The answer to everything, Part V

It is often said that we need a proper dialog on race in this Nation, and that is probably true (although, as you may know, I believe the issue is more one of culture than race, but regardless).  There are obstacles to that dialog, entrenched positions, sensitive feelings, anger and distrust, and misperceptions on all sides.  But as a first step, we cannot have a dialog about race until we have some reasonable, shared understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment and States Rights (Tenth Amendment).

States Right and the Fourteenth Amendment have come to stand on opposite sides of the civil rights issue, and that is both a crying shame and an insurmountable obstacle to real dialog.

Claims to “States Rights” has frequently been used as a ruse or pseudonym for racism, sexism, prejudice, bigotry, injustice, oppression, and supporting infrastructure for institutionally racist societies.

The Citizenship Clause (Section 1, Clause 1) of the Fourteenth Amendment was written at a time when the nation was huge and empty, there were fewer people in the entire United States than there are now in California alone.  And there were no public assistance and entitlement programs … for anyone (almost nobody gained almost anything at the public expense).  And the Citizenship Clause does include the verbiage, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which has been interpreted by the Courts to mean birthright citizenship.

Here is the important point: both States Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment are essential to our Nation, but everyone discussing the issues of race, civil rights, and immigration needs to have a functional, sustainable, and shared understanding of both effects and limits.  This is the public table at which the discussion of these issues must begin.  I will now briefly present what I believe is an explanation and understanding of these issues that will a) anger everyone, and b) provide that sound basis for further discussion.

States Rights are limited by the federal law on a wide variety of issues, and that is off the table for any further discussion.  The federal law is supreme.  States Rights may never be legitimately invoked to block or limit or otherwise curtail federal civil rights or other similar issues.  I believe that Progressives sense this but are unwilling to articulate it this way, so their efforts to convince the gullible that health care is a civil right.

However, there are two perfectly legitimate reasons for the Tenth Amendment and States Rights.  First is the management issue, call it the “organization chart” issue if you will.  Huge, vertical, highly integrated, hierarchal, command-driven organizations fail and go bankrupt.  This is what happened to General Motors, and much of the rest of industrial America.  Successful organizations are flat (have fewer layers), distributed, diverse, responsive to local conditinos, agile, and “light”.  When the federal government organizationally usurps local and state government, it gives us the worst of the failed America that is now history (and a big part of the reason for our current economic anguish).

Second, by subdividing responsibility and achieving a diversity of approaches, we gain the ecologically desirable trait of diversity.  When the federal government dictates a solution, if the solution is imperfect (as, by definition, it must be) then it brings down the whole system.  If a state does something bad, it won’t crash the whole system.  Everywhere else, diversity is favorable to survival, look at what happened to the centrally managed economy and society of the Soviet Union.  Yet one end of the political spectrum wants to crush diversity and impose a uniform centralized approach to solving problems and allocating resources.

For these two reasons, States Rights are far more important than they are being given credit for.  But due to the horrible stains of racism placed on States Rights by former generations, and a few survivors in this generation, we can’t even talk about it.

Now, on to the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Citizenship Clause.  Due to the central role of the 14th Amendment to civil rights, and especially to the rights of African-Americans formerly held in slavery, this issue has become impossible to discuss.  Anyone approaching this topic has to begin, frequently repeat, and conclude with assurances that the 14th Amendment is sacrosanct, inviolable, immune to any repeal or substantial change that would affect any current citizen of the United States.  Having been born or become a citizen, no one will ever be denied their just rights as a citizen of the United States.

Now, the concept of birthright citizenship is another issue altogether.  This is an issue regarding the citizenship of babies, born to non-US parents, who are not yet born.  I understand the sensitivities of this issue, but until the most sensitive get beyond reflex responses, we cannot discuss the larger issues of race and culture.  So in trying to ease the discussion forward, and having offered the iron-clad and eternal guarantees above, I’ll go on to the next step.

