Dijaya Ever Think?

Ya know, these here United States are one big crazy mixed up family. Think about it. And, traditionally, this is part of our charm (not to mention our successes). The old melting pot it real - even if it isn't all evenly stirred and not all the bits and pieces melt at the same temperature.

But now days, we are a country divided. Some of this seems like cultural payback for the civil war. Many of the same interests (the South, Racism and Classism, Rights versus Responsibilities), that led to that conflict, are in the drivers seat today. However, painting a bigger picture might ignore a simpler explanation: the simple dialectic swings of power between different interests in society over time.

One parallel that I have too little expertise to prove, seems nonetheless interesting to me. In grammar school, we were taught that large southern land-holders tended to work their land until it was depleted and them move on to new ground. Later came subsistence farmers who did much the same, except that they couldn't move on.

Somewhere (my impression is that it started in the mid-Atlantic states and stretched North), practices shifted. Land was treated as being more precious and was more likely to enjoy simple programs like crop-rotation and laying fallow. Certainly in New England, with the need to remove trees and stones before planting, the cost to move to new fertile soil would be high. There seems also, in puritan religion, more of an emphasis on being good stewards of God's bounties than in other religions.

Today, we see the administration moving to leverage the disaster of Katrina into an excuse to drill the ANWAR in Northern Alaska. This has been a goal of these folks since they took office - and like invading Iraq, it's a dumb issue looking for emotional cover to become policy. Katrina may be that cover, so its important to consider conservation and conservatism. These terms do not, by the way, have to be mutually exclusive regardless of the wingnuts.

ANWAR supposedly has enough oil to supply all of the needs in the US for 6 months. That is at once a lot and not very much oil. We consume a lot of oil in 6 months, but if it only lasts 6 months - where does that get us? The later is not a rhetorical question, rather it should be the heart of the conversation.

TIME OUT: I believe ANWAR should never be drilled in the interest of protecting wildlife and biodiversity - but that is not what this rant is about.

TIME IN: We have a short-term and long-term problems with oil prices and supplies. BTW: oil is a good example of the failure of market theory to explain market behavior. When rising prices don't cause production to expand to capacity (various oil crises we faced in the '70s and '80), or when production expands to prevent or counteract price increases - the market is operating on drivers other than achieving supply/demand parity.

Anyhow, short-term we see historically high gas prices, prices which have negative consequences on the overall economy as people are forced to reapportion their spending to cover the rising price of fuel. Consequently, these people aren't spending as much in other sectors of the economy, and people dependent on those other sectors are being harmed economically. Meanwhile, the oil producers may see higher profits, but the benefits of these profits aren't apparently trickling down into the economy in ways that offset the harm done to the other sectors.

Notice, none of this spoke of inflation, deflation, recession, or even my old favorite: stagflation. People aren't going to buy as many car, homes, boats, etc - and folks working in those industries will be hurt. Over time, the economy may sort itself out - or not. But there is a real short-term problem for many people in this country.

The Saudi's insist that overall crude supplies are fine, and policies have been implemented to facilitation the importation of more finished petroleum products to offset the lost production (extraction and refining) capacity from the Gulf. But overall, prices of gasoline (at least here in Chicago) are hovering around $3/gal depending on the grade.

We also have a long term problem, one that our policy makers have shied away from. That is the Oil Peak: soon, the global oil capacity will begin to go down every month and every year. As this happens, we must expect constantly rising prices. In fact, prices will probably rise faster than the capacity goes down - at least in countries such as ours. In less developed countries, the need for oil is much diminished. The average person can't afford and doesn't use oil in any significant manner.

In the United States, oil demand is relatively inelastic. We don't have good methods for reducing our use of oil. Much of our manufacturing has moved offshore - so efficiency improvements in manufacturing can't contribute much. We live in a travel society. Food (think of how much food nationally comes from California) and other products (what can you buy at a Wal-mart that isn't made in China?) that we acquire and use daily are typically not produced locally.

Moreover, they aren't purchased locally. Take for example the grocery store. It used to be, at least in a cities, that there was a grocery story on every other corner. Not anymore. The suburban grocery store, complete with large parking lots, long ago invaded the city and largely eliminated the corner store. The parking lots are important because the larger store needs to be supported by a broader geographic customer base - that is we travel to shop. In order to save money, many of us now go to a big-box (K-mart, Costco, etc) store for groceries. This often means driving even further than to the traditional suburban grocery store.

So, goods travel long distances to stores, then we travel long distances to stores, and eventually those goods make it to our homes. Without oil, transportation breaks down. So, we can't just stop the travel (hence using gas) without interfering with people eating - in other words our demand is inelastic.

When demand is inelastic and supplies drop, the price curve moves up an accelerating curve. Ouch!!!

It would seem that under these circumstances, a prudent national policy would be to acquire off-shore (that is belonging to other nations) oil now while it is relatively cheap, and use our own oil later when prices are high and access to production is contentious. If you're wondering about that last bit, consider this: when supplies become limited, and not all demand can be met, do you think other nations will sit by idly and let us buy and consume all the world oil? Not likely. And with the growth of other powers in the world - we can't rely on our military to protect our interests.

This is not a condemnation of our military. But the world is a complicated place now that it is global. We have state and non-state actors, with the later being particularly unpredictable. We have nuclear and bio-weapon technology spread around the world among friends and foes alike. We have a China with a population 3X our size, which has largely taken over the world's manufacturing and which is quickly coming up to speed to become the worlds greatest technical innovator. Against this, we can assume that sooner or later we will be out-matched in quality and quantity of weapons.

In the future, the greatest power a nation may be able to bring to bear is the ability to help itself and its allies eliminate their dependence on oil.

Going back to ANWAR, it will not solve our short-term problem. Assume that it will take at least several years to bring it online with significant volume - and by then we're no longer dealing with a short-term problem. But, what role can it serve as a strategic reserve? If we face a long-term problem, wouldn't it be nice to have this reserve available should we find it impractical to any longer import overseas oil? Spend that oil now, and we lose this reserve. Hold this oil back, and we have an ace up our sleeve.

Remember, however, that this reserve can only supply America's energy needs for six months. And, that's at current rates of consumption. Consumption is currently on a rising curve. So, at a future date, we can expect ANWAR to provide us with less than a six month cushion.

That brings us back to our larger problem. We cannot continue to use gas, a rapidly dwindling resource, without consideration for how we replace it in the future. Our first steps must be conservation. We cannot continue to ignore the fuel economy of our cars and trucks. We don't need 'hemi's. We don't need SUVs. We need to conserve. We need to stimulate passenger rail travel. We need to find ways for both ourselves and our goods to travel less.

Just the efforts suggested in the prior paragraph will be very disruptive to our economy and way of living. It is reasonable to suppose that our overall standard of living may go down somewhat. Over the last two decades, we have seen a continued erosion of concern for the poor (working or otherwise). We have seen an increasing concentration of money and power amount a small elite in our country. It seems likely, if overall standards go down, that we will have to reverse these trends. We cannot expect to maintain stability in this country with a large and poorly served underclass. Do we as a people have the vision to see this problem and make this level of change?

What happens after conservation? Well, the oil won't last forever. Nor will our other natural resources. While some are renewable, it is possible to consume them beyond their ability to recover. And other resources are like oil - fixed in amount. And then there's the simple matter of land, of which we have less today because we've poisoned what otherwise was good usable land.

So, we need to employ two strategies: a) find energy replacements for oil; b) reduce demand to sustainable levels for all forms of natural resources. Take a simple thing like water. Water has always been a contentious issue in the West. Over the years, rights have been established (not always fairly), and those with rights use it, everyone else does without. Water is getting to be a bigger issue - much of the country has experience extended drought. We don't know if this is just a statistical anomaly in the weather, or part of the larger global warming we've created. There are clear signals that it may be the later. But, water could become the next oil.

If we can't any longer rely on long distance shipping of most of our food, the Central Valley of California may no longer need so much water, and other areas may need more. But, can this diversion occur? Will water be regarded as property, and subject to property rights. Moreover, will we continue to consider corporations as having more and stronger rights than individuals? If so, the owners of the water may push for unrealistic compensation that further undermines our economy.

