The sermon today…

This is going to be a tough one, and some may object very strongly.  I can only offer this introduction.  I am not opposed to religion.  I have an unshakeable faith in the existence of God.  And I am not opposed to government.  As the child of immigrants, I hold steadfast allegiance to the Constitution, the government and the nation founded thereupon.  This piece I’m writing here addresses a small sliver of the interface between religion and government, as expressed from pulpits all around the nation on so many Sundays.

My wife is devout, one of the many things I love and respect and adore about her.  I’m not devout, I was raised by Theist parents and the closest I have to a “my church” is the Unitarian Church.  Years ago, I went to a service at the local Unitarian Church and I don’t ever recall associating with a more interesting group, so I’ve never gone back.  If you are Unitarian and you belong to a wonderful congregation, I am very glad for you, no insult intended.

But I went to church with my wife today because it was a special day for her in the sense of recognition for her work.  As always, there was a sermon.  The preacher is new and temporary, I hadn’t heard him speak before, so it was with some interest that I anticipated his sermon.  He chose the parable of the worker’s in the vineyard from Matthew, always a good start.

You probably know the story.  The guy hires some workers in the morning, then late in the afternoon hires some more workers, and at the end of the day pays them all the same.  When the workers who labored all day complain that it’s unfair to be paid the same, the guy tells them that they’re getting what they agreed to, what matter is it to them of others get the same, and “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?”.

If he’d stopped there, it would have been the same questionable reference to work and pay.  The parable actually has nothing to do with work and pay, it’s a parable!  The real message is that whether a person accepts Jesus early in life, or at the last moment, they receive the same treatment in Heaven.  But the preacher didn’t stop there, he segued into a mini-thesis on social justice and the evils of the American socio-economic system, complete with a gratuitous reference to “rugged individualism”.

So let me return to the closing line of the parable, this time with emphasis added where the real message lies:  “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?”  In terms of the parable, the sermon, and the message, the answer is “Yes”, it is each individual’s choice to do as they will with their own.

Where this breaks down is when the government gets involved, for the simple and undeniable reason that the government has the authority and the power to coerce compliance.  The government can, will, and does use force against citizens who do not comply with taxation laws.  At the point that coercive force looms in threat, there is no more “mine own” or individual decisions or freedom of choice.  A government that uses that authority for coercive force to the benefit of some at the expense of others is establishing the foundation for grievous problems in the future.

Yes, the government has an obligation to act in the best interest of the general welfare, and that may include direct disbursements to indigent citizens.  That’s a matter of public policy, to be debated as public policy, and voted upon.  It is not a matter for religious instruction or direction.  Religion is voluntary, and religion needs to stay out of the business of preaching to their congregation about what the government ought to use its coercive force to accomplish.

Which brings me sort of full-circle on this topic, which is back to my lessons from my parents, and religion.  We grew up in abject poverty.  We kids weren’t that aware of things at the time, because so many people in town were poor.  We were really poor in the way that only those from prosperous backgrounds can be utterly unprepared to deal with poverty.  We were poor, and we weren’t very good at it.

One of the lessons from our parents was basically, don’t do this with your lives.  Learn a trade, get a job, be frugal but have a generous heart.  Toward the very end of their lives, our parents achieved some small comfort.  We kids, each in our own way, have followed that teaching, and we have done a slight bit more.

We have (my brothers more so than I), to a small extent, paid forward the obligation that accrues to those who accept help from society.  We have paid that debt forward by joining trades, working, paying taxes, contributing to the community in our own ways.  In essence, one generation on government assistance, followed by a debt paid forward by the next generation which provides more to others than they receive back.

Finally, the preacher’s disparaging reference to “rugged individualism” only recalled all the unpleasantness of politics at the pulpit.  That phrase has acquired some nasty connotations.  Part of that is deserved, anyone who looks down on others who are in need actually may truly lack a soul.  Part of it is undeserved, the self-righteous and authoritarian creating an code-word for an object of ridicule.  The reality is that individual freedom comes with a price, which is self-reliance.  It’s called “freedom and independence” for a reason.  Independence means, literally, “not dependent”.  And there is no freedom like what Americans expect, demand, and enjoy without that independence.

