It has been a long while --- The Storm is Over, I am still here

A quick note - I have been away for some time. Life sometimes takes left turns and leaves us in places we don't expect to be. Such is my story. Without getting into any details that would just bore and embarrass some folks, let's just say I am back for anyone who might care. On wobbly feet I take my first steps having weathered the storm and seeing the day. So, moving just off the tone of this Blog from past postings, let me share a fond reflection, for anyone's comment.

The Writings of Ray Bradbury - One man touching many lives

I was a kid who loved watching movies, especially movies with surprise endings, a twist that might knock you off balance and cause you to stumble in your reasoning because, 'you didn't see that one coming.'

I was also the kid who was 13 and hated to read. I mean I read my assignments and I read my home work, and I could read anything they made me read, but I had to be 'made to read'. I had to have a teacher standing over me threatening my recess or after school imagination fun time. Pretend adventures with G.I. Joes and Major Matt Mason and models of plane, tanks and anything else that wandered into the story at the time. My friends and I hadn't heard of Star Wars, but there had been a TV show called Star Trek that had come and gone. We saw men walk on the moon and watched rockets launch and bring men back, but we had not yet seen Space 1999 and Dr. Who was still a rarity seen only now and then on Public Television.

And then that summer it happened. Someone gave me a copy of, "R is for Rocket". I was unaware that I was reading stuff that had been written twenty years earlier. It didn't occur to me that it was somehow 'out of date'. Each story touched my imagination like nothing before ever did. I sped through the stories, one after another, like someone who had been starved might devour the food they had been dreaming about during their starvation. Before I was aware of what I had done, I was on the prowl for something else, and I found, "S is for Space", "I Sing the Body Electric", "The Illustrated Man" and "The Martian Chronicles". 

 

 

Like someone who had nothing to drink for days, I soaked up each one. Sure this was the beginning of a lifelong love of Science Fiction, and it would be the fuel that would propel me through my Aerospace Engineering studies with my dreams of being an astronaut. But more than anything it awoke the part of my imagination that up until then was dormant and sleeping. I was seeing in my mind's eye and feeling with a heart full of empathy the experiences that Ray Bradbury was describing to me new, even though he had written them some years before I was born.

This experience also began my life's love of books. I mean the physical thing that is a book. They way its heft feels in my hand, they way the page turns, the somewhat musty way it smells when it has been in the shelf for a couple of years patiently waiting for me to rediscover its secrets and rewards in the faithful telling of the author's stories.

And then one summer night, late on a Friday when the local television station showed movie re-runs, I encountered the movie that both frightened me and fascinated me. As Science Fiction goes, I remember thinking it showed it's age. The color was grainy and the sound wasn't clear. The 'special effects' seemed really hokey to this now, sophisticated 14 year old. But it was the story that got me. I couldn't take my eyes, my mind, my imagination away from the story.

Holy goodness, they were burning books. They were burning them because society thought that only snobs and the elite used this archaic method of gaining information or entertainment. Who would want to read a book, especially in the face of the current (then future) technology, entertainment offerings and how it all was packaged. The need for books, the content, the experience of reading and reasoning through an author's thoughts and coming to a common understanding was being questioned and in a 'visual' experiment, was being presented as a shocking concept. The irony was that my first encounter with the 'concept' was a movie of an idea from a book. I watched as Montag, for love of the literature itself and the creative thing it was, became "Tales of Mystery and Imagination" by Edgar Alan Poe.

I rushed out that Saturday morning to the book store. I went to a place where they sold used books, paperbacks in particular. I remember rushing into the section for Science Fiction and Fantasy. There were a few of Mr. Bradbury's books there and right in the front was, "Fahrenheit 451". I felt as if I was about to commit a crime, or join that group out in the woods in the movie, who had dedicated their lives to being the banned books, until books could exist again. I ate the book up. And my life was never the same.

My beloved wife endures a front room that is full from wall to wall and wrapping around again with shelves. And the shelves are stuffed full of books. Hardbacks and paperbacks. New and old. Some previously owned and lightly used, some suffering for their age. Some very old and rare now. All loyal friends waiting for the moment I reach out and open them to read what the author would say, and to start a dialog separated in time and space. Even thought the authors cannot hear me, I do hear them and I question what I read and reason with the thoughts written in their books.