The concept of birthright citizenship (US citizenship conferred on a newborn, neither parent being a US citizen, based solely on birth within the United States) is a construct of the Courts.  No other Nation on Earth offers birthright citizenship.  The 14th Amendment includes the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” … it’s there for a reason, what is that reason?  The authors didn’t just randomly insert some otherwise out of place words, what was their intent?  Who could be born “in the United States” but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?

It is not unreasonable, hateful, bigoted, racists, or anti-Hispanic to answer that question with, “Babies born to non-US citizen parents.”  Here’s where some people are likely to come unhinged on me and get (in their view justifiably) outraged, but I’m going to say it anyway.  The 14th Amendment was passed to positively and affirmatively guarantee citizenship to African-American former slaves who were brought here against their will, held illegally in slavery, denied any opportunity to share in the wealth they were helping to create, and horribly abused even after slavery was ended.  It was not passed in order to guarantee citizenship to the offspring of people who are in this country either casually (tourists) or illegally (undocumented).  Former slaves and undocumented aliens are two profoundly different groups: the former brought here and held against their will, the latter here as the result of an illegal (immigration) act.

Feel free to pillory me as you see fit, but there it is.

So here I conclude.  Anyone who seeks a dialog before these two issues are resolved is uninformed or evasive.  The States Rights folks have got to “sign the pledge” (federal law is supreme), and those who opposed States Rights have got to give up opposition to the far greater good due to distant and marginalized abuse.  Opponents of birthright citizenship have to make the same sort of acknowledgement and pledge (no intent to confiscate or infringe on citizenship) and 14th Amendment absolutists have got to understand both the original intent and the vastly changed situation.

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America!

Shrimp Creolifornia

My brother-in-law came over for dinner the other night, and I made this for us.  I call it “Shrimp Creolifornia” because, while it’s based on the New Orleans dish, I don’t have enough authenticity to claim the title.  If you have access to some good, and hopefully cheap, shell-on shrimp, give this a try.

I watch my sodium/salt, so you’ll see references to low-or-no sodium ingredients below.  Feel free to modify or ignore to suit your preference.

Seasoning mix  (or just buy “Cajun/Creole seasoning”)
2 parts onion powder
2 parts garlic powder
2.5 parts sweet paprika
2.5 parts smoked paprika
4 parts Italian herb
1 part thyme leaves
1 part lemon pepper
1 part ground white pepper
1 part ground cayenne
Note: this mix has no salt, so add to taste

Shrimp Creole for 4 people
1.5-2 lbs shell-on shrimp
2 cups diced Trinity (onion, green pepper, celery)
1 tbsp minced garlic
1 tbsp tomato paste
14.5 oz can petite diced, no-salt-added tomatoes
8 oz can, no-salt-added tomato sauce
3 tbsp flour
4 tbsp canola/safflower oil
1 tbsp extra virgin olive oil (optional)
1 1/4 cup dry white wine
1 1/4 cups low sodium chicken broth
3 tbsp seasoning mix (you may not use it all)
1 1/2 tsp Kosher salt (ditto)
1 tbsp cornstarch mixed with 2 tbsp water (may not be needed)
1 1/3 cup uncooked Basmati or other fragrant rice
4-6 green onions, sliced thin.

Well before dinner time, shell the shrimp.  Return shrimp meat to refrig, put shells, stock and wine in a pot, cover, and cook the flavor out of the shells (low boil 15 minutes).  Drain, adjust amount so you have 2 cups total of liquid remaining.  Let cool, refrigerate if it will be more than 2 hours before you complete this recipe.

When ready to begin cooking, in a heavy 5qt or so pot, put flour and canola oil in the pot, stir to combine until smooth.  Cook over medium heat until the roux just turns blond (it will bubble and foam, then cook for a few more minutes).  Add the Trinity, stirring constantly for about 5 minutes, cook the vegs lightly.  Add tomato paste, stir to combine and develop a slight carmelization (piche).  Add garlic and cook a minute or two.  If the mixture gets too dry, you can add another tbsp of canola oil.