Thank you for reading.  I should re-write this and get it down to about half the words.  But this is what I can do this Sunday morning, so there we are.  Have a great day.

And my God continue to bless America!

Rachel at the Dam again

I’m watching Bernanke on CNBC, and Rachel Maddow’s is in front of that dam again.  She’s telling us that America does big things, we don’t do little things, and that she wants us to get on with it.  She could save her breath.  America used to do big things, but 45 years of Progressive social and environmental policies have taken their toll.  That part that used to be big, and bold, and fearless about America is now covered in tribal tattoos, piercings, rainbow flags, professional sports paraphernalia and every other diversion based on identity rather than accomplishment.  In America, you used to overcome the challenge and do the task, then get the tattoo.  Today in America, you get the tattoo instead of overcoming the challenge and doing the task.  Entertainment has replaced education and government programs have replaced individual initiative.

I am not pessimistic about the future of America.  I continue to believe steadfastly in the opportunity that this nation provides will attract a sufficient number of those who cherish freedom and prosperity by their own hand.  I have no doubt, though, that we will go through a very difficult and painful process to realize that bright future.  The metaphorical Rachel, standing in front of dams and lecturing on what was right in the past and what we ought to replicate in a far different present is not helping us get there.

What would help?  It would help if we soon recognized and accepted that to be prosperous, we will pollute (cement production is a major source of greenhouse gases, can’t build that dam without huge amounts of concrete).  And there will be danger, people will be injured and killed.  Of course we don’t want to pollute any more than the possible minimum, and of course we don’t want workers or consumers hurt, made ill, or killed.  But equally obvious is that if we head to eliminate all pollution and every injury, we wrap ourselves in lifejackets and seatbelts and parachutes, and we strangle, and we spiral downward.

And we need to foster and nurture that spark of initiative and creativity and risk taking.  We can’t smother that, because without that there’s nothing else.  If we cross a boundary and dip below some critical number of Americans who will strike out to do something of their own, then any prosperity in our future fades, flickers, and dies.  We can’t tell people on the one hand that they are too small and helpless and weak to take care of themselves, and than on the other hand tell them that they need to go out and do big things.

I hope that I’ve made this sensible for you.  It’s up to us to decide how long it takes to stomp our way through this thicket and how many scratches we emerge with.  We can have anything we need, but we can’t have everything that everyone wants.  We have to make intelligent, informed, responsive and responsible decisions.

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

Two truths, times two, about climate change

We start with two inconvenient and incontestable truths about Climate Change and AGW (anthropomorphic global warming).

First, and by far the lesser, is that the science is pretty well settled.  Man’s activities have led to a sharp increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century or two.  This sharp increase in atmospheric CO2 has almost certainly led to increased atmospheric temperatures, resulting in increased oceanic temperatures.  Big deal, more later.

Second, and by far the greater truth is that the primary concern for climate change and AGW advocates isn’t the science or the environment.  Their real interest is in remaking Western Civilization in an image more pleasing to them.  And they are shameless about ignoring reasonable questions, instead devoting enormous energy to creating whatever presentation they believe will have the strongest emotional impact, and touting one specific set of solutions and outcomes.

The Climate Change conversation isn’t really about science or reason at all, and hasn’t been for some time.  It’s about the most bitter, divisive, and self-interested partisan politics: power, control, and for some, wealth.  The “foot soldiers” on both sides of this battle probably don’t even consciously realize what’s going on, or even why they believe the way they do.  But one thing bears repeating.  This is not about science, or the environment.  It’s about political agendas and control.