But, that's not all. People need a certain amount of water each day. To make sure that we have that available, we need to limit the number of people in our country. Can we? Can we limit immigration? Can we limit procreation? It's hard to say. But, these are some of the questions that arise in a discussion of limited water resources in the face of rising demand.

Conservation & stewardship of our country and our resources will be critical to our survival. Not just as a nation, but as a people. This is the untold story of our time. Politicians, businesses, and religious leaders all tell the people that "...You can have it all..." It's an easy sale, that's what people want to hear. The reality is that we can't have it all. The reality is that no one has it all, and few people even begin to come close. We're so busy chasing dreams and fictions, that we can't even look after our own self interests. Now that's a scary thought.

Angry Enough?

Someone recently commented that folks need to get angry for there to be change. Did I do angry well enough in the last post? Angry is probably easier for me than Funny.

OK, Delay is indicted, Frist appears to be close to being indicted (maybe the fix will get in first), Abramoff is at risk of being sold down the river by the mafia types he appears to have hired to off Gus Boulis (a business partner of Jack's who Jack was apparently trying to cheat). Meanwhile, Jack is deeply entangled in every controversy in the Republican party and could be turned himself. Does this mean the mafiosos better make public confessions soon (including clear and convincing stories of Jack's involvement) or face the likelihood that the Men in Black will off them?

Could Tom Clancy and John Le Carre together (John, sorry to hook you up with literary trash) come up with a more far-fetched, convoluted, intertwined story line?

So, where the press? Mostly feigning balance as they provide cover for the criminals. How soon will the general population catch up with what's going on? Decades? Is it any wonder that the republicans are brazen.

There was an interesting piece on NPR today about an Indiana town that had lost some boys in Iraq. It did much to confirm my opinion that Hoosiers generally are nice, but not very smart. And that the smart ones, tend to be operators - pushing the bounds of law and morals.

In it the towns-people noted how they had a tradition of supporting our and their soldiers. Many of them have families with multiple generations of soldiers. But, what was most striking is that they cannot separate support for the troops from support of shrub government. They noted how soldiers were sent into battle ill-prepared and under armored. That didn't dissuade them. They ignored that we had no reason to attack Iraq. They ignored that the presidential amnesia for his rational for attaching Iraq. And, they made clear the need to stick the battle out until we accomplish our objectives (whatever they may be) even if that means increasing the level of our commitment and armed forces in the war. Are these folks smoking crack or what?

Are their lives so narrow, boring and pinched that they need the Iraqi conflict to convince themselves that they are a good and noble people? What is it that causes them to ignore all the facts? They have access to too much information, despite our ineffectual press. A bi-partisan committee of congress has noted that there wasn't a connection between Iraq and either WMD or global terrorism (surprise - why do you think that the first Bush didn't take Saddam down). The president has acknowledged as much. The parallels to the Vietnam quagmire are too clear - there is no plausible way to think that there is anything we can win over there - not even oil. So, what drives these folks?

It can only be that people need reasons to think of themselves as good and worthy. And, the reactionary right establishment has put together the two trump cards for this: religious and patriotic superiority. The battle, my friends, is about self-righteousness.

Too many people in our society are exposed to rampant consumerism - but not allowed to play that game. Exposed is not the right word - no the word is brainwashed. It is not fundamental human nature to want a Porsche, even if we often want what another has. Our media and advertising has painted a glamorous world that generally isn't real even for the wealthy of the world. If you doubt that, think about Paris Hilton. She may be laughing all the way to the bank, and doing whatever she wants. But, she has to be really fucked up, and can't possibly be a healthy happy human being in her core.

Meanwhile, most people (especially Hoosiers and other agricultural belt people) are as far from this fantasy world as anyone. Heck, even in the ghetto people see excitement. Out in the country, most people are afraid to do or say anything out of step with the norms because it will be talked about. Out in the country, most people have a low standard of living - if you're doing well, you have a boat or a motorcycle but you still have a cheap house, cheap clothing, cheap cars and so forth. There isn't much to do. Mind you, 4th of July parades are great. Going to church and Sunday school are fine. Stopping on Friday nite at the tavern for a beer or two is an opportunity for social exchange. But, none the excitement associated with consumerism thoughout our media is available in the country.

Is it any wonder that many country youth ape ghetto styles of dress? Is it any wonder that a lot of young women in the country dress in a fashion I would not allow my daughter to copy? Folks are bored, constrained, and evidently (according to the TV, movies, and magazines) missing out on the glamour of life.

How do you deal with that? How do you avoid depression? Read People and talk about the latest Hollywood scandal with authority. Position your conformity and duty and dedication as something that places you above those city/union/minority folks who don't support the troops by sending them to battle. Join a church that promises health and wealth, supports immoral activities as long as they tithe, interferes with national politics for the financial well being of its spiritual leader, and attempts to defeat science to provide an epic battle that will brainwash the flock into blind adherence to its leader. Its a sick sick spiral down to hell.

So, how do we break these folks out of this death roll? It won't be by logic - passion over-rules that. It won't be by facts - they've already learned how to refute them. It will only come by offering a better form of salvation. What could be this mass salvation? Its hard to tell. What chink hasn't been covered already with the clever machinations of the right? How do we free the wingnuts from this purgatory?

Let me know if you have an insight.

Nuanced Flip-Flopper

Took a peek at the headlines this morning in the Chicago Tribune. It said that the president has announced that we have to conserve gas. It seems like just a short time ago that he said that we needed an energy policy that: "....promoted consumption..."

I didn't much agree with promoting the consumption of fuel. It seems supremely stupid to burn up, quickly as possible, finite and irreplaceable resource.

But, that was his position and now he's gone and changed the darn thing. That's a flip flop. A big one.

You know, I've been listening to the so-called conservatives (who don't seem to want to conserve anything) and the fundamentalists, and I've learned some things. You know, they're right. You can't trust a leader who keeps changing his mind: be it on energy policy, the cause for war, or his belief or lack thereof in "....nation-building..."

There's just no getting around the fact that he's nothing but a squirmy lying little rat - and that's not the stature that we need in our elected officials. The conservatives are right, he's unqualified to hold office. The job is too big for him and he's too small for the job.

Now, there are some softies on the right. They're out there right now making their excuses for him. Let's see, what could they be? How about this, the president doesn't control the weather, and this is just a reaction to an act of nature. When things settle down again, he'll go back to being in favor of squandering precious resources. That's believable, don't you think?

The problem is, these folks (and the president) are squirming in nuance. Just because of a storm? You see, I've also learned from the right that any leader who practices nuance isn't to be trusted. Nuance may be the traditional means of resolving tough issues. It may be the means by which corporate affairs as well as the affairs of nations (apart from God's country) are handled and resolved. But, no God-fearing American should prostrate him or herself to nuance. We are the best. We are right (even when we don't agree among ourselves). There is no reason for us to settle for nuance, and we damn well ought not to settle for a leader who practices nuance (especially one too dumb to spell nuance).

So, here's my question: Why the hell (or would you prefer that I say "h", "e", "double hockey sticks"), can't these folks figure out how to handle the aftermath of a little storm? After all, we have the free-market, the bold and brilliant leadership of the energy industry (not to mention Wall Street), and the best God-fearing government in the world to handle this problem. No, a little abnormal weather shouldn't cause these folks to wilt.

What could be behind this flip flop by the chief flip flopper in charge? Maybe its polling data? Maybe the republicans smell a risk in staying the course? Maybe they don't think that they can maintain the metaphoric sandbags on all of their boondoggles and F***ups? Now, that seems likely to me. See, the best way to figure out what how a republican leader operates is to look at the accusations that they hurl at their opponents.

They accuse the Democrats of lying when the republicans liar. They accuse the Democrats of cheating to hide the republicans cheating. They accuse the Democrats of inappropriate and risky nation-building because the republicans want to gain office to engage in stupid imperialist ventures. And, they accuse Democrats of being too sensitive to the polls, because, when they can't lie there way out of trouble, the republicans closely analyze the poll data to effectively chose there battles - where should they flip-flop versus holding tight.

