorism with vast increases in military spending and in the size of the federal government, as well as cuts in social spending and foreign economic aid.

Towards the end of the Bush administration, public disapproval of neoconservative excesses and corruption fueled the rise of the Tea Party movement within Republican ranks. This no-holds-barred populist movement, led by Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, earnestly strove to return America to the Judeo-Christian religious and moral principles that made her great. Its platform, solidly grounded in those principles, included strict Constitutional government in line with the intent of the Framers; reversal of Roe v. Wade; drastic reduction in federal government size and spending; elimination of federal budget deficits and reduction of the overall national debt; abolition of the Federal Reserve and income taxes; and opposition to costly foreign wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. With its staunch Christian, pro-life and family values combined with an ethos of limited government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, and a balanced budget, the Tea Party movement was essentially a reincarnation of the Reagan Republican Party of the 1980s, albeit adapted to the particular challenges facing a new generation of Americans. Tea Party Republicanism gained widespread support and respect from Republican and Democratic Americans alike due to the consistency of its political philosophy, the soundness of its clearly articulated positions, and above all the character and integrity of its leaders. In 2010, a growing wave of public discontent and anger with the recently elected Obama administration and corrupt Washington politicians in both parties swept more than a hundred Tea Party candidates to power in state governorships as well as in the U.S. House and Senate. However, despite strong public support, the Tea Party movement lost its bids for the presidency in both 2008 and 2012 because it allowed the corrupt Republican establishment to dictate the choice of its presidential nominee.

We can learn some important lessons from this condensed review of American partisan history. One reason for the pendulum dynamic of swinging back and forth between the parties is that the country has different needs at different times. After Democratic-Republican President James Buchanan (1857-1861), the American people swung to Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln in 1860 because of his firm stand against slavery and his leadership abilities during a critical time in the nation’s history. In 1932, after four years of Republican President Herbert Hoover, American voters swung to Democratic candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt, opting for increased government spending and control of the economy to mitigate the effects of the Great Depression. In 1980, the voters swung from Democratic President Jimmy Carter to Republican candidate Ronald Reagan in reaction to economic stagnation and other domestic and foreign problems. In 1992, following twelve years of Republican presidential rule, economic recession influenced voters to swing to Democratic contender Bill Clinton. And in 2008, after eight years of Republican President George W. Bush, American voters swung to Democratic President Barack Obama to address the financial crisis as well as health care and immigration reform issues that the Bush administration had not adequately dealt with.

But though our country has different needs at different times, the two major political parties are not the proper instruments to satisfy these needs. According to George Washington, the constant alternation of two parties in the federal government would be a “frightful despotism.” The main reason for this pendulum dynamic, especially in the past few decades, is that neither party is adequately solving the key problems America faces.

Two factors explain this failure. First, each party stands for some of the values and policies America needs. For example, the Republican Party traditionally stands for the right to life of each human person from conception to natural death; a free market economy; limited government; low taxes; a balanced budget; a strong national defense; secure borders; and strict interpretation of the Constitution. The Democratic Party traditionally stands for the rights of the poor, disabled, and elderly to health care and financial assistance; the rights of ethnic and religious minorities to an equal place in our society; abolition of the death penalty and reform of our prison system; fair wages and decent working conditions for employees; common-sense regulation of the economy for the sake of the common good; protection of the environment; the development of clean renewable energy resources; increased economic aid to impoverished countries; and multilateral nuclear disarmament. However, the U.S. really needs both sets of values and policies. We need pro-life laws and prison reform, lower taxes and renewable energy, a free market economy with common-sense regulations—not one or the other.

The second factor explaining the failure of the two-party system is corruption. When a new president is elected, people anticipate that he will get things done. When he fails to meet even reasonable expectations and his administration becomes plagued by scandal (as has happened all too often in recent decades), people turn with hope to the other party, which generally does not improve matters much. This is because most members of both parties have been corrupted by special interests. Our last three presidents have been mega-corporate moguls whose ownership of major industries presented flagrant conflicts of interest. In addition, wealthy and vocal lobby groups have bullied our senators, representatives and president into enacting policies that benefit a few large companies at the expense of the average American citizen.