When the Trinity is just tender, tomato paste has developed a slight piche, and garlic is fragrant, remove from heat.  Let cool slightly.  Then stir in 1 1/2 cups of the stock/wine, a bit at a time, to form a smooth mixture.  Add the tomatoes, 1 tbsp of the seasoning, and 1/2 tsp of salt.  Stir frequently while bringing to a boil to form the Creolifornia sauce.  Once the sauce boils and thickens, turn down the heat and begin adjusting everything.

When tasting for seasoning, this sauce should be somewhat spicier and saltier than the finished product, as the shrimp will dilute and thin the sauce.  It should be thick enough to form a nice ‘gravy’, not watery.  Add spice mixture and salt to taste.  If too thick, thin with remaining wine/stock mixture; if too thin then stir in some of the cornstarch slurry while at a low boil.

When ready to serve, cook the rice (a cup and a third of fragrant rice with two cups of water) and bring the sauce to a low boil.  Add the shrimp and return to a low boil.  Cook about 5 minutes, or until all of the shrimp are pink and opaque.  Remove from heat, if desired stir in the 1 tbsp extra virgin olive oil for flavor.

To serve, place a scoop of rice in the middle of a shallow bowl, cover with 1/4th of the Shrimp Creolifornia, and top with chopped green onions.  A green salad and a sliced baguette complete the meal.  I try to adjust the seasoning and salt for the most sensitive palate in the group, so you may want to put Louisiana hot sauce and a salt shaker on the table.

I hope that if you try this, you and your guests enjoy it.  Bon apetite, and may God continue to bless America!

The answer to everything, Part IV

I am borrowing this idea from a caller on some radio talkshow I can’t remember.  I wish this fellow was the President, unfortunately I can’t even remember which radio talkshow.  Oh, well, what we have being served up today is a) an illustration of how government efforts to stimulate the economy fail, and b) the private sector answer.

As many folks have learned by now, the $8000 new homebuyer’s tax credit was a huge success at stimulating the otherwise moribund housing market.  And as soon as that particular stimulus ended, the housing market not only tanked, it looks like it’s making up for lost tankage during the stimulus period.  This is what happens when the government attempts to stimulate the economy.  Things are fine as long as the government is handing out money.  But as soon as the free money stops, the economy begins responding to the force of gravity again, but from a higher drop point.

The only thing that can create sustainable prosperity is private activity.

So this unidentified caller to a radio talk show made a proposal that as far as I can tell is utterly brilliant.  Let individuals withdraw money, tax free, from tax deferred retirement accounts to purchase a primary or secondary residence.

Of course, this has a couple of immediate drawbacks.  First, those are supposed to be retirement funds, and a not preparing for our own retirement is a very bad thing we can do to our children and grandchildren.  Frittering away retirement funds simply sets the stage for future, bigger problems.  This proposal has some potential slight element of that, but what is being purchased will have durable value.  It is not frittering away, nor is it a goofy scheme.  So that argument is at very best only ever so slightly pertinent.

The second drawback is the government losing present and future income tax revenues.  The solution I would propose to this is to eliminate the existing capital gains exemption on properties purchased under this program.  That way, at least most of what the government loses in income tax would be recouped in capital gains.  As a potential user of this type of program, that strikes me as a fair and equitable exchange.

The biggest problem I see is, once you start something like this, how do you end it?  Or do you end it?  Heck, for that matter, do you end the mortgage interest deduction from the federal tax system?  Ooooops, didn’t mean to open another can of worms.

One objective of government policy should be private home ownership.  When citizens become homeowners, they are invested in the community and they are no longer beholden to a landlord.  If we lose that, we lose a lot.  We tried fooling Mother Nature for ten years (1997-2007) with bubbles and subprime mortgages and other ‘tricks’, and it didn’t work.  This proposal is no gimmick, it’s real money in the bank saved by real people from their real jobs, being used to buy real housing.  Maybe we should give an idea like this some consideration, for a change.

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America!

The answer to everything, Part III.5

I just love how clever I was with the numbering thing in the title, Ha!Ha!Ha!