If you're silly enough to disagree with the above, I won't bother educating you with examples and facts - you won't listen. But, if you're open to the possibility, then look at the list of published examples and proofs ranging from the Presidential Election to nonsense that is the college republicans (which is the reform school of the republican party - the place where their juvenile delinquents go to perfect there illegal and immoral craft).

So the conservatives are right, shrub doesn't belong in office. Just don't hold your breath waiting for them to figure that out.

Our press today continues to service this country poorly. For the sake of a few more dollars, they have sold out our interests to the republican party. If we eventually break down into civil war between practical & rational thinkers, and everyone else - the guilt will lie at the feet of our press.

Lately, the press has been congratulating itself on having the balls to honestly raise issues coming out of hurricane Katrina. However, they never fully dropped their fawning attitude towards the president. They have forgotten to continue to watchdog the relief efforts as they turn into a giant republican porkbarrel, placed ahead of the interests of the American citizens. And they still aren't doing a good job of shining a light on the record of our president and his colleagues in the House and Senate as they continue to damage the economy, damage the environment, damage America's standing in the world, and as the republicans generally try to extinguish democracy as they turn us into a third-world country as quickly as possible.

Mind you, too many of the Democratic leadership are doing their job either. Why any Democrat would vote for Roberts is unclear. We can't stop him from gaining the necessary votes, but what are we doing approving this unqualified fascist?

It seems to be part of the the fear by many Democrats. The fear that the general population won't like them if they stray from the extremist republican platform. Well, this isn't a popularity contest (and if it were - the Dem's are losing it anyhow). This is about contesting ideas for the proper leadership of our country. republican-light just doesn't cut it in such a debate.

It is not radical to realize the limited natural resources of the world. It is not radical to realize the limited political and military resources of this country. Neither of these situations have improved since the first Gulf War. That war is where Bush the elder realized that he could put Pandora back into the box that is Iraq, but that he couldn't fix Iraq. So, he stopped short for replacing Saddam. shrub never learned this lesson, and has us bogged down in a quagmire which is financially, politically, and militarily unacceptable. Where is the outrage? Where is the countervailing voice? Where is the offer of an alternative? Just as it is not coming from the press, it is not coming from the Democratic Party. Sure, Dean, Kennedy, and others try to offer some of this, but they are constantly are being undercut by their own team. What is going on? When will this change? How long until the Democratic Party becomes obsolete? Or, has it already? And if it does or has, what replaces it? A totalitarian one-party system? A battle between two parties representing (respectively) the very conservative and the hyper conservative? These options don't seem appealing to me. Not because they represent view-points that I disagree with, but because they fundamentally undermine the sense of democracy upon which our country was founded, and because without that sense of democracy - that which is good and noble about this country cannot continue to endure.

This is a sad time for our country.

A Quick Rant II plus an argument

Well, as you might imagine, the message in last piece did nothing to sway the "libertarian" with whom I was in dialog. It seems to me that choosing the solutions to the problems of society, any society, requires an understanding of politics, business, people, government, and philosophy. Some understanding of science and statistics wouldn't hurt either.

Now, I don't expect everyone to believe that. But, its hard to understand how many people believe that a broad understanding of society and the arts is unnecessary. I wonder if some of them don't feel without the gifts to attain that understanding, and so chose to make decisions ignorantly - and defend those decisions. But, I'm not sure because some of these folks seem reasonably intelligent even when they're naive.

I'm sure I was overly ambitious and way too impatient with my erstwhile correspondent. But, it was amazing how he responded. He allowed a couple of small points, ignored most of my arguments, and resorted to name calling. Oh, and he blamed the democrats for the Kelo vs. New London decision. We do share a distaste for that decision.

After that, I took a good long time responding. My response was fairly brief. But, I noted that Kelo vs New London was function of a court with only 2 justices appointed by democrats. And, that Rehnquist has a record of eroding personal rights and championing the interests of big business.

He maintained his position, noting that all the democrats voted for New London, but that Rehnquist and three other republicans voted for Kelo - hence it was the democrats fault. He didn't bother to notice that the majority of the majority (a favored republican ideal) voted for Kelo. So, does he get it?

I haven't bother to look up the language of the opinions to see what the turning points were in this case. And, it certainly wouldn't make any sense to discuss that level of detail when the argument presented is so moronic. Nor does it make sense to point out that Rehnquist has a record of changing his vote to the majority in order that he may write their opinion where he wants to ameliorate the impact of decisions that he doesn't like. So, why didn't he do this with Kelo vs. New London if he was so concerned.

No, nothing will get through this fellows thick skull. If any democrats voted for the decision, then its their fault, all their fault, and only their fault. Got it?

My correspondent also suggested that all government is corrupt and messes up everything it touches. Hence, we must not let it touch important things like healthcare.

This is an argument that is so simplistic as to be dangerous. And, it fits as part of the pattern of right wing smears and confusion. The republicans have long been smearing government, especially the federal government, portraying it as a bad thing: ineffective, inefficient, corrupt.

Mind you, it would be Pollyannish to think any government is perfect - because it is an institution of mankind and mankind is imperfect. By estension, this argument extends to businesses, non-profit organizations, churches, schools, and social clubs.

The republicans long-standing attack on the federal government has had several effects:

1. People start to believe these stories uncritically - and the stories are supported and embellished by people who need to blame something or someone.
2. With belief comes distrust. More malice is seen in the federal government and people become encouraged not to respect and support, but to teardown our government. This strikes me as both unpatriotic and unhealthy for all citizens.
3. As the republicans come into power, it puts them at risk. So far they've been allowed to talk the talk but take a different walk. That won't last. And then citizens are likely to say: see, we even put the republicans in power and we still can't get a good federal government. Little do they realize, that by putting the republicans into power, they short-circuited a good government - and created their own problem.
4. Related to this, as people come to distrust government, along with science, they are left with only voodoo - or religion. This isn't meant to pick on organized religion, but is a reflection that there isn't a very good track record behind religion in government. And, that the track-record has nothing to do with democracy. So, perhaps the good republicans have brought our society to the point where they are ready to renounce democracy. While people will say no, it appears that they only like democracy when it supports there views. And rather than have spirited intelligent debate, they look for ways to short circuit democracy to hold sway.

You wouldn't know from the republicans that Social Security and Medicare are highly regarded around the world as models for how to efficiently and effectively provide assistance. No, that wouldn't server there arguments or their interests.

There's an interesting article at: http://www.mediatransparency.com/story.php?storyID=83 about how two christian evangelists are trying to take over the state republican party in Ohio. They quote the Reverend Rod Parsley as saying: Americans must be "....Christocrats..... And that is not a democracy; that is a theocracy..... That means God is in control, and you are not." By the way, the reverand Rod is aligned with J. Kenneth Blackwell - yeah the guy who orchestrated the theft of the Ohio election.

Moving back to my correspondent, he isn't too worried about religion in government. His framing was that he's agnostic (which strikes me as a cowards position), but that he isn't disturbed by "...in God we trust..." Hence, if he has to chose between lower taxes and God in government, he'll take the latter. He couldn't even consider that now that the church is on the dole, taxes can only go up. Nor, can he consider that his agnosticism may be at risk of the godlings take over the government.

The level of self-denial and delusion is so strong amongst so many of these people as to be scary.

It seems to me, that to reach them we need something other than logic or facts. First this seems like a wrong approach - its manipulation and that should not be what democracy is about - its what the other guys do. But, how can we get them with the facts if they continually reject them? Somehow, we have to make (for want of a better term) the "liberal agenda" attractive to them. Part of that has to come from making liberals likeable. I'm not sure what that looks like. I'm not sure how we do this with creating in them another, different fear. So, perhaps we need to be patient and be available to tend to their wounds when the reality of their leadership comes crashing through their brains.

Any ideas?

A quick rant

The following was an email. Background: a non-political list was becoming politicized with neo-con and libertarian trash talk. One member tried to engage me off-list to continue the argument (that we have the best health care system available). This was my (long) off the cuff response. I thought it merited sharing - but you can judge for yourself. To begin with, the individual claimed that I favored socialized medicine....hmmm. His other key argument seemed to be that government is corrupt, so should be allowed to do as little as possible.

Dear Xxxxxx,

Fair enough. I am in favor of socialized medicine - not the least afraid to say it or use that term.