For example, President Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 on a platform that featured tax cuts, economic growth for everyone, and an ambitious social welfare program. Although the economy did grow, Clinton broke other promises by instituting the largest tax raise in American history, keeping social spending to a minimum, and permitting corporations such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and McDonalds to reap the lion’s share of gains. Then in 2000 President George W. Bush was elected on a platform that featured the right to life, tax cuts, free-market economics, secure borders, and fiscal discipline. Although Bush has generally held to his pro-life pledge and did sign into law some token tax cuts, in September of 2006 he declared support for the Plan B contraceptive pills for minors. Furthermore, President Bush has allowed big businesses such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft, McDonalds, Halliburton, Boeing, Verizon Wireless, and News Corporation to choke the “free” market; has pandered to illegal aliens; and ran up the largest federal budget deficits and national debt in American history. Both presidents ended up serving the interests of mega-corporations first and foremost.

The two-party political system does not accurately represent opposing viewpoints of the role of the federal government as it did in the young United States. Though it was a bad idea to begin with, since the latter part of the last century the system has become decrepit with corruption and has fallen sadly out of touch with the average American. Most of the Republican and Democratic candidates allege certain principles and make attractive promises during their campaigns, but upon entering office compromise overtakes principle like a weed and promises are thrown to the wind. Unfortunately, the current corrupt political climate is hostile to honest, traditionally-minded candidates with unwavering principles from Middle America such as Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz. In general, only those individuals who habitually cater to—or are susceptible to manipulation by—hawkish pressure groups have a chance at federal public office.

Despite the manifest failure of the modern Republican and Democratic parties to deliver, however, most American voters across the map of the United States continue to choose congressional and presidential candidates along major party lines because no viable alternatives are in sight. They feel it is useless to vote for a third party or independent candidate because such a candidate has no real chance of making it into office. These dedicated factional adherents are stuck in the rut of the two-party system. Economics has long vied with fundamental moral convictions as a major factor determining political affiliation. In the US today, richer individuals (who generally dominate rural areas) tend to vote Republican, while poorer individuals (who generally dominate cities) tend to vote Democratic. These choices are based largely on the economic policies and moral positions that the parties stand for and on the hope that new candidates will do a better job than their predecessors. Some Republican and Democratic senators and representatives actually keep their campaign promises and work hard to protect innocent unborn children or help financially struggling Americans, or both, and it is those few exceptions that keep alive what little hope is left in the reigning system.

On the other hand, contented middle-class individuals (who generally dominate suburbs and small towns and comprise a significant minority of the American people) tend to hold a more independent, traditionally-minded outlook and are more likely to spread their votes around based on fundamental moral convictions as well as their common-sense perception of local and national needs. These are the “swing voters” to which enterprising candidates of both parties direct so much of their campaigning energy.

The degree of distinction between the two parties is a matter of controversy. To figure this out, it is helpful to distinguish between theory and practice. In theory, the Republican and Democratic factions are ideological opposites, with Republicans focusing on traditional values and responsibility while Democrats are grounded in progressive values and opportunity. But in practice, thanks to the endemic corruption of the system, there is little difference between parties. Republicans turn out to be not really Republican, and Democrats turn out to be not really Democrats: both sets of politicians operate together in a hazy and confused middle ground defined by special interest groups. This has been clearly demonstrated on a number of occasions, such as the overwhelming Congressional approval for war in Iraq in 2002, the Republicans’ passage of a bill that would have provided federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research involving abortions in 2006, and the refusal of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to consider impeaching President Bush. All of these decisions were driven by mega-corporations, which stood to profit immensely from them. Even though President Bush vetoed the embryonic stem-cell act, soon afterward he accepted limited access to contraceptive pills for minors in order to mollify the big business executives.

Some might point to these occasions of crossing party lines as examples of bipartisanship. However, selling one’s fundamental principles to money-hungry American firms does not make for true bipartisanship. Real bipartisanship involves consistent agreement on fundamental, non-negotiable moral values such as the right to life and frequent compromise on the wide range of negotiable issues such as national security, economic policy, environmental protection, domestic poverty relief, and foreign aid. But instead of the way things should be, the pressure of the unrestricted free-market ideology has inverted values. Republicans and Democrats treat the negotiable issues as the most crucial of all and generally are absolutely unbending on them, whereas the fundamental moral values elicit disgraceful compromises and persistent disagreement. After all, big business tycoons do not like to have their enormous profits curtailed by the Ten Commandments, and they demand a totally unregulated market in order to reap those profits.