Today seems to be a day that comes in “twos”, because there are two telltales that lead me to this conclusion.  The first is that the Climate Changers refuse to discuss the correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and the total human population.  The Climate Changers claim that man’s industrial activities have led to high atmospheric CO2, global warming, and catastrophe.  The reality is different.  Atmospheric CO2 has tracked human population step-for-step.  The link to human activity is more ambiguous.  Humans have always produced CO2, we burn organic material for fuel, we clear forests and jungles, we breathe and fart, yada yada yada.  As science has improved, the natural limits on human population have eased, and the world population has shot upward, dragging the atmospheric CO2 curve right along with it.

Here’s a link to a curve showing world population:  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png

Is modern industry causing more CO2 output than primeval burning/clearing?  Yup, probably, but that difference is marginal compared to the correlation between the number of human beings and the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.  And even if it were primarily modern industry that is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2, then reducing the number of people living in modern societies would still be the direct approach to reducing CO2 emissions.

Here’s a link to a curve showing atmospheric CO2: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg

Instead of addressing the main cause, which is runaway world population, the Climate Changers prefer to impose behavior and technological sanctions on the Western World.  If we limit world population, or even decrease it to more sustainable levels, that will drag down CO2 levels without any other changes.  Then, any technological advances and behavior modifications atop the population control measure will be a further improvement.  However, if we first rely on behavior modifications and technological measures, a continually increasing world population will soon overwhelm those advances and CO2 will rise regardless of what we do.

The second element of the Climate Changers position that makes me question their motivation is that I’ve yet to see a position paper that endorses and encourages the currently available best and most affordable method to reduce CO2 emissions: nuclear power.  Maybe there are Climate Changers out there who do support and propose the construction of GenIII+ nuclear plants in sufficient number to lay up existing, obsolescent nuclear plants and all existing coal-fired plants.  They aren’t getting a lot of press, and I don’t care about them enough to go search them out.  This would lead to a dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions, yet it doesn’t seem to be a part of the mainstream Climate Changers agenda.

So here we have it.  It’s not about the science, it’s about political power, control, and world view.  CO2 levels are up, man is the major reason, and the climate is changing.  Atmospheric CO2 levels track human population, until we control human population we are fighting against a rising tide,  building ever higher levees of behavior modifications and technology.  And if we don’t deploy the best available technology, GenIII+ nuclear, to replace carbon based power production, then it really isn’t about the environment.  It’s about control-freak politics, which brings us full circle.

This subterfuge, fronting science in pursuit of a political agenda, is behind 90% of all efforts to refute climate change.  The climate changers posit a science and politics intermingled, which lures the skeptics into challenging the science.  That’s a mistake, because the science is pretty good.  It’s the politics that’s bad.  If climate changers won’t put getting at the underlying problem (population) first, and using the best technology (GenIII+ nuclear) second, then it’s simple for me.  They aren’t interested in solutions, they are interested in control.  And this control-freak obsessiveness on the part of the climate changers is only ending up delaying real solutions, not just to climate change but a whole array of related problems.

Earlier I said “big deal” to rising temperatures.  That was half a throwaway, and half serious.  I am not saying we should aim to either raise or lower the Earth’s temperature, but questions remain.  The Earth has been through this before, and these changes tend to occur quite quickly.  So the CO2 and temperature go up, that is very good for plant life, crops flourish.  They don’t call them “greenhouse gases” for nothing.  Deserts extend due to heat, but shrink due to increased precipitation.  Previously marginal agricultural lands warm and become productive, other areas wither.  A few degrees causes extinction for some species, creating room for others to rise.  The sea level rises, inundating low-lying areas, many of which are historically the scene of our most costly natural disasters.  My point is that the prospect of change is scary, but we need to remain reasonable and look at the best estimates of what the effects of this climate change are really going to be.  We don’t need sensationalist videos of New Yorkers paddling down 5th Avenue in canoes.

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

The reason that Washington has become gridlocked

My last project before I retired was to develop and implement a new personnel evaluation system for the agency I worked for.  Because of what we were trying to accomplish, and the nature of our agency’s workforce, having an automated system was an imperative.  A paper-based system just couldn’t work.  Because I was a notorious daydreamer, and had been a demon code-jockey some time before, back when programming was comprehensible, I ended up in charge of the project.

