The National Policy Institute estimates what the world will look like in 2060 – about 50 years hence.

According to an article in Human Events authored by Pat Buchanan and published on May 2, 2008 in 1950 whites were 18% of the world’s population and Africans accounted for 9%. By 2060 the percentages will be about the same but the colors reversed. Two hundred million whites will vanish by then. Arabic people, counted among whites, will rise ten-fold to 743 million and account for 75% of whites.

Iran’s population will rise from 71 to 100 million. Pakistan will grow to 300 million from about 71 million today. Afghanistan will triple to 79 million and Iraq will leap from 29 to 62 million. In America Hispanics will triple to 127 million while Mexico will grow to 130 million.

Last October PEW RESEARCH asked 45,000 people in 47 countries what they thought and majorities in 46 countries expressed fear about loss of their national culture. Sixty-two percent of Americans said more must be done to protect “our way of life.” Three-fourths wanted stiffer immigration laws and restrictions. Asians, Africans and Middle Easterners appear, by simple weight of numbers appear to be poised to inherit the earth.

“This is the way the world ends, “wrote T. S. Eliot in his closing couplet of “The Hollow Men,” “Not with a bang but a whimper.” It begs the question of whose world to which he referred.

As of Monday morning fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide disagree with Barack Obama’s statement that people in small towns “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% agree with the Democratic frontrunner while 19% are not sure.

A plurality of politically liberal voters—46%–agree with Obama’s statement while 33% disagree. Moderate voters take the opposite view and disagree by a 51% to 27% margin. Seventy-four percent (74%) of conservatives disagree with Obama’s statement, only 12% agree.Democrats are fairly evenly divided—34% agree with Obama and 43% disagree. Generally, Obama supporters agree with him while Hillary Clinton’s supporters disagree.

Republicans overwhelmingly disagree with the statement and unaffiliated voters disagree by a two-to-one margin.

Voters under 30 are evenly divided on Obama’s statement while their elders strongly disagree. Fifty-three percent (53%) of African-Americans agree with Obama’s statement while 29% disagree. White voters disagree by a 3-to-1 margin.

Maybe my reasoning is flawed. But why would Americans want to give a third term to the most unpopular administration in American history? While many Americans still envision John McCain as the straight talking, special interest-disdaining maverick candidate of the 2000 election season, the fact is that he’s never really been any of those things. To make it worse, he’s even changed his position on the issue of waterboarding. Why? Now 71 and perhaps sensing his “running” days are coming to an end, he is John McCain, candidate for President of the United States and it is now or never. Be afraid. Be very afraid. A vote for John McCain is a vote for George W. Bush and a McCain win is akin to giving our current imperial president an undeserved third term.

Marching in step with the Bush war doctrine

Mr. Bush recently stated that the GOP will prevail in the 2008 election so that we can continue what he no doubt feels is the good fight in Iraq. If this is the case, then Bush’s worldwide aggression is in good hands. John McCain is a full-fledged “hawk” and a staunch supporter of President Bush’s war effort. Not only is he on record stating that the surge is “working,” but McCain also believes that the Iraq war is winnable and that winning is essential. Citing our long-term occupation of Korea, Mr. McCain has no problem at all seeing U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq for many years to come. He has acknowledged, however, that he must convince the American people that the war is noble and worthwhile during the campaign’s stretch run. Another notable point is that McCain is in lockstep with George Bush on Iran. There is no question he’d use military force against Iran if he deemed it necessary. This is a dangerous equation, given the milquetoast character of Congress. Would they stand up to John McCain or roll over and play dead as they have for George W. Bush?

America’s reputation has deteriorated under the Bush regime. Regardless of the thought process behind the “Bush Strategy,” his unwarranted invasion of Iraq has reduced America to worldwide bully status. George Bush proudly refers to himself as a “war president,” and he is right. In seven years, George W. Bush has, excuse the term, “pissed away” more than two hundred years of diplomacy, favoring instead the pre-emptive strike position so strongly advocated by the neo-cons. The Bus administration was so intent on attacking Iraq that it managed 935 outright lies to justify American aggression in the lead-up to the invasion.* Make no mistake that John McCain was one of the leading advocates of the Iraq war, he is presently one of the most vocal “cheerleaders” of the Iraq war, and he will no doubt carry on with (or expand) Bush’s Iraq policy. Invading Iran remains on the table now and, unless Mr. Bush twists a few facts and tells a few lies to justify invading Iran before he leaves office, it will remain on the table for the entire term of a John McCain presidency.