The two-party setup in the United States has severely divided our nation. Having names and labels for different political persuasions can be helpful, but they have too often led to pigeonholing and name-calling which hampers a free exchange of ideas. “Republican” and “Democrat”, “conservative” and “liberal”, “right” and “left” have degenerated into terms used to ostracize and vilify the opposition and to stifle discussion of topics deemed politically incorrect. A private citizen or political candidate who opposes US involvement in foreign wars should not be dubbed a “radical leftist” any more than a private citizen or political candidate who advocates illegalizing abortion should be denounced as a “right-winger”.

Moreover, the true meanings of the terms “conservative” and “liberal” have been obscured. In modern parlance, a “conservative” is someone who defends fundamental moral values and wishes to preserve traditional national ideals, and a “liberal” is someone who disputes fundamental moral values and wishes to radically change our country around. But these meanings are inadequate. The words originally referred to political approaches, not to a person’s moral values or lack thereof. “Conservative” basically means someone who applauds the status quo, while “liberal” means someone who wishes to effect change. Neither conservatism not liberalism is good or evil per se; it depends on what specific policy you wish to maintain or to alter. Continuing a bad policy such as torture of terrorist suspects is just as detrimental to our national well-being as changing a good policy such as the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research involving abortion would be. Beneficial policies need to be maintained and harmful policies need to be changed. Thus in the original sense of the words, few if any human beings could be described as completely conservative or completely liberal.

Political factions tend to be driven by ideologies that, in their members’ pursuit of particular goals, obscure rather than clarify the truth. Indeed, truth itself has been politicized. Inconvenient truths (such as the inability of embryonic stem-cells to cure diseases) are derided as falsehood, while falsehoods that make a few people rich (such as the impossibility of conducting a dialogue with terrorists) are glorified as absolute truth. Nowhere are these destructive elements of partisan politics more evident than in the meteoric rise of the neoconservative ideology following the terrorist attacks of September 11. This intolerant, extremist, and totalitarian belief system seems to have become a religion for many people, yet it is a deception that worships the false gods of national security and an unfettered free market. It was cunningly crafted by a handful of rich American tycoons to justify an aggressive foreign policy that enables them to engage in the age-old practice of war profiteering, to expand their globalized business operations across the world, and to exploit more and more human beings without hindrance. In contravention of history, it insists that terrorism is an act of war rather than a criminal tactic employed to draw a government’s attention to real grievances, and that only all-out armed force can “defeat” terrorism. Its view of the terrorist threat is based on mistaken assumptions, numerous fallacies, and blanket denials of many important facts that contradict their view.

Although it masquerades as patriotic, the neoconservative ideology and its loyal adherents have done tremendous harm to the American political landscape. Neoconservatives have viciously attacked their opponents, twisted moral values, and used false guilt to silence opposition. They are utilizing the ancient strategy of divide and conquer to destroy American public debate and ultimately to dominate the world. Their ability to find common ground with Americans of other opinions on negotiable issues is nil. In the pursuit of greed and power, they are willing to exacerbate partisan divisions among the American people and make them forget their nonpartisan heritage.

According to our nation’s founders, it would be better to have no political parties at all. Individuals should form their opinion on each individual negotiable matter through a careful review of all the relevant facts and without pressure from a corporate-controlled media, comfortable politicians, wealthy pundits, celebrities, or mega-corporate leaders. If that were to happen, if Americans were to discard ideologies and agree on the fundamental moral values, they would find much common ground on the negotiable issues. Instead of constant bickering and division, we would begin to experience true reconciliation and unity.