The IT people immediately took me to task, and never let up.  By comparison, they made the HR folks look like a Girl Scout Troop.  What the IT people told me in their first lecture to me made no sense.  It was this:  You develop the requirement, we will develop the solution. Even though I’d done some pretty big IT projects before (I wrote the payroll system still, I believe, used to this day) those were one person projects.  There was no interface between functional sponsor and technical team.  Eventually, I learned the difference between a requirement and a solution.

I’ve come to believe that the gridlock in our Nation’s capital today is because our politicians, and our citizens, no longer discuss objectives, but instead immediately jump to arguing about methods.  It is no longer about, for example, a secure and comfortable old age.  It’s not about that at all, it’s only about the specific program (Social Security).  We know beforehand that we are going to disagree on methods, so if we start there, we never get to agreement, because there is nothing to agree on.

On the other hand, if we began the discussion with objectives, then we could at least begin with a something we can hope to reach agreement on.

This is what’s causing the gridlock in DC, and throughout the country, and the solution is simple.  This is an issue that the President of the United States actually can exert leadership on.  He can tell the Nation why we are gridlocked, how much that is costing us, and how we begin to move beyond gridlock.  No more discussion of methods until we agree on the objectives.  The IT folks I worked with never seemed to tire of making that point, it’s time that President Obama did the same.  Then, anyone who won’t get behind that program can safely be ignored as being not a serious citizen.

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

What we can do to turn America around

Everyone has opinions and ideas about the best way to turn around the dire situation with the economy.  I regret to say that most of those ideas involve some sort of activism with the intention of directing government action.  If you are reading this, you already know that we are in dire straits, and the politicians aren’t helping.  A quick synopsis:

- Our economy is in a downturn, yes, but that is an utterly trivial part of the problem.  The actual, substantial, and intractable problem is that we have a structural collapse of the financial system layered atop a structural decline (consuming more wealth than we create) in the economy that goes back 30+ years;

- Keynesian stimulus can address a downturn in the business cycle in an otherwise properly functioning economy, but it cannot fix structural problems;

- The federal government is so far in debt that spending options are extremely limited.  At the end of WWII we were this far in debt, and America was working again, but the industrial plant of the rest of the world was decimated, which gave American industry about 25 years of competition free operations.  And that led to spectacular prosperity that allowed us to pay off that debt … we won’t get this that time;

-  Anyone is welcome to raise taxes on the rich, but no intelligent person will believe that we can solve our problems that way.  We would raise about $100B/yr from pre-Bush tax rates on the rich, but the deficit is $1400B/yr, so we will have solved 1/14th of the problem.  We must be a lot more serious than that if we are to solve our problems.  And lest we forget, from the stimulus perspective, tax cuts are essentially equivalent to government spending;

-  Finally, there is going to be a lot of pain in this country before things start to get better.  We are going to be tried and tested as very few living Americans ever have been.  And there is no real alternative.  The President can tell us this now, or the next President will have to tell us later, when the situation is ever worse.

So, what to do?  I am sick and tired of waiting for the politicians to “do something”, but I’m scared to death they might actually “do something”.  Whatever they do is more likely to be wrong than right.  So I encourage everyone to join me in these four simple, ongoing steps to do an individual citizen’s part to turn this thing around:

First: close your bank account with that mega-bank, the one that advertises on TV, and take your business to your local credit union;

Second: with every dollar you spend, create a micro-stimulus for a relative, friend, or neighbor: Buy American;

Third:  vote at your neighborhood polling place next election, not by absentee (if you can avoid it) but in person, face-to-face with your neighbors;

Fourth: seek out and shake the hand of someone whose politics you disagree with.

The contribution each American can make by doing those four things is microscopic.  But this is on our shoulders, it is up to We The People to fix our country, because we are the only ones fully invested in the welfare of our nation.

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