When questioned about their lack of apparent affection for or adhesion to their Nation, the response I’ve gotten is that they really wish the best for America, and that relentlessly criticizing America is the best way for America to grow to fulfill its promise.

I don’t buy it, at all.

The bonds of family members are the closest and strongest.  Then there are the bonds to community, and to one’s Nation.  Each of these bonds is founded upon unconditional love.  None of these bonds can survive on conditional, judgmental, withholding and manipulative love.

Yet that is exactly the kind of relationship I see these, well, for lack of a better word, “Progressives”, engaged in.

In a family, community, or nation, there will always be situations where one wishes for a different behavior on the part of others.  Situations where advice will be offered, in the safe context of the relationship, not broadcast at the highest volume, with an invitation for those outside the family, community, or nation jump in and offer their own criticisms of the family, community, or nation.

Unconditional love does not mean blind acceptance of destructive or self-destructive behavior.  Here is the crux of the matter: healthy adults know that unconditional love is mandatory for creating the safe and secure environment in which advice can be offered and accepted and progress achieved.  Healthy adults know that savagely conditional and manipulative love only drives everyone to extend and go completely defensive.

I hope I’ve explained myself in a way that makes sense to you.  I have no illusions that America is perfect, it is not.  We have many things to do better on, so ask yourself: how do we create the environment that will draw people toward out of their corners and toward solutions?  Through relentless and implacable criticism?  Or with unconditional love, our greatest concern, and a commitment to help heal?

This Nation is in desperate need of a whole bunch of unconditional love.

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

Precisely, Big Media has the glitter, the glamour, the sizzle, more attractive people and voices, better production values.  In our age, in which entertainment has replaced education, the result is sad but predictable: Big Media trumps local media.  So the national message overruns the local message.  People know about what they hear about, so the national events, and actors, submerge local events and actors.

The danger in all this is that it draws those who do care away from what matters (state & local) and toward what is, by design and intent, (the federal) supposed to have minimal impact on the individual citizen.  The problem here is that the federal government cannot solve local, or even state problems.  So Big Media is serving up a knuckleball, a floating, basketball-sized target that looks totally hitable, but that takes a dive for the dirt once we start our swing.  We can petition the federal government for solutions to the problems we see, but the federal government will frustrate and disappoint every time.

At this point in history, it’s almost pointless to encourage consumption of local media.  It’s hopeless to discourage consumption of Big Media.  Local media has been on an accelerating downward curve for decades.  Today, in many communities, and especially in many of the most troubled communities, it’s almost impossible to find legitimate, active, compelling local media.  So with Big Media having crushed and dominated local media, national issues overwhelm local issues, and the frustration with government continues to build as the federal government continues its inevitable descent toward utter ineffectualness.

If you have local media, you should treasure it and support it.  There is good local media, and one of the very best is the Anderson Valley Advertiser.  If you have local media worth supporting, and if you let me know, I’ll mention them here.  This blog isn’t Big Media, yet, but in local affairs, every voice counts.

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

As a person whose professional background involved navigation and naval architecture, I have great respect for mathematicians, scientists, and engineers.  When I see economists scribble equations, it makes my skin crawl.  I thought it was because this pseudo-scientific approach to economics was guilty of masquerading; as I’ve said, “Astrology imitating astronomy”.

And it just felt all wrong, writing equations to describe human behavior.

So imagine my delighted surprise when I found this article, where Mr. Knox provides a brilliant and insightful explanation of what’s really wrong with Keynesian manipulation by the government and central banks.  If you are a Keynesian borrow-and-spender, this article will require extraordinary efforts to ignore.  If you’re just an ordinary person who’s baffled by what’s going on with the US and world economy, please, do yourself a favor and give Mr. Knox’s article a read.

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

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

The top 2/3rds (67%ers) of America live in the most prosperous, equitable, livable, and just nation on Earth.  The 67%ers and their communities are doing just fine.  The 67%ers care deeply about the welfare of all Americans, and they don’t just talk about it, or go to the streets.  The 67%ers are doing the work of providing health care, and teaching, and paying the taxes, and taking care of their less fortunate family members, and serving their communities and their nation.

The challenge is how to get the bottom 1/3rd (33%ers) to rejoin the rest of America in patterns and behaviors of prosperity.  This is, of course, a matter of providing assistance.  That should not conceal the fact that the real work lies in getting these less prosperous Americans to embrace the social structures, behaviors, and attitudes of prosperity, and to reject those associated with poverty.

Germany has faced many of these same challenges, and they still struggle with this issue.  The German unemployment rate just recently got back down to the pre-unification unemployment level.  When East Germany ceased to exist, the prosperous West was left to absorb the 1/5th of Germans who had grown up under a state-managed social and economic system.  Under their Soviet-style system, citizens of the East, in just two generations, had ended up living in an entirely different, poverty-ridden, hopeless, socioeconomic universe from their prosperous and hopeful fellow Germans in the West.

In America a set of significantly different, yet somewhat related, causes have caused the bottom 1/3rd of America to break off from the top 2/3rds and drift away into poverty and failure.  We need to figure out how to mend this rift, and the answer is surely not more of what created the rift.  Government can play a supporting role in healing our own, domestic, East/West schism.  Ultimately, the answer will lie in the family, the community, the churches, the schools, the civic organizations, and the cultural groups who need help and those who have help to offer.

So, 33%ers, what’s it going to be?  Do you want a fish, or do you want to learn how to fish?  The the 67%ers aren’t going to fix this for you, although they sure do stand ready to lend a hand.

And a final piece of advice to the 33%ers: if you think that someone is “holding you down”, you’re missing the point.  Prosperity is not a zero-sum game.  Wealth is created so there can be more for the entire system … it’s not necessary for Bob to have less so that Joe can have more.  But prosperity most certainly is a competition.  Those who perform better achieve more.

There is no advantage to anyone in business to “holding down” anyone else, that’s simply missing the point.  Missing the point is Okay, but if a person misses the point, and clings to their mistake, then their attitude and life will be guided by a mistaken belief.  You can guess what that leads to.

(*)  The reality, predictably less poetic than the literary version, is that 1 in 6 Americans live in poverty, around 16%.  For reference: the poverty rate in the EU is … 1 in 6.

Gday all, and may God continue to bless America!

So I wonder why both sides of the political spectrum are so energetically “talking down” the economy.  I guess I’m not really wondering, the answer is self-evident.  Both ends of the political spectrum seem to think they can more quickly and surely gain their objectives by crashing the economy.

Liberals appear to think that if things get bad enough, protesters take to the streets, the masses will starve, and the federal government will be forced to massive intervention, granting free unlimited health care to every person in America, a social safety net of broad dimensions, and a dramatic increase in government authority to determine outcomes and regulate behaviors.

Conservatives seem to think that if things get bad enough, it will force the federal government with withdraw, shrink, shrivel, and possibly force a “trust the Captain” moment, where Big Business and Big Finance get a green light to save the situation.

In the meantime, the middle class struggles, which in historical terms is actually nothing but a return to normalcy.  It just feels so darned rotten to have so many pundits talking down the economy when there are so many who are trying so hard for prosperity.  We desperately need a fresh perspective and  new solutions, yet those who dominate the public conversation are only capable to repeating their mantra du jour at higher and higher volume levels.

For pundits and activists, it’s a war of words.  For ordinary Americans, it’s a struggle with reality.  Reality seems to be winning.

It would be nice if those pursuing a political agenda to consider how their pursuit may be hurting the vast bulk of Americans in the middle.

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

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!

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!

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 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!