With each Congressional partisan victory and each new presidential administration, the newly elected have vowed to make a fresh start precisely because the previous faction led America to a dead end. The Democratic Party is now taking advantage of the myriad failures of the Bush administration and of Congressional Republicans to shore up their image as the faction that America desperately needs, the party that will rescue Americans from the clutches of right-wing insanity and deliver than a brighter future in 2009. For Americans weary of Republican mistakes and desirous of substantial changes in many political areas, the carrot held out by Democratic candidates looks tempting. It would be easy to accept this carrot and elect Democrats to Congress and the presidency alike. But if Americans choose this easy route next year, they will find that it leads to a dead end. A Democratic triumph next year will simply turn out to be a repetition of recent political history. How long will Americans dance to the tune of this dishonest and corrupt two-party scheme? Choosing the easy route will not get us anywhere. Instead, we should make known loudly and clearly our intense desire for candidates whose integrity is unsullied by a web of political connections and whose records are unsullied by corruption (such as “Average Joe” Schriner, Mick Huckabee or Sam Brownback for president), and then write the name of one of those candidates on the ballot in state primary elections and again in the November 2008 election. Otherwise, Americans eight years from now will again be whining about the dishonesty, corruption and ineffectiveness of Washington, D.C.

The “frightful dictatorship” and corrupt farce that is our two-party system should be dismantled. Parties give us temptations to attack opponents, become demagogues, and garner followers, distracting us from seeking the true good of the country. If we nevertheless wish to belong to a particular group of Americans with a clear identity, let us unite with all Americans of good will. Instead of saying, “I am a Republican” or “I am a Democrat”, let us rediscover the heritage bequeathed to us by our wise and farsighted national founders and try to grasp what it really means to say, “I am an American.” The United States was established by our founders as a nation that is too great to be defined by just two colors. Interestingly, the American flag contains some red and some blue, but the color most evenly spread throughout the flag is white. White can be thought of as a mixture of all political shades, and thus as a symbol of unity. Unity on the basis of the fundamental, universal moral truths enshrined in the hearts of all Americans and willingness to compromise on negotiable issues is what America needs now more than ever.

Copyright © 2007 by Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Quote of the Day

"There are no two ways of looking at either the world or God. There is no distinction between concern for human welfare and concern for ecological preservation. The way we relate to nature as creation directly reflects the way we believe in God as Creator of all things. The sensitivity with which we handle the natural environment clearly mirrors the sacredness that we reserve for the divine.

"Moreover, scientists estimate that those most hurt by global warming in the years to come, are those who can least afford it. According to the Gospel of St. Matthew, the questions that will be asked of us all at the final moment of accountability will not be about our religious observance but on whether we fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked, comforted the sick, and cared for captives.

"Our reckless consumption of the earth’s resources – energy, water, and forests – threatens us with irreversible climate change. Burning more fuel than we need in an overpopulated city, we may contribute to droughts or floods thousands of miles away.

"To restore the planet we need a spiritual worldview, which brings frugality and simplicity, humility and respect. We must constantly be aware of the impact of our actions on all of creation. We must direct our focus away from what we want to what the planet needs. We must choose to care for creation; otherwise, we do not really care about anything at all.

"In our efforts, to contain global warming, we are ultimately admitting just how prepared we are to sacrifice some of our selfish and greedy lifestyles. When will we learn to say: “Enough!”? When will we understand how important it is to leave as light a footprint as possible on this planet for the sake of future generations?...

"We can no longer afford to wait; we can no longer afford to be idle. The world has clearly expressed its opinion; our political leaders must accordingly act with urgency. Deadlines can no longer be postponed; indecision and inaction are not options. We have a choice to make. The time to choose is now."

--Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

A Lesson from the Canary Children

by Justin Soutar


(Published on OpEdNews 3/19/13 at http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Lesson-from-the-Canary-C-by-Justin-Soutar-130319-232.html
and on Newsvine 3/21/13 at http://justinsoutar.newsvine.com/_news/2013/03/21/17404704-a-lesson-from-the-canary-children )

Book: Autism—Prevention Care and Management: The Plight of the Canary Children and Their Release From Captivity
Author: Marvin D. Anderson, M.D.
Foreword: Sandra Cabot, M.D.
Introduction: Stephanie Cave, M.D., FAACP
Publisher: G.U.D. Publishers, Cedar, MI
Year of Publication: 2012
Formats: Print paperback/E-book
Number of pages: 212
Price: $19.95
Available from: Amazon and at www.autismatabbasplace.com


Autism—Prevention Care and Management is a groundbreaking and important book that should be read by every American concerned about our individual and public health. Although geared primarily to parents and caregivers of autistic children, the book reveals that the current escalating autism epidemic is merely the tip of the iceberg of an impending national health crisis that the American people simply cannot afford to ignore or sweep under the rug.