The other day, when I posted “The answer to everything, parts I-III”, I promised to explain why the government, especially the federal government, can’t solve the problems we face.  That reason is politics.  The federal government is run by politicians, and under our current system elected federal politicians are generally incapable of doing anything except responding to the expectations of those who fund them.  The federal government does what those who get the politicians elected want done.

And the average, responsible, homeowning, working middle class American doesn’t get to sit at that table.

Oh, they get invited to the table by the campaign financiers and activists, but all they get to do is listen and agree.  The money people, and the professional activists, have their own agenda and they only need homeowning, working middle class Americans to vote the way they want the votes to go.  Since you’ve come back to read this after the entirely loony (but clearly effective) solution to health care I offered in my previous post, I’m assuming that you’re willing to go with me on this.

The First Amendment forbids the federal government from passing laws limiting the free expression of political speech (something we have that even the every-so-Progressive Canadians and French and Germans lack), we have a challenge.  The concept here is that campaigning should not include purchased access to media.  If campaigning is forbidden to use purchased access to media, a few things happen.

First, funding requirements and the influence of funding on election results, is vastly reduced.  Second, it reinforces the role of the press in the political process, since the only access to media would be through the media, rather than through advertising agencies and donors.  Third, forcing the professionals out of the process would allow enough air for ordinary citizens to get involved, once they see that they matter.

In the meantime, the government cannot solve problems that it was not envisioned in the Constitution to solve.  If the Founders did not envision the federal government performing the function, they could not have provided the mechanisms for the federal government to be successful.  Therefore, where the federal government has to rely on laws and regulations to perform a function, and they answer to the political activists and corporate funding sources, they are bound to fail.

And folks, there you have it.  Some, perhaps many, will scoff, but for them I have one question.  And that is, “Since NASA of 1961-1973, name one major government program that has returned more in overall welfare then we have been forced to invest in it?”  We are, myself included, captives of conventional thinking.  We have limited ourselves to positions and solutions given to us by others.  I have a small message for everyone, “Those ’Others’ have their own agenda, don’cha know?”  We need bold, unconventional answers because the timid, conventional answers have failed.

Forbid the purchase of media access for political messages, that is all.

G’night all, and may God continue to bless America!

PS: Nancy Pelosi is an utter loon.  The people of San Francisco should be thrilled with pride at having such an insightful, outreaching, inclusive, bridge-building representative … NOT!  Ha!Ha!Ha!  She’s a LOON!!!

The answer to everything, parts I-III

The situation around the world and here at home continues to challenge, with no certain answers in sight.  Everyone has an opinion, and those opinions generally conflict in every way possible.  We do hear from folks looking to the past for answers to the future, and at least half of them get it all wrong.  Here is a former government Secretary getting it mostly wrong.

Of course, none of this can get done in our current system, which I will explain and solve in Part IV, maybe tomorrow.

Problem: the economy is in the dump, which is dragging down the world economy, and there is no certain solution in sight.

Question: when was the last time the economy was truly robust and sustainable?

Answer:  if you thought, “the 1990’s” you gave the wrong answer, and that begins to explain most of the problem.  The booming economy, and the budget surpluses, of the late 90’s were simply the First Bubble.  There never was anything there.  The Internet by 2003 looked like the commercial real estate market in San Jose does today, a field of empty buildings and shattered dreams.  We’re now well into the Second or Third Bubble.

The right answer is “around 1970”.  That was the last time we had a manufacturing base that created wealth, which in turn created worthwhile jobs, which in turn supported everything else.  And government programs hadn’t yet run amok in every which direction.  And we had adults in charge, and a news media that provided value by taking the responsibilities of journalism seriously.  And a citizenry that knew real hardship and sacrifice and was driven to work hard to avoid that … and too often as a result pampered and spoiled their children.

The future:  if we want to return to being the most productive, most prosperous nation on Earth, we need to look into the future to figure what we need to do to get back to the past.