Out of touch with reality on reproductive rights

An issue that should be of concern to all American women is that of reproductive rights. On this count, the National Right to Life Committee gives McCain a 72% rating for the years between 1997-2000, while NARAL Pro-Choice America gives him a 1% for the same time frame. Senator McCain is generally out of touch on this subject. When pressed on the issue of contraception during a bus trip between campaign stops, McCain fumbled around for an answer, sounding like anything but presidential material. It was actually painful to read this exchange. Yet, when McCain was asked specifically if grants for sex education should speak to the the use of contraception or if it should adhere to Bush’s “abstinence only” position, he chose abstinence only. McCain’s mentor on all things reproductive is none other than Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), whose name he invoked several times on that bus trip. Coburn is not only a Senator, but also a doctor who has delivered more than 4,000 babies during his career. Senator Coburn believes that life begins at conception and opposes abortion in all cases, except in the rare case where the mother’s life is in danger. It should also be noted that Senator/Doctor Coburn advocates the death penalty for abortion providers, a position that is – at best – disturbing for a doctor to take.

A sudden change of heart on torture

Until recently, Senator McCain has been vocal critic of the President’s use of waterboarding and other extreme (and inhumane) interrogation techniques, having been subject to torture himself as a POW in Viet Nam. When both Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney bowed out of the race, McCain’s nearly DOA campaign was not only given a new life, but also thrust into “frontrunner” status. With Mike Huckabee dropping out after the Texas and Ohio primaries, McCain is officially the GOP candidate for president. Now comes the need to cater to the very vocal and powerful right wing element in the Republican Party. Make no mistake about it, this is one faction of the party that is not enamored with John McCain and the candidate knows it. Suddenly waterboarding isn’t such a problem anymore. In fact, on February 13 of this year, the new John McCain voted against an intelligence bill designed to effectively outlaw torture by making the Army Field Manual the law of the land.

A legend in his own mind

McCain’s outward disdain of special interests and “soft” money donations is as legendary as Bush’s fundraising prowess. In fact, in 2002, Senator McCain and Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis) teamed up to pass the McCain-Feingold act in an attempt to eliminate large donations from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. They even won the Profiles in Courage award for their efforts. Do not be fooled. Here the only difference between McCain and Bush is that McCain quietly straddles the line that he himself draws in the sand.

In spite of his rhetoric to the contrary, McCain has done his share of favors for donors over the years. Few recall that McCain was one of the infamous “Keating Five,” five Senators who sought to influence the investigation into the failed Lincoln Savings & Loan and its chairman, Charles H. Keating, Jr. Mr. Keating was faulted for that failure, which reportedly cost taxpayers anywhere between $2.6 and $3.4 billion. After a reprimand, McCain won re-election as a congressman from Arizona’s first congressional district and was then elected to the Senate in 1986. In spite of his efforts to convince people that he and Keating were not friends, the facts show something different. By the time he entered the Senate in 1987, he had received $112,000 in donations from Keating, his family and his employees.

The New York Times reported that McCain’s association with telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman during his first campaign in 1999 concerned his staff. While he was photographed out and about with Iseman and even used the corporate jet of one of her clients, the issue isn’t whether or not they had an “extramarital affair.” The issue is that Iseman “lobbied” McCain on behalf of Paxson Communications, who had business in front of the Senate Commerce Committee, of which Mr. McCain was the Chairman. In spite of his denials, the paper trail shows that John McCain wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Paxson Communications as a result of her influence.

It’s time for a reality on the wisdom of electing John McCain. His 2008 campaign staff is like a role call of those associated with large soft money donations, like A. Jerrold Perenchio, chairman of Univision and presently a McCain national finance co-chairman. Mr. Perenchio has raised a whopping $11.3 million in soft money donations since the 1998 elections. Several of George Bush’s moneymen also litter McCain’s landscape.

Can’t you see the real me?

We cannot see the real John McCain because the mainstream media is enamored with the mythological John McCain persona. They helped to create it and they continue to foster it. The one time a mainstream media outlet dares raise something questionable about Mr. McCain and the repercussions are clear. It appears that the Times has come under fire by its readers because they perceived the story as trashing the candidate by intimating he had an extramarital affair with Ms. Iseman without offering proof of said affair. Know what? Even if the Times had offered proof of an affair, that isn’t the most disturbing thing about their relationship. What is disturbing is that the article shows that McCain “talks the talk” but does not “walk the walk.” (This is another trait he shares with Bush.) He does not steer clear of lobbyists and is keenly aware of what they can do to put him in the White House.

It would be nice if we could have a real picture of the candidate so that people would know they are essentially re-electing George W. Bush, architect of the most unpopular administration in American history. George Bush knows it. He has endorsed McCain

Are you feeling lucky? I hope so. But don’t press your luck, because there is no such thing. There is only blind chance and randomness. Luck is a purely historical concept. It only works when you look backwards.

When the dice come up seven, then you know you were lucky. Luck is a word we use to describe the past, it has no meaning for the future.

People have a terrible ambivalence towards chance. On the one hand, we play with it. Blind chance is recreational, from the craps tables to the pick-up bars, we love to play the odds.