The book’s author, Dr. Marvin Anderson, is a longtime conventional medical practitioner specializing in internal medicine and in clinical nutrition; he is also a complimentary physician and has ten years of experience caring for children with autism. He draws on this experience, as well as on recent studies and research conducted by his colleagues in the medical and natural health fields, to take a fresh look at the causes of this childhood developmental disorder and what must be done to effectively manage and prevent it.

While it discusses some quite complex topics and issues from an authoritative and well-researched standpoint, this book is written for the average layperson in a simple, direct style and is very reader-friendly. Each of its six chapters is divided into two main sections, one entitled “The Problem” and the other entitled “The Solution.” Under these two general headings, the discussions are broken down into numerous brief subsections, each with its own descriptive subheading, which enables the reader to easily absorb each crucial bit of information presented. Valuable references and resources for further reading are given in the back of the book and sprinkled through the main text. In addition to traditional print format, the book will soon be available from the Apple i-Bookstore as an e-book for iPhones and iPads.

The picture Dr. Anderson presents is as disturbing as it is revealing. It includes a medical establishment and political system blind to the real causes of a growing autism problem and subservient to a mushrooming vaccination industry that puts private profit ahead of the public health. It includes toxic hazardous waste being “recycled” as a filler ingredient in artificial fertilizers which are spread over American cropland daily. It includes food that is nutritionally deficient, genetically modified, and contaminated with antibiotics, pesticides, artificial growth hormones, and chemical additives. And it includes newborn infants with 287 different toxic chemicals in their umbilical-cord blood, more than two-thirds of which have been banned from the American market for years.

Based on authoritative research, Dr. Anderson shows that childhood vaccinations, gastrointestinal disorders, environmental pollution, nutritional deficiencies, and liver problems are all contributing and interrelated factors in the development of autism. He advocates a balanced and reasonable multi-pronged approach to preventing and treating this disorder that includes more careful, patient-specific regulation and use of childhood vaccinations; correcting gastrointestinal disorders through special dietary restrictions and the use of probiotic supplements; growing one’s own food or purchasing organically grown food; and detoxification of the liver.

In Chapter Two, “The Cumulative Effect,” Dr. Anderson criticizes the American medical establishment to which he belongs for failing to effectively recognize and treat the root causes of the growing autism problem. One of these root causes is the administration of more and more childhood vaccines simultaneously at earlier and earlier ages to infants and young children, some of whose immune systems are not sufficiently developed or healthy enough to properly handle this massive influx of foreign microbes into their bodies. The medical community is allowing the ever-growing vaccination industry to determine ever more rigorous childhood immunization schedules without regard to the potentially harmful side effects of these multiple vaccinations on weaker children. After a brief but forthright discussion of the necessity of childhood vaccinations versus their safety and an urgent appeal to his colleagues to face the autism problem head-on, Dr. Anderson makes a novel yet sensible recommendation: the establishment of a new medical discipline devoted to the administration of vaccinations and to the pre-testing of infants and children in order to determine, on a case-by-case basis, which (if any) vaccines should be deferred to a later age or even withheld altogether. Dr. Anderson partly credits the low incidence of autism among the Amish people to their practice of delaying or withholding childhood vaccinations (p. 31).

Also ignored by the conventional medical establishment is a clear link between gastrointestinal disorders and autism. In Chapter Three, “The Enemy Within,” Dr. Anderson reports that upwards of 75 percent of the children whom he has treated suffer from gastrointestinal maladies. He discusses how various problems in the GI tract can affect the brain and cause behaviorial problems, and he stresses the key role of healthy intestinal flora to overall health. He explains that infants who are breast-fed receive beneficial bifidobacteria through their mother’s milk, promoting the development of a healthy intestinal flora in their guts, while infants who are not breast-fed (such as those in neonatal intensive care units) do not receive this healthy bacteria, allowing harmful bacteria to take root and grow in their GI tracts. Dr. Anderson posits that the latter infants are at higher risk of developing autism due to their intestinal dysbiosis and weakened immune systems. Remarkably, he has found that correcting digestive disorders is the most effective initial remedy for his autistic patients.