Mr. Reich wants the government to spend to get the economy going again, but there’s no point whatsoever to doing that.  As I’ve mentioned before, the crankshaft is broken.  If you’re even able to start the engine with a broken crankshaft, it will only tear up the internals and destroy the engine altogether.  Before the government spends money they don’t have and must borrow in our name from China, they need a New Plan.  See Part III, below, for the answer to our unemployment.

The Plan, Part I:  scrap education spending, particularly higher education.  We are wasting unbelievably enormous amounts of money, talent, and effort on an education industry that is returning surprisingly little to the economy.  Kids need to be taught to read, write, and do arithmetic.  Some history and some science is good.  Being taught about how personal finance works is even better, not just how to balance a checkbook (arithmetic helps), but what people do to become and remain independent.

We are wasting our last few bullets teaching kids how to “think” and “reason” and “solve problems” and a whole bunch of other things that have no bearing on becoming responsible and prosperous citizens.  There are only two reasons for higher education: to achieve a professional certificate or license (medicine, engineering, accounting, etc) or for the pure love and joy of knowledge.  If a college degree doesn’t lead to a profession, then the public has no interest in financing it.  Love and joy of learning should be a private concern.

The Plan, Part II:  reform health care.  The health care system is not a problem, it is a symptom.  A symptom of our national self-centeredness and willingness to have others sacrifice for our benefit.  The answer to this is stunningly unconventional and counter-intuitive.  But since doing the conventional and following our intuition has gotten us into this fix, maybe we need to change our way of viewing things?

Health care costs in the US are crushing this nation and will drive us to Third World status if something isn’t done.  The government can’t fix this problem (see Part IV, maybe tomorrow).  If we understand why these costs are so high in the first place, that might reveal a solution.

Health care costs are high because very few people pay full freight for themselves, out of their own pocket.  Health care costs are 1) concealed from people, and 2) redistributed from those who can’t/won’t pay to those who can/do pay.  What mechanism causes this destructive distortion of pricing and consumption?  The problem is health insurance.

We solve this problem with a four part solution.  One, we establish a tax free medical savings account and outlaw all third party payments for medical care (ie; insurance).  Some sort of family pool arrangement may be desirable, so parents and children/siblings, perhaps cousins?, could pool resources when necessary.

Two, we fund those accounts through a sliding scale mechanism that provides the appropriate mix of tax benefits and government augmentation, depending on income.  These funds would belong to the individual, perhaps with an ability to transfer for educational purposes, but could only be disbursed to institutions that meet government requirements. 

Three, we establish a “catastrophic illness/injury” pool that steps in to assist in specific cases when an individual’s personal medical account is depleted.  Nobody dies because they can’t afford care, but nobody consumes resources without regard for society.

Four, we establish government regulation of medical care providers so, for example, costs are determined as they are in auto repair shops, up front and beforehand and the same for all customers.

Fifth, we establish a new tier of health care provider for preventive care.  Neighborhood or community wellness centers that would provide preventive services and screening at a much lower cost level than full-fledged healthcare providers.  These services could be provided by folks even below the RN level of qualification for a fraction of the cost of using hospital resources

This plan has several upsides, no real downside except that it requires some personal discipline and responsibility.  It would FIX the health care system in the United States in a way that is durable and beneficial.

The Plan, Part III:

This will be the last part for today, it involved Keynesian economics.  Way too much, in my opinion, is made of Keynes.  But one thing I am coming to agree with him on is the need to protect domestic manufactures during times of high unemployment.  To paraphrase his position, “It’s not a choice between making what we’re good at and making what we’re not so good at, it’s a choice between making what we’re not so good at and making nothing at all.”  And that, unfortunately, is where we are right now.

Protectionism is an evil that causes poverty.  But when the world situation gets so twisted around that we are jammed up with intractable unemployment, which we are approaching, protectionism becomes the lesser of two evils.  In a nutshell, here is what is happening.  China is becoming prosperous by establishing manufactures that displace the manufactures of other countries (like us).  But China does not in turn spend their profits back into the world economy, they horde their profits as “sovereign wealth” and at best do nothing more than lend the money back, rather than engage in trade.