Our society and government has become bigger and more complex than the founding fathers ever considered (at least from what I've read). Making any system (medical or otherwise) difficult.

To suggest that all government is corrupt is a bit broad from my perspective - and makes it hard to identify and correct the problems. I think the corruption in government varies, and that corruption is at least as controllable as the problems with our current system of medicine.

As background: I'm not an expert, but I try to keep up with the news, outside reading, and refer back to my studies (BA Political Philosophy, MBA Finance/Marketing).

I think our federal government has become significantly more corrupt since the republicans started to take over Washington. Boy, talk about running away from your beliefs, eh? BTW, either you get that statement or you don't. I no longer try to convert die-hard republicans.

Either one believes in the basic social compact theory of government or one doesn't. In the latter case, one can try to achieve a dictatorship or the like that drives ones own interests, or one needs to turn to anarchy (which I consider to be the libertarian model without cheating). Anarchy sometimes works - in small groups where resources are not in short supply. I think that it has yet to succeed in any sort of large group much less a nation. I don't believe in dictatorship - although some of the right wing-nuts seem to. Often in the guise of a Christian government. So, yes, I believe in the social compact theory of government.

That inherently supposes socialism. That is, the social compact requires us to consider the needs and interests of those around us. We have to balance our needs and wants against those of our peers, friends, colleagues, leaders, followers, enemies, and assorted low-lifes. BTW - what's so bad about that?

Fundamental to a social compact is a sense of justice. You know, things like where the constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. One aspect of justice is to recognize that no system of distributing wealth is perfect. That some people fall through the cracks, and usually it is through no fault of their own. Hence, we have a need to provide some baseline quality of life for these individuals.

Now some people (like the dittoheads) would say I'm soft on lazy folks who want to live off of my work. Well, that's an interesting concept. I venture to say, none of those people have ever spent time living the life of these so-called welfare-cheats. If they did, I think they'd see that the lifestyle provides plenty of incentives for change, but few avenues. I do think that its possible to get trapped mentally as much as socially into poverty - and that it is largely the responsibility of the individual to fight the mental trap. But, these folks aren't generally in the position to fight the social traps - and if we don't take care of that, and their basic quality of life - then these individuals have no benefit from the social contract. Just as companies and rich people fight contracts which they decide are not in their best interests, those individuals left out by society have found ways to fight back over the eons.

It is irrational to think that this sort of unhealthy conflict will change unless these individuals are co-opted into the system - that is brought into the benefits of the social contract. Many people prefer to hate, disdain, whatever these individuals. It doesn't solve the problem - but seems to make these individuals feel better about themselves. Oh well...it's hard to fix shallow minds.

The constitution, the declaration of independence, the federalist papers, etc. don't talk about capitalism or free markets. Funny that so many people today (often influenced by the neo-cons [which is short for Neanderthal con-artists]) seem to think that democracy, capitalism and free markets are inherently related. They're not, ever hear of the term: Social Democrat?

Very few people can speak with any accuracy about what a free-market is, either in a classical sense or as the term has come to be defined by economists. Too bad, 'cuz that means that they just don't know what they're talking about. Thinkabaudit. Free markets sound like a good idea. Air travel isn't a free market, but is one of the closer examples currently at hand. Guess what, airlines can't make money in anything like a free-market. Nor can anyone else. It is only by undermining a free-market that business succeeds.

I keep meaning to look up a piece by one of the marketing guru's (not Drucker, but I can't think of who right now - a sign of old age). Anyhow, it defines what marketing (and therefore fundamentally the strategy) of companies should be. Funny thing, its almost a point by point description of all that is considered predatory or unfair trade and/or monopoly behavior. In other words, the marketing gurus fundamentally teach that business should actively undermine free markets. So, it should be no surprise that its hard to find any free markets.

In a related item, economists have concluded that in a fair stock market, no one can beat the system (that is average over-all returns) over time. Any short term wins are random chance. We know that some people are able to regularly beat the system - although most of us can't. Yea for free markets!

Capitalism. Hmmm, what can we say. Largely defined by the Marxists (no i'm not one of them - they're crazy). Understood correctly, I think a capitalist is someone who succeeds in undermining free markets in order to accumulate more wealth/material/capital/power for themselves than their contribution to society might otherwise earn. Is that what we're all about? Not me or most people I know. Capitalism is not the same thing as commerce or commercialism. Both are driven by greed (which is fairly instinctual), but the capitalists get ahead by cheating the social compact and fair play.

Unfortunately, many in this country don’t understand that distinction and fall for simplistic arguments - that convince them to support capitalism. The business leaders of this country drive this thinking, even though they intend for capitalism to be just as defined by the Marxists. Hmmm.... almost enough to make me want literacy standards for voters.

Going back to the freedoms thing... What rights to do we have? The constitution doesn't protect our right to be tax free. Being tax free isn't necessarily a good thing. It is arguable that as a nation we would be stronger and our economy would be stronger if business wasn't taxed on income (maybe not for real estate either), and that the general public picked up the difference. Now, that won't happen because there are too many people making too much money off of the current tax system. And, they're in a position to protect their interests in the social compact. Eh?

We also aren't free to opt-out of social welfare programs such as: 1) police and fire protection; 2) protection by armed forces; 3) national forests; 4) other national resources like the capital; 5) EPA standards (although shrub has made these largely go away); 6) FDA standards (shrub's tried to prune these); 7) public roads, airports, sea ports, etc. Why is health care such a hot button? We don't see most people getting upset about this other SOCIALIST solutions.

Healthcare is funny. Its often one of the most emotional purchases we make, and often with little time for research and comparison shopping. As such, we are particularly vulnerable the anti-free market forces. I hear folks say that they know someone from Canada and that person says Canadians come here for medical care all the time. Can we parse this a little?

First, only wealthy Canadians could possibly afford to come here for health care - we're too expensive and they aren't on our insurance plans - so ya gotta be rich. By the way, if you've spent much time with the rich - most of them need (that's need not want - just ask them) more of everything.

Second, I live in Illinois. Many people from Illinois go to Minnesota (Mayo Clinic) or Ohio (Cleveland Clinic) or other places out of state for medical care. Does that mean our medical system in Illinois is deficient? NO!!!!

Most of the people who go out of state are in a position to pay for their own health care comfortably, and have good health insurance. They fall into two categories: 1) hypochondriacs, who just aren't ever satisfied with a diagnosis. They travel from famous clinic/doctor to famous clinic/doctor seeking someone who will invest in their hypochondria. 2) legitimately seriously ill people who either are looking for THE sub-specialty expert to ensure that they get the best possible care - or looking for an astute second opinion. These folks can afford the best, have a serious condition, and know how to get business taken care of. Bully for them. But, the bottom line is that the available healthcare facilities in Illinois are extremely good across the board. Thankfully, because most of us don't have the option to seek out out-of-state health care.

I married into a medical family (funny thing to do. i named our dog doc. guess what happens on at a familhy gathering when I say "here doc!"). My wife is a clinical psychologist. Her brother is an orthopedic surgeon. Her mother was a GP. Her father was pioneer in emergency room medicine. Both her Grandfathers were surgeons. Her cousin is a rheumatologist in Canada. Her Aunt just retired as a GP in Canada. Now these are all people serious about taking care of patients. Guess what, they all think the Canadian system is much superior to ours. Cheaper, more streamlined, and more willing to let the Doctor make the decisions as to what is the proper course of treatment. Think about that last idea - it's not one the "anti-socialists" want you to think about. When insurance pays for your medical care, you get a form of socialized medicine where greed is the driver of all decisions related to the quality of your care. Makes me shiver.

People want to blame Americans' eating and exercise habits for all the shortcomings of our healthcare system. Well, both are factors in our overall well being. But, Canadians (and arguably Australians) are much like us and report better health statistics for a lower cost. So.... the argument doesn't pass the smell test.