Furthermore, the medical establishment pays little attention to the role of environmental poisons, such as heavy metals and industrial chemicals, in the ever-worsening U.S. autism epidemic. In Chapter Four, “Dark Skies and Dirty Water,” Dr. Anderson brings to light some shocking and disturbing facts about the pollution of our natural environment, and he notes a link between increasing environmental toxicity levels and rising autism rates. He explains that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder because it affects the development of the human embryo in utero. One study found almost 300 different toxic chemicals in the umbilical-cord blood of American newborn children across different social strata, although more than two-thirds of these chemicals have been banned from the American market for years (p. 79). Another study shows that of the 2,863 chemicals manufactured in excess of one million pounds daily in the United States, only 12 of them—0.4 percent—have been tested for neurodevelopmental toxicity in accordance with EPA guidelines (p. 80).

Most shocking of all, Dr. Anderson reveals that our farmland is currently and deliberately being poisoned on a massive scale with “recycled” hazardous waste and sewage. He points out that dangerous toxic waste is a standard filler ingredient in the commercially mass-produced artificial fertilizer products constantly being spread over millions of acres by American mega-farmers. In addition, both hazardous waste and sewage sludge from waste treatment plants are being applied directly to our fields. As an extreme example of the latter waste disposal method, Dr. Anderson quotes Diane Olson Rutter of the Rodale Institute: “’A sickening flow of heavy metals, nerve gas residue, dioxin, PCBs, pesticides, industrial solvents, petroleum oils and radioactive plutonium, americium, radium and strontium-90 makes its way from the Lowry Landfill Superfund site southeast of Denver, down 17 miles of pipe, and into the Denver Metro sewage treatment plant. There it joins the city’s domestic and industrial waste and comes out the other end as sludge. Almost unbelievably, this sludge is then used to fertilize wheat’” (p. 86). Dr. Anderson sounds the alarm that this outrageous, immoral, and widespread practice of converting toxic waste into agricultural “fertilizer” is destroying our nation’s farm soil, imperiling the safety of our food supply, and contributing to growing rates of autism and infertility worldwide. He says, “Respected scientists soberly warn us that something must be done if the human race is to survive.”

What can be done to remedy this alarming situation? Dr. Anderson offers two common-sense solutions: 1) Take control of your own food supply, and 2) care for the soil properly by using natural fertilizer (animal manure, humus) and earthworms (vermicomposting). Dr. Anderson points out that autism rates are very low in Amish communities and in Cuba, where natural methods of caring for the soil are used instead of artificial fertilizer (and toxic waste). He also cites an amazing and hopeful discovery by Austrian researchers, who grew organic vegetables in soil contaminated with nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl accident. Remarkably, these scientists found that applying humus-rich compost to the soil before planting resulted in crops completely devoid of radioactivity (pp. 105-106). Dr. Anderson further notes that in Cuba, the incidence of autism is only one in 16,800 despite a rigorous vaccination schedule and high immunization compliance rate. He links this remarkable finding to the Cubans’ natural methods of soil management and plausibly contends that their resulting good nutrition makes their children’s immune systems strong enough to withstand a heavy vaccination load (pp. 107-108).

This leads directly into a discussion of the critical role of good nutrition in preventing and managing autism—a role not fully appreciated by the current medical establishment. In Chapter Five, “Help from the Barn,” Dr. Anderson points out that conventional food crops grown with artificial fertilizer are not only heavily contaminated but also pathetically deficient in the nutrients required for human health and well-being. He also contrasts the extremely low rate of autism among the Amish—one in 10,000—with the skyrocketing U.S. national rate (one in 150 in 2002, one in 88 in 2008; pp. 32, 197), and suggests that the wholesome agrarian lifestyle of the Amish based on their natural methods of soil treatment is what makes autism practically unknown among them. Dr. Anderson then strongly recommends that families of children with autism who are able to do so should purchase their own small piece of farmland on which to live and grow their own clean and healthy food. For families of autistic children who are unable to do this, he says, the next best option is to purchase the best organically grown food available and add nutritional supplements.