There is so much more to the story, but the point of this effort was to pause and say, "thanks" to one of the people who help push a young punk away from the TV and Movie screen and to go wandering in to the stack and shelves and to learn to love to read, and think, and imagine with some of the most fantastic minds with which God has graced the earth. And just for the record, this Christmas I got my beloved wife a copy of her favorite book. It was Fahrenheit 451, newly released by the Folio Society. She loved it, I only wish it bore Mr. Bradbury's autograph… ah well.

Thank you, Mr. Bradbury.

You Have Awakened the Giant

Once Upon a Time
Have you ever heard the saying, “Don’t make a man desperate. Desperate men do desperate things.” I was taught that you have to understand desperate purposes in the study of history. Desperate purposes can be terrible and can drive against the odds. They become their own necessity.

If you are not sure, look up the American Revolution of 1776, Masada in Jewish history, of recent popular note the Spartan vs. Xerxes’ Persian Empire in the Battle of Thermopylae, or the Fremen of Arrakis in the science fiction work Dune. (I paraphrased my statement above from Dune, thanks Mr. Herbert, RIP.)

This article is not about ‘my’ desperation, I have come through the storm that drove me to that place in my life and I made it through. I am not really speaking about individuals who give everything up and do destructive things. In my examples, although each was typified as an outlaw in their day, there is an intended illustration that man’s spirit is wired to overcome oppression. And as the oppression becomes great, the resistance to the oppression becomes an equal and opposite force, until the oppression is overcome.

And so it is, now.

The Way Things Were
I have always thought my civic duty was to educate myself on the ‘issues of the day’ and to vote my conscience. I have a family to raise, work to do, a home to keep and obligations to my church and community. The list for each of these obligations of time could fill several pages. The activities don’t need explanation. I know, everyone is busy with their life, some more introspective, some more public. I educated myself ever improving my craft where I trade my free time for employment. It seemed the right thing to do. And in these efforts the hours of my day were all accounted.

I did not waste a great deal of time with politics. It was not interesting. It was a place where truth and lies, sometimes called misrepresentations or forgotten details, were often intermixed as a means to achieve a desired ends. And after all, we elected politicians to do that work, like one might hire a trash collector. Nasty but necessary work, paid from the public coffers. Those who drive the trucks, with the great mechanical claw pluck up our lidded trash barrels and dump them in the compacting compartment, working an honest day for an honest wage. Not the same work of yesteryear when you had a driver and a crew to pick up trash cans, empty them out in to the truck come rain or shine, but hard, necessary and appreciated work all the same. That is how I used to view the ‘public servant’, our politicians.

I used to think the best politicians could do was not to interfere too much with my life. But that changed as the years went by. Their activities at best cost me more and more in taxes of every type, at worst interfered and changed the way I lived my life.

And then I watched one of the elected officials of the House of Representatives and their entourage, burn through my taxes in April 2007. As I watched the leader of this visit ‘stroll’ through Syria and Saudi Arabia donning her flowered head scarf and a black abaya robe, in an effort to “take a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war,” I was never so disturbed or offended.

Why was this trip in particular having this impact on me and my here-to-fore sleeping sensibilities? Here was a person in line to take the place of the President of the United States should the sitting president and vice-president be incapacitated. Third in line, standing as a woman under Sharia law, in a place where women are stoned to death for certain crimes. And this was building bridges in the Middle East and bringing peace and understanding? Since that time, I have notices how very helpful all that whole show was for peace and stability in the Middle East. Great return for the dollars spent. Nice holiday snap shots and great video memories, if nothing else.

Something in my spirit and being snapped awake that day. The dreamer’s eyes opened and questions of what was appropriate and necessary began to resonate in my mind.

I literally screamed at the television in my home. I was awake and I was asking questions no one was answering. I was asking questions that, as far as I could tell, no one else was asking. When I would find someone to talk about these issues, I noticed no one had an answer.