I have a friend, an investment banker, who is convinced that our health care system is the envy of the world. But, he doesn't get that opinion from foreigners. He points out that in England, the national health trust wouldn't give his wife the care she gets here for her MS. Its true. On the other hand, she gets her treatment from a doctor who works outside of conventional protocols. And, my friend has the position and insurance policy to make this work. Most Americans with health insurance couldn't get this protocol. Those without a policy can't get any protocol. I think the English system is more effective and more equitable - even if nimrods don't have the opportunity to opt out. Meanwhile, people in my friend's position are able to get supplementary healthcare both in and out of country. So - the rich don't get shafted - they just get to uphold the social compact with the rest of us. Now, call it socialized, call it bongo medicine, call it anything - but it sounds like an idea that merits serious consideration by every American.

Then there's the subject of intellectual property rights. That's a biggie, which I can't do justice to right here. 1) How much intellectual property, owned by the drug and related companies, was created by themselves with their own funding vs. how much comes directly from government research or their own research funded by the government? Check it out, you might be surprised at the answers. 2) If you think of an idea before I do, what about that sequence is other than luck? And, if its only luck, why should you get exclusive rights to the idea? 3) What particular societal benefit accrues to having a corporation have IP rights? And, how do IP rights actually play out in business (if you check you'll probably find it serves only to exclude new/small players - big players trade rights back and forth all the time - IMHO all of IP law [globally] needs to be seriously revisited starting with questions like: what do we want to accomplish?). Have you ever discussed with anyone knowledgeable how effectively rights are protected in the courts [even for big business]? I think you'd find that even for simpler technologies, it’s a total crapshoot. Things that don't deserve protection get it, and things that do deserve don't. I remember a business law professor talking about a patent having to do with a paper mill. A roller had a groove and was described as such in the patent. The competition simply claimed that they didn't use a groove, they used a slot (which had the same shape, location, dimensions) and they won. ERGH!!!

There is no system that can ensure that citizens get what they deserve, and deserve what they get. At least no one has come up with one yet. This probably is related to Arrow's Theorem (which I think is now proved so no longer a theorem). Basically it states that given three or more alternatives to rank, and three or more voters, no voting system can be devised that ensures that the collective preferred option is selected. If you've never heard of this before, stop and take a second to think about it - the idea should blow your mind. Start with the fact that there are generally a lot more than three issues in voters minds when they go to a poll - hence no voting system is guaranteed to reflect the collective voters wishes. Then, consider that we "vote with our $" every day, and again each decision involves more than three factors (like, which color do I like, which will get me in the least trouble with my wife, and what can I afford). As a society, we may be buying something other than what we want. The good thing is that most voting systems work most of the time. But, not always - and this is before we get to issues like: lying politicians, brain-dead or brain-washed voters, limited and skewed information in the marketplace of ideas.

Back to IP. Historically, there seems to be a big disconnect between those who innovate and those who profit from innovation. Now, there are all sorts of silly arguments that its not really innovation but risk taking that drives profits. And, that the innovator doesn’t encounter risk, but that the firm that owns the IP does. BS! Firms don't engage in risky behavior. Why? Cuz managers don't engage in risky behavior - it puts their bonus at risk.

In a slightly different vein: an attorney I know specializes in class-action lawsuits. This might upset me, but it does seem to be the only mechanism to get businesses to change shoddy behavior. Anyhow, he was explaining to me one time how this works. First, they look for a case where there's already been a criminal conviction. A criminal conviction has a much higher standard of evidence, and therefore all but assures them that they will prevail in the civil litigation. At the end of trial, there is a form of fact finding to determine how hard the case was to win. You see, they get paid contingently. So, if they only win half their cases, they only get paid half the time. The system is set up to apply a multiplier to their hourly fee (which is very similar to that of the corporate atty's on the other side of the aisle), based on the difficulty of winning the case, to ensure that at the end of the year they get paid as if they won all of their cases (in other words they didn't suffer from contingent pay). As I said at the beginning, these guys (with some notable exceptions) generally only take shoe-in cases. Yet, they often argue successfully to receive up to treble their hourly rate. No wonder legal fees take such a big dent out of settlements. What's this all about? Everyone tries to beat the system by getting paid for risk that doesn't exist.

OK, now some game theory. Why the social compact? Cuz we're all better off working together rather than each on his/her own. Individual homo sapiens aren't very successful in nature. However, we are all better off (at least to the degree that we're motivated by greed) if everyone else has to follow the rules of society - but we don't. Whether this means coming to a full stop at an intersection, or engaging in business by the rules, there is this fundamental conflict. We need everyone else to obey and believe that we obey, but we want to cheat. Guess who succeeds best at this play? How about the people with the top 1% of personal income? But, of course, they claim that capitalism or some magic hand ensures that they only got what they deserved for their contribution. In fact, they'll all argue that that they've been shafted.

Well, I got a right fine rant going here. :)

Xxxx, your points seem to be: 1) you don't trust government and that nothing can be done to improve it; 2) you don't like socialism (it's not clear why, or in what context [ie should we get rid of the army too?]; 3) You're in favor of intellectual property rights; 4) Innovations are a function of profits which are based on IP.

If you believe 1, then don't vote - it won't help.

You probably have a narrow definition of socialism [and capitalism] that warrants some more thought - especially in light of the relationship between democracy and the social compact.

3 apparently is based on 4, but doesn't demonstrate analysis of the truth value of 4. I would suggest that most innovation occurs because some people are naturally innovators - not because of greed or profits. If so, then the social value of IP rights sinks quickly.

I welcome challenges to the above. But, I just can't let you get away with suggesting that we have something good going on here with our health care delivery program.

A short slice of life

Assume with me, if you will, that life is a fleeting part of the timeline of the cosmos. Moreover, that mankind fills only a short portion of the timeline of life, and that the life of any individual is almost imperceptible within that timeline. It's likely, then, that my life and anything I have to say is very small and perhaps meaningless in this context.

But, if you accept Freud's insight that "...Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny..." - them maybe that short life of an individual, any individual, can be a source of learning. We live in interesting times. Throughout most of my life, I have regarded this as a blessing. Of late, those issues and forces that make our times interesting, seem more of a curse to me. Moreover, many of these forces appear poised to come together in ways that will reinforce the scariest elements offered by each.

Science is under attack, as it has often been in the course of history. Any locus of political power can be undermined by true facts widely disseminated - and so various powerful, or would be powerful, individuals constantly "spin" the facts. As mankind's knowledge becomes greater, the wiggle room for the powerful shrinks - "...the truth shall set you free...." if it is commonly understood.

Science also carries an implicit burden. That is, science is of little use without its handmaiden: technology or the application of science. Technology is the use of knowledge to create or do what could not otherwise be: move produce, manufacture tools and machinery, create goods, blow-up enemies. But there is a subtler burden in the sense that science ultimately leads to the evolution of societies and their peoples, which over the course of many steps brings them to a point of dependency on technology.

There are infinitely more people on the face of the earth today than there were 2,000 years ago. I would be willing, however, to take a bet that there are fewer sailors today than 2,000 years ago, who are capable of navigating beyond the sight of land using only the sun and the stars. So, if we lose the navigation technologies of today, would we be able to replace them with methods sailors used 2,000 years ago? And if not, what would happen to us?

Science has taught us many things, some of which we have difficulty absorbing and using. A trivial example is the continuing argument about Evolution in the classroom. But another example, which may be more important because it is more subtle is this: science has proven intelligence in other forms of life apart from man. And at least some of this animal intelligence could be of use to us if better recognized - but that might force us to alter our relationships with nature. The idea of becoming one with nature may not really be a romantic concept - it may be the recognition of our own limitations and the benefit of leveraging all that is around us.

For example, think of herding animals, be they zebras, deer, or fish. Some herding behavior appears more instinctual or programmed, some seems more socially dependent, but in any case it serves many of the same purposes. In fact herds act much like the convoys of WWII and for many of the same reasons. But, did we figure out convoys from herding behavior, or did we have to reinvent the wheel for ourselves?

The United States was once capable of standing with some autonomy in the world. This is not to suggest that we have not been a trading nation from the beginning. Rather, there was a time when sufficient knowledge and natural resources combined in ways that we could have cut off ties from the rest of the world. Moreover, we had no natural enemies save those separated from us by oceans.