In Chapter Six, “The Canary Children,” Dr. Anderson emphasizes that a clean and properly functioning liver is absolutely critical to the health of the immune system and thus to the health of the body in general. He points out that our livers are generally overstressed by environmental poisons and weakened by nutritional deficiencies. Dr. Anderson explains that the underdeveloped livers of many modern infants and young children in particular are being overwhelmed and clogged by the tidal wave of multiple vaccinations, prescription drugs, harmful bacteria, and artificial chemicals coming at them; as a result, their immune systems are compromised and begin to malfunction, leaving their bodies exposed to harmful invaders and leading to autoimmune diseases. Dr. Anderson observes that toxic heavy metals not deactivated by the liver and removed via the excretory system are allowed to circulate in the bloodstream and, due to their fat-soluble nature, are deposited in organs of the body with a high fat content such as the brain, resulting in autism and other serious behaviorial disorders.


Photo credit: Fir0002/Flagstaffotos
Used with permission


Some people may reasonably ask: If all of the foregoing is true, why aren’t all Americans ill? Good question. In the first and last chapters of the book (Chapter One entitled “Sink or Swim”), Dr. Anderson responds that each individual’s health background and biochemical makeup is different and explains how some people, for various reasons, are better able than others to handle the same toxic load. Dr. Anderson warns that the rapidly growing ranks of autistic children in the U.S. today signal an impending national health crisis of unprecedented proportions. Like canaries in a coal mine, these unfortunate individuals are the first victims of our irresponsible agricultural practices and heavily poisoned modern environment—and unless we do something about it soon, our country will be in serious trouble.

Autism—Prevention Care and Management is a powerful wake-up call for the American people to the reality of the health catastrophe our nation is staring in the face unless we have the wisdom and courage to change our agricultural policies, beginning at the grassroots level of the individual person and family. It’s a timely reminder of the truth once stated by FDR that a nation that destroys its soil destroys itself. This book deserves a mass audience and I highly recommend it to everyone.

To order the book, click here.


Copyright © 2013 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Disappearing Bees: The Wireless Culprit

On September 18, 2011, Italy’s largest agricultural cooperative donated eight beehives containing 500,000 honeybees to Pope Benedict XVI. Given in honor of the Italian Catholic Church’s Day for the Protection of Creation, the bees from Coldiretti currently reside on the pontifical farm at Castel Gandolfo. Farmers around the world are concerned about the honeybee, whose global population has declined sharply and mysteriously in the last ten or so years. As Coldiretti president Sergio Marini observed, bees "play a vital role in the planet's ecosystem and their disappearance would have disastrous consequences for health and the environment; a third of human food production depends on crops pollinated by insects, 80 percent of which are bees." In recent years, beekeepers across North America and Europe have reported devastating losses of anywhere from 25 to 100 percent of their colonies.

The official term for this massive worldwide disappearance of honeybees is Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). It’s a bizarre and unprecedented phenomenon characterized by worker bees deserting their hives nearly en masse, leaving only the queen and her capped brood behind. Without its worker bees and their vital honey production, a bee colony cannot survive. Scientists all over the world are researching a variety of potential causes of CCD including pests (such as the Varroa mite), disease, viruses, pesticides, genetically modified crops, stress, poor nutrition, and climate change. However, none of these factors can adequately explain the unique characteristics of CCD, such as its rapid spread and simultaneous appearance on multiple continents. Attacks by pesticides, viruses or parasites would result in piles of dead bees in the hives, whereas the hives are simply left vacant in the case of CCD. Climate change has been much too gradual to account for the disorder, and harsh winters can explain only part of the bee die-off. The other possible causes (GM crops, stress, poor nutrition) are not factors in every area affected by CCD.

In fact, two pioneering research scientists—Dr. George Carlo and Milt Bowling—may have already identified the main cause of CCD. Dr. Carlo is an award-winning American public health expert who ran the wireless industry’s six-year, $28.5 million study on the health effects of cellular phones back in the 1990s. Milt Bowling of Canada has been involved with the cell phone safety issue since 1997 and has been working with Dr. Carlo on the issue since 2005. According to these two researchers, the culprit in the world’s current honeybee decline is the enormous and continuing proliferation of information-carrying radio waves (ICRW) in the global environment due to the massive 21st-century shift to wireless technology. As a result of their research carried out both independently and in concert, Dr. Carlo and Bowling are convinced that man-made wireless signals—particularly from cell phones and their transmitters—interfere with the bees’ natural navigation and communication capabilities.

