Government Provided Security is a Prelude to Captivity

There is a modern day fable about how a farmer captured wild pigs that has a great amount of relevance to today.  One day the farmer went into an open field and laid out corn for the pigs.  At first the wild pigs were suspicious and would not approach the corn but they overcame their fears and ate it.  The farmer continued to provide corn in the same place and the pigs became accustomed to eating with little or no effort on their part because it was easy to get and they already knew where to find food.

As the days passed on the farmer began to place fence posts in the ground around the corn.  This was a little odd to the wild pigs but they were still easily able to get in and out of the open field to enjoy their food and move back into the tree cover where they felt safe.  As the time went on the farmer began to assemble a gate and a fence surrounding the feeding area.  The fence was nearly complete and the pigs were continuing to come and go as they pleased.

The farmer then began to reduce the amount of corn available.  The farmer instead of placing enough and to spare began to make scheduled deliveries of corn at a regular time of the day so that the pigs would recognize him and when the deliveries were to be made.  The pigs were still somewhat cautious and waited for the farmer to leave before they moved in to eat the corn.  Some of the younger pigs were forgetting how to find their own food and becoming dependent on the farmer for their meals and were some of the most eager animals to eat the corn.

The fence was finally completed with the gate left open and the farmer delivered the corn again but this time instead of leaving completely he waited in the shadows for the pigs to come in and begin eating.  The farmer moved in and closed the gate, trapping the pigs.   Now that the pigs were trapped they had no ability to provide for themselves and were dependent on the farmer to provide for their needs.

With every government solution to our financial difficulties there are strings attached and the threat of captivity instead of freedom.  Ronald Reagan spoke of welfare queens and generational welfare.  The people who grow up in the welfare system are conditioned to accept government handouts and look to the government to provide for them.  When I lived in Hartford, Connecticut for a few months I met young women whose future plans were to have babies so they could get on welfare programs with a retirement plan of being cared for by their own children’s welfare payments into the future.  The living conditions there were not pleasant but they weren’t working for it, didn’t plan on a better life, and were content to live in those conditions.

That kind of generational welfare mindset is the end game of many of these government solutions.  If enough people are brought into the welfare system through bailouts and handouts then we will become dependent on the assistance and continue to vote for politicians that will offer the biggest handouts.  Instead of a nation of adults we will become a nation of dependents who need the government to provide for and control them.

Comments Welcome

Why does Dan Brown claim it is all true?

I read Dan Brown’s new book, The Lost Symbol.  At the beginning of the book, there is a claim that “All rituals, science, artwork, and monuments in this novel are real.”

Available at Barnes and Noble

Similar claims were made at the beginning of the Da Vinci Code as well.  Because of the claims of truth, this lead to books like Cracking the Da Vinci Code and What Da Vinci Didn’t Know, among other books, documentaries and History Channel specials.   These books and specials have shown that Dan Brown can write a nice book but is a bit sloppy on his homework and claims of accuracy while unwittingly creating a cottage industry of detailing how Dan Brown was wrong.

Dan Brown’s new book also has a couple of problems with truth claims (at least with regard to the science) of the book.  If you wanted to be charitable you can say that the science is real but was not described accurately in the book.

(Spoiler Alert, Discussion of a very intense part of the book ahead).

One part of the book has Robert Langdon, the hero of the novels believing he is drowning but is actually inside a sensory deprivation chamber full of a breathable liquid.  He is later removed from the chamber and everything is fine.  The science is real, but it has not been approved for testing on humans for several technical reasons such as irreparable and fatal lung damage on animals who have been immersed in these breathable liquids.

The science is a little complicated but to make it simple, the main problem is that your lungs are conditioned to breathing air and not very efficient at moving liquid in and out of your lungs with a sufficient speed to effectively take in oxygen and remove carbon dioxide at a rate necessary to support life for very long.  Because of the build up of carbon dioxide in your body you would breathe faster causing  you lungs/diaphragm to over work and be damaged.  One hypothesis is that the mice dying after the experiments were also in polluted liquids and with a more purified sample it would work better.  Regardless of the problems with the technology there are no real world examples of this breathable liquid immersion technology working without also killing the organism experimented on.  Dan Brown’s claim that the science is real is misleading and his further claims that the CIA uses sensory deprivation chambers with this breathable liquid as an interrogation technique is preposterous.