The current world economic crisis is a result of this accumulation of capital in exporter countries (China, Saudi Arabia) and their refusal to participate in international trade to keep the money circulating, preferring to kill the goose that has been laying the golden eggs.  The only solution to this logjam, which is where our unemployment is coming from, is a temporary protectionism, which we need to enact quickly and forcefully, targeted at those nations which accumulate wealth from abroad but then lend rather than trade.

I wanted to complete this series today, but I’m out of time.  I will have solutions for some of our other intractable problems, like race relations, in future articles in the near future.  I am committing Part IV to explaining why government cannot fix any of this, and what needs to be done about that.  Please do stay tuned.

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America!

Today’s nice mess

This is worthy of Laurel and Hardy, it really is.  I don’t think the Nation has ever been in this situation before.  The financial debt we owe to China, and our reliance on both their continued willingness to buy our new debt as well as manufacture everything we need to survive, has been growing for years.  Mentioning that this is the nation that gave rise to the cry of “Free Tibet!” and gave us Tiananmen Square is almost irrelevant.  What is relevant is the new Pentagon assessment of Chinese military capabilities and intentions.

This is where Laurel and Hardy come in.  China can crash their own economy if they need to, they have a culture that can survive that hardship, and the totalitarian apparatus to ensure the survival of the regime.  If they see a sufficiently favorable exchange in doing so, then classical economic considerations are not going to guide their actions.

On the other hand, we and our allies in the West cannot survive the collapse of our economies.  This might be where Western structures, under siege since the days of Greece and Persia, finally exhausts itself.  Perhaps this is where the rising tide of individual freedom and civil rights reaches its high point.

If China continues on their present course then the military influences of China and the USA will soon overlap somewhere.  And then there will be trouble.  I heard somewhere (being journalistically irresponsible here in not checking sources) that China wants control of the South China Sea.  That would be a point of overlap, and it would certainly result in trouble.  I don’t know if the recent North Korean sinking of a South Korean destroyer provides any illumination, but we’re not that far afield here.  It could easily result in a three way, with China, the USA, and Japan all in the pond together.  Or a five way if you count in the two Koreas.

At this point, all this is conjecture.  But thoughtful conjecture is how we prepare to deal with looming eventualities.  We conjecture that a house may catch fire, so we establish a fire department.

I don’t yet have a plan for what to do about this.  But I’m thinking about it.  And if the Pentagon report didn’t scare you, then this should.  Ha!Ha!Ha!

On a related topic, since we moved home last November, we’ve had the worst mismatched assortment of pots and pans you can think of.  We’ve gone back and forth on how to outfit our kitchen, my approach was to by a piece at a time, to suit each specific cooking need.  And we wanted to avoid financing the Communist Chinese military machine as much as possible, so that source was not in contention for our business.  Then we found a 13 piece cookware set by Bialleti at Costco for the ridiculously low price of $90.  Very nicely designed pots and pans, useful sizes, it’s heavy gauge aluminum so conducts heat wonderfully, yet it is light enough for my wife to easily handle.  This is good stuff at a great price, not made in the USA, but the Italians really know their stuff when it comes to cooking and kitchen wares.

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America!

President Obama is right on this one …

… and deserves our vocal support:

From CNN:
=====================
“Obama, speaking on Saturday after giving a speech on the Gulf Coast oil disaster in Panama City, Florida, told CNN he "was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," referring to the area near ground zero.

"I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding," the president added. "In this country, we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion."
=====================

Over on the Progressive pesthole called Huffington Post the resident nutcases are going wild, criticizing Obama for “backtracking”.  He didn’t backtrack at all.  He stated two obvious truths:

1) the group that wants to build the religious community center (call it a mosque if you care to) must and may not be denied permission because of religious considerations;

2) if a person or group aggressively exercises every right to which they are Constitutionally entitled, they will earn the scorn of the larger community, and reap the bear minimum result required by the law and nothing more.