A honeybee’s navigational system is comprised of small magnetite crystals in its abdomen, which allow it to tune like a radio into the earth’s electromagnetic field. When a worker bee leaves the hive to gather pollen, it senses this field and uses it to calculate its position relative to the hive much as a GPS system works. This enables it to return to the colony with its precious load, even from more than a mile away. But various independent studies show that the bees lose this crucial ability to navigate when artificial electromagnetic fields are introduced into their environment.

In one study conducted in 2006 at Landau University in Germany, two beehives were exposed to radiation from a cordless phone and two were left unexposed. Twenty-five bees were then taken from each hive and released about 2500 feet away. Within 32 minutes, 16 bees returned to one of the unexposed hives and 17 to the other, while only six bees returned to one of the exposed hives after 38 minutes and none at all made it back to the other. Moreover, after nine days the bees in the exposed hives had constructed 21 percent fewer cells in the hive frame than the bees in the unexposed hives.

Another study was carried out in 2009 by Dr. Daniel Favre, a retired biologist of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, Switzerland. He placed mobile phone handsets near beehives, activated them for specific periods of time, and analyzed the bees’ resulting behavior. Favre found that activation of the phones triggered the worker piping signal, which is a sign of distress, and that the colony’s activities did not return to normal until some time after the phone activation had ceased.

In a third study conducted in 2010, researchers at Panjab University in Chandigarh, India fitted cell phones to a beehive and activated them twice a day for 15 minutes each. Within three months, honey production had ceased, the queen laid half as many eggs, and the hive population had fallen significantly.

While this research provides strong support for a link between wireless transmissions and CCD, a definitive study is still needed to conclusively prove the theory (and convince skeptics). Dr. Carlo and Bowling have designed a comprehensive research program to do just that, but it remains on hold due to lack of funding from North American and European governments. Furthermore, the highly successful mobile phone industry is in denial that the widespread global use of their product could be placing bees at risk—even though the spread pattern of CCD is remarkably consistent with trends in cell phone use during the last ten years.

Meanwhile, the number of honeybees worldwide continues to decline drastically, presenting an urgent environmental challenge. As Marini noted above, honeybees are one of the major insect pollinators essential to human food production, so their disappearance would be a disaster for the world’s food supply. Without pollination by bees, many fruits, vegetables, nuts and herbs simply could not be produced.

What can—and should—we do about this? If information-carrying radio waves are indeed disrupting honeybee colonies around the globe, the obvious solution would be a planet-wide reduction in wireless transmissions, particularly from mobile phones and their supporting infrastructure. By virtue of their sheer numbers (well over five billion worldwide), cell phones generate far more ICRW than all other wireless sources put together. Thus, cutting back global cell phone transmissions along with careful regulation of other wireless technology would allow the world’s honeybee population to stabilize and begin recovering. Individuals, communities, governments and non-government organizations should work together to address this issue and take up the challenge of saving the bees before it’s too late. The future of life on earth depends on it.


Copyright © 2012 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.


REFERENCES

1. “Benedict XVI Receives Half Million Bees,” ZENIT, Sep. 21, 2011. Oct. 24, 2011

2. “Pope: Christians Should Unite to Care for Creation, Poor,” Worldwatch Institute. Oct. 28, 2011

3. Milt Bowling, “Bees and the Future of Food,” Health Action Magazine, Fall 2007. Oct. 21, 2011


4. Ibid; Milt Bowling, “Where are the Birds and Bees?”, Health Action, 2007. Oct. 21, 2011

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid. (Original source: Hermann Stever et al, “Verhaltensanderung der Honigbiene Apis mellifera unter elektromagnetischer Exposition” [Electromagnetic Radiation: Influences on Honeybees (Apis mellifera)], University of Landau, Feb. 2006. Nov. 7, 2011 <http://agbi.uni-landau.de/material_download/elmagexp_bienen_06.pdf>)

7. Daniel Favre, “Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping,” Kokopelli Association,
April 13, 2011. Oct. 21, 2011 http://www.kokopelli.asso.fr/documentation/favre.pdf

8. Sasha Herriman, “Study links bee decline to cell phones,” CNN World, June 30, 2010. Oct. 24, 2011

9. Wikipedia contributors, “List of countries by number of cell phones in use,” Wikipedia, Oct. 21, 2011. Oct. 24, 2011