Some of us would write congressmen and senators to get a kind letter back that did not really addresses the question. Some tried, but the process really required iterative questions and successive answers that the news media really never accomplished. Some of us would write into our newspapers only to be told by responding citizens that we didn’t understand all the issues.

We didn’t understand the issues? So we would ask to have the issues explained to us. We would read and research and question, and the answers were still lacking. We were told that we didn’t understand because the issues were so complex. We were told, “You can’t just look at illegal immigration, you have to consider the larger picture. You really can’t just look at the economy in simple terms, you have to consider the global interplay of all these intricacies. You must not reduce the argument to such black and white terms in the Middle East, you have to consider the reason for the hatred within a compassionate perspective.”

And in each instance I and others would ask to hear a clear explanation. We would ask for someone to explain the intricacies and the related reasons. And we would get nothing that made common sense in any answer offered.

So we read more and reasoned amongst ourselves. And we found out that in the end, those we elected to represent us thought we were stupid and foolish. They wanted our unquestioning support and they wanted our money. They did not like us telling them that we understood and trusted Ronald Reagan because he spoke to us in terms that made sense, in ideas that were clear and that trusted that we can think and reason. And the more we discussed the issues the less our representatives seemed to care and the more they wailed for our dollars of support or all was lost.

All was lost when they quit listening. All was lost when they forgot they worked for us. They forgot they were servants of the people, not an entitled class who had a claim to the job they wanted to do and the money they were receiving. They were not entitles to the seats in the House and the Senate, they were not family heirs to purple robes.

The sleeper had awakened.

The Way of Things to Come
So I watched and listened. I wrote out my opinions and I discussed all that I had learned. I wrote it all out to make my reasoning sharper and my facts more clear. I cut out the fat of party lines, and I found the foundation of my thoughts rooted in my faith, my ethos, my life, my family and my understanding of my country and its laws.

I watched and argued through a presidential race that I really cared about, even though I did not care about the particular candidate. I was voting against something, arguing against a direction and a set of promises that I heard being made that were really promises to un-make our nation if you believed that the Constitution really was the bedrock of our Republic.

I watched as a war hero, a man who had endured enemy torture and served his country honorably, but who argued for amnesty for those who violated our boarder’s and immigration laws, stood against another man who wanted to share the wealth. I had railed against and written to the war hero ‘now candidate’ for his stance on many issues, but I did not want someone who backed a fundamental change of the United States to be the supreme executive.

When Senator McCain lost, I was very anxious for the fate of our country. Time has borne out that fear. But my view of Senator McCain was that he was ready for retirement. His views were not consistent with my views. As my senator, he was not really connected with my position on the issues. Again and again I had written and was told I really didn’t understand the issues I wrote about.

Again and again I found myself on the opposite side of key issues. Not the fundamentals. I expect a conservative to have conservative foundations. Not all agree, but I believe that our rights are given to us by God, that we might worship Him in freedom. God gives life. He gives us His Creation and gave us this country as a gift to all mankind, so that man might know what it is to have a country with a government and not a government with a country. (Thank you President Reagan.)

I learned that the way to change the Republic is to change those who represent you in the Congress. I also learned that it is insanity to do the same thing again and again and expect different results. A man who had been a relatively conservative representative presented himself to serve as a senator in place of Senator McCain. J.D. Hayworth seemed a good possibility. Tentatively, I started reading what I could of him, especially as the facts began to be presented by Senator McCain’s reelection campaign.

I do not trust politicians. If I said that before, let me reiterate it here. If I have not said it, let me state it really clearly here. I determined that if things are going to change, I had to put some of my effort into seeing the change happen. I have never worked for a candidate. I have never been politically active, but all that had gone before had awakened in me a sense of responsibility. I don’t know if J.D. Hayworth is the very best man to ever attempt to ascend the steps of the Congress and sit in the Senate. But until I find out he is not what he appears to be, I have taken up arms, as it were, to support him.

I have volunteered to work in his campaign. In this case, I really don’t have any idea what I am doing. I am keeping my ears open and my sensibilities sharp. I am not drinking any Kool-aid here. But I am trying to change what is happening in my country by changing what is happening in my state, and by burning even more of the time I don’t have in this contribution to the country.