Another science description failure has to do with the CIA helicopter toward the end of the book.  In Chapter 120 the helicopter was close to a large glass skylight and bumped it, shattering the glass.  Many skylights are shatterproof for one thing and the other problem with this event is the reason given for the helicopter bumping the glass.  It was not a pilot error, but “the incline of the pyramid beneath the helicopter was efficiently shedding the thrust sideways, robbing him of lift.”  The lift of a helicopter is provided by the blades spinning, not from pushing off from a flat and level surface.

Mr. Brown, thanks for writing a fun and exciting story but please quit trying to claim that your descriptions of things are true.

Comments Welcome

Activist Court?

OK.  There apparently seems to be a difficulty with the definition of terms.  The “activist” in Activist Court has generally been used to describe when the court more or less makes things up not found in the constitution.  Like a fundamental right to an abortion or gay sex.  Conservative on the other hand has been used to mean a court that upholds the traditional past, conserving institutions, or perhaps even rarely deciding to follow the written words of the constitution.

Now a certain writer is accusing the court of activism by possibly disregarding certain supreme court precedents and even congressional intent in lawmaking.  Mark Willen, writing for Kiplinger’s blog levels accusations that Chief Justice Roberts would be a raging activist on par with Earl Warren if he strikes down that monstrosity, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill.

If the Roberts Court strikes down the legislation it is just giving a plain meaning reading to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  That is not activist, it is refreshing and exactly what the Supreme Court should have been doing for the last 80 years instead of giving a tortuous reading of the constitution to enable the Federal Government to be an all powerful entity.

Congress has enumerated powers, regulating speech is not in the enumerated powers and it is also prohibited by the First Amendment.  I hope the Court gets it right this time.

Comments Welcome

The War on Terror

The eighth anniversay of 9/11  just passed a little while ago.  The United States declared a War on Terror because of the events of 9/11.  This is a timely issue because so many of us know people who have been in the armed forces and been deployed overseas in the War on Terror.  Utah has a very high degree of military participation so this war touches all of us and has no real indications of ending any time soon.

Many people called the 9/11 attacks a new Pearl Harbor and in many ways it was.  The American people were united and returned to their religious roots in the days and weeks following 9/11.  There were record breaking numbers of people donating blood and performing community service.  We have since gone to war in two countries and are still in armed conflict in both countries.  We are scheduled to be withdrawing from Iraq but with no real timeline or schedule of goals in Afghanistan.  Support for the war in Afghanistan is eroding.  Ground Zero has yet to be rebuilt and Osama Bin Laden is still unaccounted for.

To compare: after Pearl Harbor we had fought Italy, Germany, and Japan to unconditional surrender in less four years.  Why is it so hard to win a war today?

Part of the problem is that we did not declare war against a nation, but a course of conduct.  The War on Terror will never be won because there are terrorists the world over that will continue to grow and act out.  The War on Drugs is more than 25 years old and there is no sign of that war ending either.

The prevailing doctrine during the Bush years was to go after terrorists wherever we find them and then to go after the countries that harbor and give sanctuary to known terrorist groups.  As a theory this makes sense, similar to going after drug lords and suppliers in other countries when we have the permission of the leaders of those countries.  The United States has not yet declared war on a nation for failing to aid us in the drug war unless you count the invasion of Panama to depose Manuel Noriega which pretty well gave a warning to the rest of the South American nations to cooperate with us or else.

Most wars end with a surrender and a treaty.  Who can surrender on behalf of terror?  Who can surrender on behalf of drugs?  Without an answer to these questions the war should not continue in the way it has.  There must be a change.

The United States needs to get serious about domestic security and not by spending more money on the Department of Homeland Security.  We need to secure our borders with Mexico and Canada without harrassing law abiding citizens any more than absolutely necessary.  We need to start looking for terrorists and allow for profiling.  If a terrorist attack happens to slip through we should find the responsible parties and then take care of them rather than invading an entire nation.

The War on Terror has not worked out too well so far.  We need to get rid of politically correct sensitivities and take a more realistic approach to the problem.

Comments Welcome

Would This Help You Save?

The President thinks we should be saving more.  The savings rate in this country is down but I suspect it is mostly due to people who are unemployed or underemployed needing to spend their savings to pay the bills.  Whatever the reason is, saving is a good thing to do.  To help us all save more money President Obama has suggested allowing people to take their tax returns in the form of a U.S. Government Savings bond.

U.S. Savings bonds as a savings vehicle make no sense at all right now.  This suggestion is made at a time when the U.S. Senate needs to vote on increasing the debt ceiling for the U.S. Government from $12 Trillion to $13 Trillion or face default on a national scale.  Social Security is bankrupt, Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt, the U.S. Postal Service is operating at a loss, and Congress has approved enough spending to create a $1.6 Trillion deficit this year.  None of these things are good for our confidence in the ability of the Federal Government to pay the bonds back or the value of the dollars repaid.  Runaway spending and the current fiscal policy of the Federal Reserve will probaly cause massive inflation making each dollar you have in savings right now worth less and less.  If you have a significant nest egg it could be completely dissipated by inflation.  Thanks Congress!