As isolationist as we have believed ourselves to be, we have always been an expansionist power. And, while we may not have believed that we were doing so, we have used our combination of knowledge, natural resources, and attendant wealth to further build our power and wealth by extracting resources and production from the rest of the world. We have refused to accept limits set by man or nature. But, as McGeorge Bundy once said: "There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris"

In Northern Minnesota lies what remains of the Mesabi Range. The Mesabi Range is/was the chief deposit of iron ore in the United States. It largely was used up (at least the high quality deposits) during WWII. To say that the Mesabi Range is vast is to employ a term over-used by the press, politicians, and PR clowns. But, if one considers that much of the allied war effort for WWII was based on this deposit, and that it played a major role in the success of the US steel industry (for machinery, buildings, appliances, and transportation) in the many decades leading up to, and immediately after, that war, it should be clear to even a casual reader that "vast" is indeed the term to describe the Mesabi Range.

I owe my knowledge of the Mesabi Range to growing up in Minnesota during the '60s. That was an exciting time; one in which most of us felt more optimism. The town and the era of my origins represents an interesting core sample of sociological and anthropological strata related to the maturing of our country. Computers became real, jet and space flight were rapidly advancing. As a nation we felt our success, and along with that our responsibilities. My home town shared in all of that and more.

The changes in the Mesabi Range were just one deposit in the sediment of our society. Despite its size, the high quality ore eventually played out. Northern Minnesota was (and still is) a poor part of the country. Apart from mining, it is home to lumber & pulpwood operations and tourism. The later consists largely of fishing, taverns and snowmobiles - with at least two of the three being available in any month of the year. The closing of mines was a great hardship for the folks that lived up there. Farming wasn't especially viable, and the weather discouraged most sorts of industry from migrating "...up North..." unless absolutely necessary.

The good scientists at the University of Minnesota were tasked with finding a solution to this problem, knowing that there were widespread deposits of low quality ore. And the scientists responded with something called Taconite. This was all part of our education as good junior citizens of Minnesota, but to be honest, I never learned what the heck Taconite really was or how it was made (I think that it required lots of water and electricity). In essence low quality ore is refined into pellets that are somewhat purer than the ore from which they come. Further, these pellets can be easily used in place of high-grade ore for the manufacture of steel. For our purposes this explanation is sufficient.

As we noted, to survive WWII we developed the herd approach (aka convoys) to safeguard our shipments across the ocean. And both the ships, and the non-human cargo that they carried played a major role in depleting the Mesabi Range, and therefore the eventual development of Taconite.

It should be noted that the Taconite business seems to be largely gone - its no longer a cost-effective way to make steel. Now days we buy foreign steel or repurpose old steel. But for a while, science and technology offered the promise that Mesabi Range would keep functioning long after its good ore was gone.

The place I grew up was a suburb of the twin cities. It was a railroad town, but by the time I was born it had no passenger service and there were only a limited number of freight trains that went through. The "train station" was intact and seemed to be well maintained but it wasn't any longer staffed.

Our town went through its share of ups and downs, like many Midwest towns that rode on the larger trends of commerce, industry and the economy. Like the rest of the country, my town endured and grew through the Gilded Era, WWI, the roaring-twenties, the depression, WWII, my eventual birth, and so on.

Many years ago, a street car line ran from St. Paul to the far eastern end of the lake where there was an amusement park. Over time, first electric service and then gas came to the town. I can remember when the gas lines were laid in my neighborhood, but the street car and amusement park were gone before my time. Several boat yards succeeded along the lake front, and though the business was about to die, two of them still made wooden boats by hand when I was growing up. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to visit and tour both of them.

At its core, however, it combined tourism with being the commercial hub of an agricultural area that helped support the twin cities. Our town was unique in some interesting ways. It was located on a large and attractive lake - and early on developed a reputation as a place to "summer." The well-to-do came not only from the Twin-Cities, but also Milwaukee, Chicago, and other Midwestern cities, to enjoy life on the lake front.

Eventually, two areas predominated for these summer homes. There was a large island, one tip of which connected via short wooden bridge to the Western shore. My uncle had his first summer job there on an estate belonging to the Weyerhaeuser’s. His job was to dig up dandelions. He would start at one end of the lawn, and by the time he was done, it was time to start at the beginning again. Later, he moved up to caddying at the "Yacht Club" (where he recounts listening to the announcement of Lindy’s arrival in Paris over a loud speaker) located on the North shore of the lake - the other posh part of town.

The scale of these (as they were known) cottages was impressive. I remember one that had been offered for sale, it’s sign advertising 10 bedrooms and 7 bathes. On the island, the original cottages didn't have kitchens. This was not a sign of frugality. Instead, there was a communal kitchen where the staff would cook meals without heating up the owners' homes. Eventually, the central kitchen disappeared, and the cottages became year-around homes with all the amenities.

By the '60s, many of these homes (especially on the Northshore) were white elephants. People didn't want to pay for the heat and taxes - and consequently they were hard to sell. What had been mere summer cottages at one time became too extravagant for use as year-round homes.

Along with prohibition and the depression came the rise of criminal gangs. While they hadn’t been active in my town, it was a place where criminal leaders went to "chill" when the "heat" was on back in Chicago. They had their local spots including a nightclub on the Southwest corner of the lake.

My Grandfather (who was originally a harness-maker) ran a shoe repair shop. One day, a large limo pulled up in front and several people got out. I'm not sure exactly what he was thinking, but he felt it prudent to send my mother out the back door and on her way home. The visit turned out to be peaceful - one of the dancers at the club had broken the heel off or her shoe and needed repairs.

My town had a broad variety of religion, as long as it was Christian. We had Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Baptists. And in hindsight, by their churches, one could tell who had the money. We had a growing, but still close community. Our version of a minority was someone of French-Canadian ancestry. Given that we had neighboring towns named Little Canada, and Vadnais Heights, the French-Canadian presence was strong.

I had one friend in my first years of school who was French-Canadian: Gordon LaBell. He wasn't much different from the rest of us, although he probably had more "woods sense". My mother seemed to think that he was OK, but I had the impression that she didn't approve of how the women in his family had pierced ears, and that this extended down to little girls. It had to be a moment of emancipation when my mother finally had her own ears pierced.

In my youth, the South side of town was beginning to be developed into suburbs, with neat grids of streets and rows of ranch and split-level homes. The area always felt a bit off to me. Today I realize that this was because it didn't have any trees. It was a source of growth, however, and by the time I reached High School our town's population was over 25,000.

Life was simpler than, as in much of the country. The Junior (ex-Senior) High was located on what had once been the grounds for the County Fair. One of the Fair Buildings remained: the Hippodrome. This was a large drafty building in which the floor was flooded with water for skating during the winter. It was better than skating outside on a dark cold night - but still plenty chilly. On the far side of the building were some sheets for curling, in the center was ice for hockey or free-skating. At one end was a simple room with benches and heat. As I recall, Friday and Saturday nights were popular for the Junior and Senior HS crowd.

Through all of these snippets, we’ve seen examples of technology, and its delivery, changing the course of life and society. My grandfather changed from harness maker (a high-status, high-economic-value profession) to shoe repair man (low-status and low-economic-value profession) because the gasoline engine came of age and replaced horses. The railroads helped develop my town, and then died away. The world became smaller when Lindberg crossed the Atlantic. And, technology was used to overcome the depletion of high-quality iron ore, for a time.

Today, the town where I was born cannot function without natural gas pipelines, electrical lines, automobiles and trucks. It doesn’t need horses, the farming is gone, and the train line is unimportant to the town. While there is some local manufacturing, even with the surrounding area, this town doesn’t come close to being able to be self-sufficient for its residents. It is a the end result of scaling and the global economy.

But, today, large and grand homes are no longer white elephants. Buyers in prosperous parts of the country seem to be competing for who can acquire the biggest, fanciest home. Modern residential architecture has evolved to Gablitis – which is the unnatural development of excessive gables on a home. Homes sometimes have gables stacked 3 and 4 deep on the front of a home and as many across – in a vain attempt to be distinctive.