But blind chance also terrifies us. Humans need an explanation for everything, a reason. We need that reason because we like to think we’re in control. That’s what humanity is; we’re the animal that controls things, manipulates the environment, makes effects out of causes.

We realize that blind chance plays a big part in our lives, but as soon as it happens we explain it away. That’s where the self-hypocrisy comes in. We look back and attribute a cause to that which had no cause at all; it was merely the working out of random chance.

The upcoming baseball season will give you dozens of opportunities to see what I mean. Baseball is a game of skill and strategy, but it’s chance that makes all those strategies stupid or brilliant.

A fly ball tinks off the foul pole and becomes a grand slam. The pitcher goes from being a gamer to a choker, his manager goes from being a gutsy genius who sticks with his players to a blockhead idiot who froze when he should have yanked the pitcher.

That’s what the broadcasters will say, the sportswriters will write and that’s what we fans will believe. But it was really just a random gust that brought that foul ball back a quarter inch so it hit the pole. It was blind chance. But that’s not the way we’ll remember it. We’ll give it meaning, because that’s what we do.

The inexplicable drives us crazy. We can’t stand it, so we don’t.

We make up stories instead. The trendy, semiotic phrase for it is “the narrative.” People tell nice stories to make sense of the world. We write histories and attribute a cause to everything that happened. And when a better reason eludes us, we call it luck.

Darwin talked about survival of the fittest. He might have added a codicil to that profound thought—survival of the luckiest.

Once upon a time there was a trilobite who was smarter than all the other trilobites, but you never heard of him. He fell into a fumarole and boiled before he could reproduce. Maybe you were born because the two fastest sperm collided and let number three get to the egg first.

“Why me?” people say after a bad break. Well, sometimes it’s because you let yourself get fat, sometimes it’s because you drove drunk—those are reasons, things you could control—but the guy in the car you hit? That was just his bad luck.

Chance can reach out and grab you by the neck at any moment. No wonder we lie to ourselves with hypocritical morality tales about fate and luck, they are very comforting.

They are also highly dangerous. We need to be very careful when we look for reasons why whatever happened—by chance—happened. Because we are going to find some.

When things go our way we cheer our luck like it was real, like we earned it. Acting like we believe in our good luck is a silly hypocrisy, but it’s harmless enough. The real damage comes when things go badly and we look for reasons, for someone to blame, for a scapegoat.

Like, “the witches,” or “the black helicopters,” or “the Jews.” That’s when reason becomes hypocritical and bad stuff happens. Humans have been doing it since the first lucky, mutated ape picked up a rock and slew the first unlucky member of his new species because Zog had an ugly blotch on his forehead that angered the gods.

None of this is an excuse to give up, to do nothing, let the chips fall where they may. Quite the contrary, when you can’t control everything you better control as much as you can as effectively as you can. But save a little space in your worldview for blind chance. It will save you a world of trouble.

Heck, if you’re a politician it could save the world a world of trouble.

“Michelle Obama’s comment that, for the first time in her adult life, she feels proud of America helps crystallize who Barack Obama is,” says Ronald Kessler chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com.

He observes it is difficult to imagine that she would make such a statement suggesting disdain for America unless she felt it comported with her husband’s views. Plus her statement aligns perfectly with the hate-America views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s minister, friend, and sounding board for more than two decades.

It seems as if Obama is being carried by a tidal wave of adoration and gaining a momentum that Hillary might not be able to stop. There are reports of growing crowds wherever he goes as he mesmerizes all demographic groups: old, young, black, white, rural, suburb. I have even read of women fainting during his speeches as if he is the new Elvis or Beatle or Sinatra (pick your idol based on your generation). And yet….

Anyone who follows Obama and listens to him will agree that as wonderful as his speeches are they still don’t contain any substance. To learn more about him, I checked his website; http://www.barrackobama.com/. To my surprise

It’s not official yet, there is still the hurdle of Texas to clear (and wouldn’t it be a kick in the crotch if that state did it to us … again) but with each passing Tuesday Barack Obama is looking less and less like a candidate and more and more like a president. This is an unlikely development. If you’d have wagered on that proposition a year ago you would have gotten a good enough price to pay off your subprime, come November.

Which begs the question: Why? There isn’t enough difference between Obama and Hillary on the issues to start a decent bar fight.

Change. It seems to be the most recent political buzz-word. As far as I can tell each and every candidate running for president has talked about and promised change.

Change. Yep, they all claim that America needs change, particularly in Washington, D.C. What makes this amazing is that three of the top four candidates, Clinton (both), Obama and McCain are all current members of the United States Senate. I do agree that if there is any entity in Washington that needs change it is the Senate.

Her position is that for the first time women have a chance to have someone who will represent all women in America, which can not be done by any man including African American Barack Obama. The gender and race war tensions are breaking out all over the Democratic Party.

In my humble opinion, Hillary has certainly earned her shot at the top spot,