President Obama has done nothing at all this year that would promote savings.  A stable dollar is the first thing that needs to happen in order for people to want to start saving money again.

Here are my suggestions to help create more savings opportunities for the American public by promoting economic growth.  1- Stop the runaway spending.  2-cut taxes across the board and watch the tax revenues increase because of the increased economic activity.  JFK cut taxes to promote economic growth and so did Ronald Reagan.  It also worked in Japan when it was tried a few years ago.  This spurring of economic growth will create new jobs which will lead to more savings opportunities.  3- Remove corporate protections.

Removing corporate protections would help restore public confidence in these all too often faceless entities ruled by profit motives.  Social pressure can be brought to bear easier on an individual owning a company as opposed to thousands of shareholders.  A known owner or owners can be influenced to buy local instead of imports and into following better hiring practices much easier than some monolithic corporation.  The stock market really is just high level gambling and trading on the perceived value of a company with little regard to the actual value of the company.  Shareholders are not adding value to the company merely as shareholders and the company gains no value either.

The profit motive needs to be balanced with other considerations like being a good neighbor and seeking to build up the community instead of just chasing another dollar.  A tidal shift of this nature would improve all of our lives.  There is nothing wrong with making a lot of money, the problem is when the desire for money crowds out more worthy motives and hurts the community.

Which plan is more likely to help you save, the President’s or mine?

Comments Welcome

Government Solutions Make Social Problems Worse

Private Solutions at the Family Level are Much Better.

Voices for Utah Children supports increased state spending for children five years of age and younger.  In a news report in the September 7, 2009 print edition of the Deseret News we are informed that Utah is lacking in “nonschool spending” for kids according to a study done by Voices for Utah Children.

The impetus for the story about Utah not spending enough money was a report created by Voices for Utah Children.  The report is mostly a lot of statistical analysis about how Utah could be spending more money on children five and under because sociological studies say that early prevention programs will help to prevent later juvenile delinquincy and aid in educational performance.  The argument is that if we just spent more money on young children it would then preclude the need for the additional money spent ameliorating the societal breakdown not prevented by spending money in the first place.  Or as it is said in the Sept. 7th news article: “‘The fiscally conservative approach adhered to by Utah lawmakers and public agency administrators would dictate greater investment in the development of young children,’ [Janis] Dubno said”.  Hogwash.

Parents inculcate the values and behaviors that will turn societal trends in the direction they should be.  Strong, value-oriented, involved, and loving families are what we need to fix our social and economic problems.  Families will lead the way to fixing these problems, not government.  Every social ill that Voices for Utah Children would like to see fixed through government spending can be fixed through stronger families.

In the early 1960’s President Johnson was pushing for a new welfare program called the Great Society.  Many of these programs have never been abolished or rolled back.  Part of the impetus for the need to act now to save the future was the horrible, mind boggling, skyrocketing, completely unacceptable out of wedlock birth rate for black Americans of NINETEEN PERCENT.  The horror!  Luckily for us we passed the Great Society programs and we solved THAT problem.

Ha-Ha!  Just kidding.  After forty-plus years of government programs or approximately two generations of people who could have had the benefit of these government programs, the out of wedlock birth rate for black Americans is now almost SEVENTY PERCENT.  Among the entire population the rate of out of wedlock birth is 38.5 percent as of 2006. Government programs did not help, it made the targeted problem three times worse.

A better solution is a theory called “The Economics of Goodness” mentioned by Gov. Leavitt in the 1998 State of the State address and again in 2005 while serving as the Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bush.  The theory is that a people who make good choices and voluntarily do the right thing will be better off economically than people who do not.  On a societal level there would be less need for drug treatment programs, prison space, or other diversionary programs designed to fix these problems so the money currently spent on these problems would be instead used for better medicine, education, research, and other economically productive uses.

The goodness will come from strong values oriented families,  not government programs.

Comments Welcome

Teachers Unions Are Not Helping the Children

Teachers unions are simply doing what unions do: protect the interests of the union members.  Teachers Unions then are interested in protecting and promoting the interests of the teachers at the expense of other parties, including the children the teachers are supposed to be educating.  Voters, parents, and political leaders should see the unions for what they are instead of falling for their fake solicitude for children.  Here are several education reforms teachers unions oppose.