Growing up, my parents never had air-conditioning, color-television, or cars with electric windows until they were in their 50s (about 25 years ago). This was true despite their being relatively prosperous and not ascetic or parsimonious. Today, the percentage of new cars sold without electric windows or the percentage of new homes sold without air conditioning must surely be in single digits. Some of this change is due to improved efficiencies in industrial and manufacturing processes. Some of this change is due to better leveraging the global economy (that is, paying someone in China or Malaysia starvation wages to produce our goods). Some of it comes the growing set of expectations that emerges from each new generation in our society. But these changes take our people, our communities, and our country further and further away from the possibility of being self-sufficient.

There was a time when we considered self-sufficiency a key strategy for the security and protection of our nation. A combination of poor quality in the auto industry and enticingly priced import goods have caused us to forget this strategy. Who would settle for a black & white TV made in the states when they could have a color model from China for the same price or less? But then, who wants to be dominated by China, either?

A sad day with a lesson

Many of you having been watching the news about New Orleans and the latest tropical storm disaster to devastate our Southern Crescent. If it makes you sad, however, you're not learning your lesson.

God is speaking to you, and me, and all of us. God is angry with us. God is tired of having his name taken in vain. And so he is punishing us at the core of where all that is unholy has its roots in this country.

Oh yes! He has looked to see where his name has been employed in vain to justify the killings in Iraq. He has looked to see where his name is used to justify prejudice and maintain segregation. He has looked to see where his name is used by false idols to steal in his name and make themselves rich. He has looked to see where these false idols have prayed to have more stolen from the needy to give to the rich. He has looked to see from where has come the absolute corruption that is Washington politics.

God gave us this great land and allowed us to become a great nation. A large measure of what made us great was our efforts, no matter how inadequate, to act has He would. We pioneered the rights of individuals. We lead the way in providing a path for all people to be successful and to rise up to what there talents and perspiration could produce. We drove public education, suffrage, and concern about the common welfare. These are all things that Jesus did. These are all noble tasks. And for all our faults, God has been merciful and good to us because we tried to find a better way to live together as people.

Do you think that heaven has an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class? Of course not. So these false prophets who worship the so-called free market system, these false prophets who worship material success, these false prophets who worship power, and these false prophets who tell you that God can be found through marketing - they are all wrong! Dead wrong.

It was said, leave unto Caesar what is Caeser's and unto God what is God's. Do you understand that? Do you? Some people think that this is a discussion of taxes versus spirituality. Do you think God wants to tax you? Rubbish!!!!! Do you think that God wants to run your Government? If he wanted these things, he would have them. God is all knowing and all powerful. All of us together couldn't stop him, couldn't begin to delay him, if he decided to tax us or to run our government.

No, God was speaking of something else. God was saying that as people, he expects us to find ways, good ways, appropriate ways, to get along and lead Godly lives. This is the problem of mankind. This is the problem of our governments. And, this is the problem of our leaders. God was telling us to have good government, to support good government - and by the way, government isn't about spirituality. But what do we have today?

Today we have country that is squandering its natural resources. Do you think God wants us to do this? Do you think he'll replace them just because we wasted them? What thoughts does God have when we steal, manipulate, or go to war to replace these resources? It can't be pretty thoughts, can it? Oh course not!!!!

Today we have a country that is rolling back civil rights without ever having fully achieved them. We are finding alternative ways to make it "OK" to limit the rights of others. Fancy language and power politics have seen to it that these changes are taking place today, with the help and support of some of our most powerful religious leaders. What must God think, when a people, on whom He has lavished His gifts, now acts in this way? Does He think these people are Godly? Does He think these people are God-fearing? He can't possibly.

What must God think when the leaders of these so-called "Christian Ministries" focus on gaining power and money? What does He think when these leaders insist on influencing politics? Is this rendering on to Caesar? I think not. Why is it that these so-called "religious" leaders need to be in the limelight? Why do they need to get rich? Why do they need to build bigger churches? Why do they need to be involved in politics? Why do they align with and support the rich and powerful elite in this country against the needs and interests of their own congregations? Can it be that they've lost the humility it takes to truly love others? Can it be that they have turned away from the teachings of Jesus Christ, our savior, long ago? Can it be that they have become false prophets, bearing witness to something other than the almighty God? To Satan? Of course!!!! And, those that follow these false prophets find themselves worshipping Satan as well.

God is worried. God wants to save us, but He can't if we worship Satan. And so, God is trying to get our attention. All of those fundamentalists that hate gays, who claim that AIDS is God's punishment of gays, are wrong. AIDS is a test for all of us. AIDS is a test to see if we can behave Godly. We're not doing well on the test, by the way.

But, the Hurricanes that have devastated Florida, Louisiana, and other parts of the Gulf and Southern Atlantic coasts are not a mere test. Where do these "fundamentalist Christians" come from? What is the source of their ideologies of hate? Why, they come from the good old "solid south". The home to racism, segregation, gay baiting, congressional pork, self-righteous religious expression, corporate malfeasance, religious interference with government, and the tele-evangelist. All of these false idols are to be found in the solid south. The fundamentalist christen leadership, their universities, their PR machines, their ties to government and business, it all starts in Dixie.

This lawless, soulless, irreverent part of the country is the home to the evils that manifest our society today. A peaceful women wages a Godly protest against the war in Texas. And, some agitator inspired by these satanic leaders drags a chain over American flags and crosses bearing the names of the soldiers whose lives have been lost in this Godless war. In one move, he has desecrated not only those soldiers, not only the country for which those flags stood, but, he has desecrated the name of God. And, God will have his vengeance.

No I can hear some of you thinking: Shouldn't God strike down George Bush, not some weak-brained good old boy? Well of course He will. George Bush will not be able to enter the gates of heaven. George Bush is an unrepentant sinner who takes the name of our Lord in vain! George will have his reckoning. But, God knows with whom to settle up with on this earth, and for whom he should wait until judgment day.

Those who have made a pact the devil can't be dealt with here on earth - and they will perish in hell. But, for the rest of, God wants to help. He wants us to see the error of our ways before it is too late. For the rest of us, He needs to send warnings. For the rest of us, He needs to mete out punishments. And it is our job to learn from this. God won't learn for us. This is the one expectation that He has of us - that we chose to be Godly by ourselves. He will give us the opportunity. He will give us the warnings. But, we must make the decisions.

The time is now to turn away from the false prophets. God has warned us. God is warning us. And, God will wait for our decisions. But, at some point, He cannot wait anymore. At some point He will make His decisions. And, at this point it will be too late for us.

So, I ask of you, in the name of all that is Holy, turn away from your unholy ways. Cast off your serfdom to the false prophets! Cast off you allegiance to the politics of hate and destruction! Cast off your love of war! Cast off your disregard for this earth that God gave us. And, instead, learn humility and begin to learn how to make yourself more Godly, every day, in everything that you do. Before it's too late

Amen

Can I be funny?

Well...... that last post ran on a bit eh? I wonder could I be funny? Could I make my points in a clever and quick way? Hmmm......how might that look?

I got an email the other day from one Connie Morris. You probably know the type: sincere, involved, middle-aged, religious right leader. Yeah, she even wrote a book about how Christ helped her recover from incest and rape while growing up in Appalachia. Now I always took those stories about hillbilly incest as elitist left-wing thinking, but apparently its true and Connie recovered from this through Christ.

Anyway, our communication was regarding the debate on Evolutionary Theory for Kansass schools. Can you guess which side Connie is on? Yeah, she's against Evolutionary Theory. She says the Board isn't trying to implement religious training in the public schools. But then, I think I saw her with one of those funny cigarettes just before she said that. You know, the kind you don't want the cops to see. So, I'm not sure she was on her best form at that time.

If you think I'm being mean, consider this: as a Christian woman, would she lie to us if she had the benefit of all of her faculties? So, somethings gotta be coming between her and her senses. Maybe it's the lesbian love affairs I've been hearing about. Of course, some people say that Rush Limbaugh isn't really a druggy. The reason he purchased all those pills was to share them with other right wingnuts that can't handle the pain of being cooped up in this country with normal people.

Mrs. Morris goes on to say she wants to "... simply encourage criticisms of Evolution-as the evidence abounds." Well do tell. She is a sharp number when she sobers up. I've never been taught about any of this evidence. Heck, coming from a member of a State School Board, this is something to check out. Who knows what wacko conspiracy has been suppressing the facts.