Unlike the President, I am a private citizen so I’m free to voice my opinion.  I think the group that intends to build this facility would be showing wisdom if they chose to not do it there.  If they are in compliance with all laws and regulations, they have the right, and no attempt should be made to stop them.  But if they do this in the face of overwhelming disapproval from the larger community, they will then put themselves in a position of getting nothing more than the law requires.

Normal, happy, well-adjusted people have many Constitutional rights that they choose to not exercise, out of consideration for others.  A good example of a group that lacks this wisdom is that church group that staged public protests against the military (for their policy on gays) at the funerals of soldiers killed in action.  Under the First Amendment, they have the right, and they insisted on exercising it without regard for the feelings of others.  They are now pariahs and will receive animosity in lieu of goodwill from the larger community in which they live.

President Obama did everything right on this, with the possible exception of not making both statements together.  He has set an example for the Nation.  As I said earlier, he deserves our vocal support.

G’nite all, and may God continue to bless America!

The limits of “common sense”

At first, I capitalized Common Sense, but now I’ve gone back to remove the caps and add quotation marks.  I don’t want to confuse what I refer to with Thomas Paine’s excellent pamphlet of that name.  What I write about here is the oft-used colloquial reference to knowledge or opinion based on no formal foundation.

I have heard “common sense” social, political, and economic arguments far too often over the past few years.  An appeal to “common sense” merely indicates that the position lacks basis in fact or logic.  There are two fundamental defects to socio-politico-economic appeals to “common sense”.

First, if “common sense” worked, we would not need schools, libraries, or any other vestiges of education.  In a world where the necessary understanding was innate to humans, or available through life experience, then education and educators would simply be impediments to progress.  Schools get in the way of common sense.

Second, what is “common sense” to one person is utter nonsense to another.  In “common sense” there is no stated base principle to proceed from.  Anything can be right, or wrong.  By the way, I suspect that this is a good part of what’s wrong with economics as a science.

There might be some corner of private life where “common sense” has a role to play.  Even there, what’s really meant, I suspect, is being ‘observant’ of circumstances, using ‘good judgment’ of likely results, and having ‘foresight’ of reasonable future conditions.  Common sense is highly over-rated.  I view with skepticism any argument that appeals to that faculty.

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America!

Catch up post for the future

I haven’t posted here for a few days due to a couple circumstances.  First, I’ve been doing more writing over at www.watchsonomacounty.com than I intended.  Second, we hosted a childhood neighborhood reunion, bunch of people my wife and I hadn’t seen for almost 50 years.  That reunion was awesome.  Finally, I’ve just been in sort of a general funk, feeling a little overrun by current events.

These are the topics I’m thinking most about, with a brief sketch and promise of further development in the future.

Race versus Culture.  We appear to have race issues in this country.  I hear that from time to time from folks on TV and from the newsmagazines.  But is that so?  Is it race, or is it culture?  And what becomes of cultures that do not adapt, do not integrate with an evolving world?  Do obsolete cultures become like Afghanistan?

Failure of public education.  Daily politics, rather than the slowly but steadily evolving wisdom of society, guides every action, so inevitably we repeatedly overshoot.  Combine this lack of rudder with the “Tragedy of the Commons” phenomenon, and we have the outline of the inevitable failure of public education.

Why government is failing.  Liberals in general, Progressives in particular, scorn the Tenth Amendment, adore the federal government, and see no end to the good that government can do.  They are wrong.  We have a federal government operating far outside the original design, doing things that were never intended, incapable of scaling up to the challenge, and bringing down the Nation as it fails.

Okay, I simply have to get away from this computer right now.  The above are three good examples of what is driving me into a melancholy funk.  Oh, that and a few conversations I’ve had with fellow citizens who hold extreme views, voice them freely, yet are unwilling to discuss facts and unable to explain why what has always failed in the past is now going to start working.  I’m going for a ride.  I hope to see you back here over the next few days.

G’day, all, and may God continue to bless America!

Good read

Quick and easy, right here:
http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/2010/07/education/santa-rosa-school-board-mulls-parcel-tax/

G’night all, and may God continue to bless America!