Merit pay.  Unions want collective bargaining agreements with set pay schedules and grievance processes providing job security and predictability to the union members.  Merit pay would disrupt and undermine one of the major benefits to union membership.  In the private sector merit pay often inspires greater performance and encourages better efforts.  There are some problems with the metrics of such a system but even so the unions have uniformly undermined and fought againt merit pay reforms.

Charter Schools.  Charter schools do not start out unionized and are set up to have more of a free hand in educating the children with the expectation of additional accountability to their sponsers as pre-defined in their charter.  When a private citizen offered to pay to construct 15 charter schools in Detroit in 2002, the teachers union staged a one day walk out to protest the agreement and the agreement died.

Voucher programs.  In 1992 the California Teacher’s Association opposed a proposed ballot measure for a voucher program saying: “There are some proposals that are so evil that they should never even be presented to the voters”  (Wall Street Journal, September 14, 1992).  Evil?  In 2007 the Utah Educator’s Association mobilized to defeat the Utah Voucher law while engaging in public handwringing about the influence of out of state money supporting vouchers while at the same time securing $3 Million in out of state money from the NEA to defeat the voucher program.  Out of state money is apparently only a problem if it helps the other side.

In 1992 the District of Columbia teachers work day was altered to change a 30 minute preparation time to instruction time.  In response to this change the teachers distributed letters to parents explaining that no college recommendations would be given to students whose parents did not take the union’s side in the dispute.  Requests for a college recommendation had to be accompanied with three letters to elected leaders, taking the union’s side, with self addressed stamped envelopes.

Perhaps the worst teachers union is in New York City, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT).  The termination process for incompetent, criminal, or unfit teachers takes years and often costs more than $1 Million per termination to implement.  The teachers are paid while waiting for an arbitrator to rule on the merits of the allegations whether it is an addiction problem, sexual misconduct, or plain incompetence.  Approximately 700 UFT teachers are being paid to do nothing while waiting for their arbitration.  No wonder public education is so expensive in the Big Apple.

Many teachers are doing the best they can for the students and should be commended for their efforts.  The unions are souring the teacher-student relationship and not serving the students or the public interest.  Shame on the unions for pretending otherwise.

Support Your State Fair

“If you ever start feeling like you have the goofiest family in the world, all you have to do is go to a state fair. Five minutes at the fair, you’ll be going, ‘You know what? We’re all right. We’re dang near royalty!’” — Jeff Foxworthy

State Fairs are fun.  They are a great time to build memories and see things out of your normal daily experience.

The annual state fair is as close as some people come to finding out where their food comes from.  Many kids have no idea where milk, meat, cheese, eggs, or other food products come from.

At the state fair you can ride ponies, watch clowns, magic shows, see the biggest horse, bull, pig, and the best preserved foods, as well as photographs, art projects and quilts.  If you want to see life size sculptures made out of butter, the State Fair is the place to be.

You can shop for odd and amazing things at the fair.  One year I bought the best window scraper I have ever owned.  I also found an amazing glasses cleaner one year that dried out before I ran out of it.

State Fairs have great entertainment opportunities.  There are concerts with groups ranging from country, rhythm & blues, rock, and other non-traditional mixtures of musical sounds.  There are comedy nights, demolition derbys, truck and tractor pulls.  You can watch horseback riding competitions, rodeo, and other events that are just plain fun.

The food is amazing.  You can get fresh roasted corn dipped in butter.  If you are a fan of fried foods it is the closest thing to heaven on earth.  Deep fried peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are available.  They are battered, fried, and coated with powdered sugar.

State Fairs are a wonderful slice of Americana.  If you want to see what real people are like in America, go to the state fair.  We see so much bad news about job loss, gang wars, drug dealing, high school dropouts, teen pregnancy, and how the country is already going to hell-in-a-handbasket faster than ever before.  Taking a break to mix with a random assortment of fellow citizens is a very refreshing break.

You will see inventions that have not made it into the broader market yet.  You will see ride operators who travel with their machinery all over the country.  You will see artisans whose craft and art work have been prepared all year for this event.  You will see and meet the people who work agriculture as a living who raise cattle and grow their own hay.

The State Fair is one of the last remaining places where you can meet and mix with people from all walks of life where your politics, job, age, or religion do not matter and you are all there to have a good time.  It is like a state wide block party and opportunity to meet people you only see once a year.

Take the time and go to the State Fair.