One wacko conspiracy agrees with Intelligent Design (ostensibly Mrs. Morris' basis for criticizing Evolutionary Theory), but finds it incomplete. They find that Intelligent Design has gaps as big as those in Evolution. For example, how do we reconcile what we know by faith and what we know by experience? Good question. They answer this question in their religion, through revelations regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pirates. On yeah, its true. Check them out over at: www.verganza.org. They have a long list of name academics and scientists that support their theories - its worth checking out.

But, I suspect that Mrs Morris doesn't agree with much of what these nutballs are saying. No, she's staying with respectable proponents of Intelligent Design. So,I did some research. it seems that many of us on both sides of the issue don't really understand the academic or scientific arguments behind it. In fact, I'd venture to say that most Americans don't have the credentials in mathematics, nor the development of their logical skills to understand the theory of Intelligent Design. And when the proponents try to explain it, they water things down so far that they are pandering to the fundamentalists who are predisposed to disagree with the evil Theory of Evolution.

So, an interesting question is: Does Mrs. Morris belong to those who don't understand the Theory of Intelligent Design, or the one's that do? In the first case she's just a quack and an idiot. I don't say this to be rude, but pushing science, if you don't understand, it is idiotic. Anyone who disagrees better have a good argument on their side!

Let's suppose that she really does understand Intelligent Design. If she does, she must be well educated and well informed. So well informed that she would know that the few (two) capable proponents of Intelligent Design: a) Don't agree with each other on key points; b) Don't agree with themselves over time; c) Continue to find their arguments countermanded by better stronger arguments against intelligent Design, and as a consequence are constantly having to retrench. And knowing this, a reasonable person would have to concede that for the time being, the arguments for Evolution are much stronger than the arguments against it, and that Intelligent Design hasn't developed sufficiently to be called a scientific theory.

So, we know Connie as a Hillbilly from a bad family who has embraced a fundamentalist Christian faith, who is attacking Evolution from her role on the Kansass State School Board, either as a liar or a idiot and a quack.

How do such people get into positions of authority?

Do you think the above is any better? It certainly more biting. Maybe not funny. Hopefully a little shorter. Well, maybe practice will make me better.

Naive and dull

It's been a long time since the last post. This time has been useful for me to reflect and learn. Among my conclusions are two that stand out: 1) I've been naive about the motivation and coordination of the right wing-nuts; 2) My wordy pieces may satisfy my own interest in pointing to the logical fallacies that we are dealing with, but are not intrinsically fascinating reading. You may say "Duh", so be it.

One area that I've studied a little more closely of late is the concept of (sub)Intelligent Design and the debates in Kansass. And in reviewing who's doing what to whom, it becomes clear that the (sub)ID campaign is coordinated, knowingly duplicitous, and focused on making it difficult for any reasonable knowledge to enter popular culture.

You don't have to take this on my word, and I'm not going to try to prove my conclusions here. But, one little example is illustrative of the thinking that is going on.

If you aren't aware of the variant of (sub)Intelligent Design which is based on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then you need to do a google search on "Flying Spaghetti Monster." Better yet, go right to the source: www.venganza.org. It should leave you in stitches, and expose the sophomoric level of argument used to promote (sub)Intelligent Design.

But, this got me to thinking. venganza.org has a link to the website of the Kansas State School Board (or some such name) where they give bio and contact information for the Board members. At present, there is a minority of intelligent members who are trying to limit the damage (not just to students education but to image of Kansass around the world), but they don't have the votes to generally prevail.

So, I sent some emails to the Board just to smoke out the issues. One member, Connie Morris, chose to respond in a most interesting manner (although I suspect that hers was an automated response). Here's the lowdown on Connie (who I guessed was a wingnut just from her picture) off the official Board website:

"Connie has served on numerous school committees and was a member of the Kansas Behavioral Science Regulatory Board appointed by Governor Graves. Her autobiography, From the Darkness: One Woman's Rise to Nobility, has been published by Huntington House Publishers. The book is Connie's story of recovery through Christ from incest, rape, domestic violence, substance abuse, and poverty during her early years in the Appalachian Mountains region."

Don't get me wrong, it looks like she has a fascinating life story. And, no matter how one gets past the childhood described here, one has to respect her getting past it. I'm not picking on Connie personally, it just that she provides us with an example of the lying ways of the so-called Christian wingnuts. So, let's get right to it. Connie responded to me by email. I will include the entire message so don't claim that she's been taken out of context.

"Thank you for emailing! Please know that I make a sincere effort to read every correspondence that comes my way, however it has become impossible to personally respond to every contact. I deeply appreciate your support and the valuable information that you may provide. Input from each and every individual is important. PS(sic): The KSBE is NOT seeking to implement Religion in public schools. My hope is to simply encourage criticisms of Evolution-as the evidence to do so abounds. Be well! -Connie Morris "

What is critical here is the post script: "PS(sic): The KSBE is NOT seeking to implement Religion in public schools. My hope is to simply encourage criticisms of Evolution-as the evidence to do so abounds." It doesn't take much to break this down into a series of lies, so let's do it!

First of all, it may be fair to say the the KSBE is not seeking to implement religion in public schools because 40% of the board is working hard to prevent that from happening. However, we shall see that the other 60% is trying hard to implement religion in public schools and this is the group to which Connie belongs. So, her statement is disingenuous, knowingly-misleading, and can only be intended to deceive rational people into complacency. A quick search on "lie" at dictionary.com comes up with: "To convery a false image or impression:Appearances often lie."

Now, someone might suggest that we take Connie at her word, so lets examine that. She is part of an organized movement that is seeking to undermine the teaching of evolution in schools. This movement, is populated and lead by fundamentalists. And, there is a non-scientific reason why they are so irked with the Theory of Evolution, meanwhile they have no concern about the correctness of other theories taught in our school systems. That is, they are concerned that the Theory of Evolution (and its random nature of the development of Universe and all within it) causes them to fear that faith might not stand up to this theory.

Before anyone takes exception to that statement, consider the following: 1) They are not asking for a general upgrade to the process of vetting scientific theory prior to its being presented in class rooms. Rather, this one theory, which has caused them consternation from its inception, is the sole focus of their charge. 2) They claim that the leaders and supporters of evolutionary theory have put it forth to sway people away from faith and to a secular gestalt. 3) They use silly logic and arguments, and in fact only a few of the proponents have advanced theories that have ever warranted consideration from serious thinkers in the fields of science, mathematics, and philosophy. Not only have those few serious proponents been repeated forced to retreat from their positions, their arguments are beyond the education and logic of virtually all of those advancing the (sub)Intelligent Design discussion.

To summarize, the adherents of (sub)Intelligent Design only have problems with a selected subset of science, which subset that consider dangerous to their beliefs. They attack the motivations of the leaders of this branch of science, and are unable to put forward valid arguments for why the Theory of Evolution should be criticized. So, the best we can say about these individuals (including Connie) is that they might be dupes of the band-wagon effect. In other words, their leaders argue that Evolution is wrong, and though the followers don't understand the logic they still vocally support the positions of their fellows. To which I say Corncobs!

Connie knows full well that she and the majority of the Board are trying to railroad evolutionary theory as a way to support their religion. As such, they very much are trying to teach religion in school. This makes her (as Al Franken would say) a Lying Liar!!!!

Ok, so in politics everyone isn't honest. But, when one is promoting God and religion there ought to be a little higher standard. President Clinton said he didn't have sex with ML, and by some definition he did not. Connie Morris says the school board is not seeking to teach religion in school. And, by some construction of those words, it is not. But, President Clinton did lie and Connie Morris is lying. In the case of President Clinton it was to protect himself and his family from a right wingnut witchhunt, and really had no bearing on the general public or the policies of this country. Connie Morris lies and it is to try to circumvent open scrutiny of what she and her fundamentalist colleagues are trying to do on the Kansass School Board. This has a grave bearing on the general public and of the policies of the State of Kansass.

Where are the indignation at how our democratic process of governance is being undermined by these Lying Liars? Where is Pat Robertson? Where is President (sic) Bush? Right in bed with the Lying Liars. hmmmm......

Maybe it's time to tell everyone about Connie's lesbian affairs. :)