Comments Welcome

A Case of Journalistic Ethics

Robert Novak died this month which has led to many articles about him and related stories.  The Wall Street Journal ran an article from one of their former investigative reporters which touches on several issues of Journalistic Ethics that the Wall Street Journal got wrong.

The WSJ decided to investigate JFK’s victory in West Virginia over Hubert Humphrey in 1960.  Robert Novak wrote that bribery and fraud were involved according to WSJ’s investigation and the story was killed at the last minute under pressure from the Kennedys.  The WSJ article disputes Robert Novak’s version of events.

The election in West Virginia was suspect (Protestants voting for a Catholic) so the investigative reporters had some very clear standards to follow before the story could be written and reported.  The reporters would have to gain signed affidavits from their sources.  The investigation over the course of several months led to a finding of bribery and fraud in West Virginia but none of the people involved would sign affidavits.  The story was never written.  According to the article the investigative reporters were optimistic and had no problems believing they could meet that standard so they could write the story.

It makes a sense that a newspaper would not want to run a story without solid sources.  When you make a serious allegation against someone regarding unreported and uninvestigated criminal activity the standard should perhaps be a little higher.  To raise the standard to the point where you will only report if you have signed confessions to criminal activity is on par with agreeing to never run the story.

With no criminal investigation, no pressure to testify against others involved in the scheme, and no immunity offers there was no chance that the story would be run.  It is not reasonable to expect to gain signed confessions from people who by all appearances are going to get away with it.  Unless you already do not want to run the story there is no point to requiring signed confessions before reporting.

It is odd that the WSJ would not run the story when it mattered but is running it now in the form of an opinion piece. The author claims they found bribery and fraud in the West Virginia election and fifty years later the story is told to defend the integrity of the WSJ.  It is okay to tell the story to defend against allegations of bowing to pressure from the Kennedys but not okay to tell the story when it was highly relevant to the public with the pending election of JFK.

We depend on news organizations to inform us and tell the truth.  The duty of a journalist or a newspaper is to balance the public’s need to know with the certainty of fact and the relevance of a given story.  Bill Clinton having an extramarital affair while he is the President is an important story because it reflects on his ability to faithfully execute the office of President.  If Bill Clinton had an extramariatal affair now that he is out of office it would not be an important story and probably should not be reported even if it is true.

News outlets need to tell us the truth more often when it is relevant and timely.

Comments Welcome

A Return to Virtue

Virtue is missing in public and political life these days.  It is embarassing that we have to watch our elected officials so closely.  When they are caught it seems that no one cares.

Adultery with public officials is becoming a dog bites man story these days.  The biggest problem is that the public is becoming jaded and has been led to believe that private life does not affect public life.  This is one of the most pernicious and persistent lies foisted on the public.  Our public officials are given a public trust to faithfully execute their official duties.  If a person can’t be trusted to keep their word to their spouse, someone they presumably love(d) and know/knew well, how can we trust them to keep their word to a bunch of people they don’t know?  The answer is that we can’t.  Our public officials need to be faithful in all aspects of their lives if they want us to trust them.

The problems are in both parties.  Many of President Obama’s appointments for executive branch offices were disappointments for tax reasons.  Tim Geitner had many tax problems including not paying social security or medicare taxes for several years and after a closed door meeting with senators he is the Secretary of the Treasury.  Someone who did not pay his taxes for several years is in charge of the IRS which enforces tax collections.  President Bush had several executive officials resign under problems with conflicts of interest.  The Jack Abramoff bribery scandal has touched both parties and has gone off the headlines because there are so many new scandals and problems to report about.  The scandals in Washington politics go back for decades in an unending parade of shame and dishonor.

Utah has had its share of scandal too.  Greg Curtis was working as legal council to Salt Lake County Mayor Nancy Workman and billed the county gas card for his personal driving around the state and double billed some of his fuel costs to the county and the state.  He lost in the 2008 elections but is now a lobbyist in Utah.  Nancy Workman was hounded out of office on allegations of improper influence and was found not guilty at trial.  Utah would probably have more scandals to report on if we had more robust ethics laws which the state legislature continues to ignore and fight each year.

We need a return to public and private virtue.  Our politicians should be people we look up to and aspire to be like instead of people held up to ridicule and scorn.

One of the best examples of public virtue is George Washington.  At a great personal cost he served as the commander of the army for the United States in the Revolutionary War.  He was not able to take care of his lands and suffered financial losses through his service.  He wanted to stay out of public life and only showed up for the constitutional convention at the insistence of his friends.  George Washington was the servant of the people and did not seek for fame, fortune, or to benefit from his public service.

I wish we had a thousand George Washingtons today.

Comments Welcome