It’s not really pledging my honor, but I will honorably serve or I will separate myself from something if I find it to be dishonorable. I am not really pledging my fortune, but I am giving up my ‘free time’ (does anyone who works for a living actually have ‘free time’) and a donation or two to put my money where my mouth is. I am giving up some of my life, and I am fulfilling a pledge to myself, my neighbors and my family to work to keep this country as the heritage and the inheritance to my children that it was for me.

“Noman Lives!” Was the Cry
So like a lumbering giant, groping my way in the dark, blinded because I have lost the sight I thought I had in one eye, I am a servant to the one who looks to be a servant of the people. I feel as clumsy and silly as a Cyclopes, and about as effective.

I am in the “inside” and I have a new perspective. I am not a political hack. I have no experience in what I am doing. I am anxious and I am beginning a process to change the way our state, our nation, may go. I am just a little drop of water, but from such drops come floods, I am told.

As Odysseus found out, it is not a good thing to wake a sleeping giant. And we the people have been too trusting, sleeping in our complacence that those we have hired to do the work of government, would do so as public servants. We the people are stirred. We who have never protested anything before, find ourselves at ‘Tea Parties’ and Town Hall meetings asking tough questions. And we are not satisfied with the ‘pat’ answer.

Like a spy I will tell everything I see to the extent it is different than what is advertised. Like a freshman, I will work to be useful, but I will not mortgage ‘my life, my fortune or my sacred honor’, but I will do all things honorably to the best of my ability. And from this strange place of being involved in the political process, I will let you know how it goes. Stay tuned.

You People Waste My Money #5 12/15/09

“Ruling” with the Staff of Science In My Hand
I have had some comments that these articles are rather long. I have to apologize for this one in particular. But this discussion warrants a construction of arguments and examples. Get ready because this one is no less lengthy. By that same token this discussion is even more important, so hang in there as best you can.

Governing by Right of Birth, or Some Other Justification
There was a time when those who ruled did so by a claim that they were born to rule, justified by the size of the army they could raise. Dynasties were only as secure as the last war they won, even if the war was fought against your own people. After all, “Order must be preserved.”

At one point in the Bible, the people clamored and begged God to make a king to rule over them. You can check that out in First Samuel 8, and keep reading until Israel get’s their first King, Saul. As the story in First Samuel develops you will find David, anointed as a boy to be the king of Israel (I Samuel 16:13) even before he had made quick work of Goliath, and even while Saul, the first king, was still alive. It is from this development when David refuses to raise a hand against Saul, who seeks to kill David, that another ‘Right to Rule’ developed and crept into our society. David, when asked if he will kill Saul while he sleeps (I Samuel 23:6) says, “The LORD forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the LORD'S anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD.”

Since then, Christian kings have flocked to the doors of the Church looking for the anointment given to Saul and David, to be declared the, “Lord’s Anointed,” so that to raise a hand against the King or Ruler was to raise a hand against God. Understanding that God has created three authorities in the earth, the Family, the Church and the Government of Man, God never attached a sort of, “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” to any government specifically. God has attached a standard to men, however. And of course, governments are comprised of men, so you do the reasoning and figure out the relationship for yourself.

In any case, in each of these examples, by one means or another, men have used some justification to rule over others, control other people’s lives and other people’s property.

And then some people came to a new land to escape religious repression and to have some say about how they would live their lives. Over the course of time, those whose ancestors had lived and died for the opportunity to make that land their home began to think that there was something natural about people governing themselves.

These people reasoned that if they were paying taxes they should be represented in the government that then takes their money and spends it, often times against their own interests. In 1776 the tax money was used to fund troops to keep the tax payer in line. Kind of like being forced into prison and then forcing the family to pay for your keep. I read somewhere in a book that this was the way things used to work. At any rate, these reasoning people got together and wrote out their ideas on how the relationship between the governed and the government should work, especially when the people are educated, involved and reasoning.

This insurrection of independent thought caused the King to declare war and the people to declare their independence, although the cause and effect may be out of order as I describe it here. Those people fought, bled and died for the right to establish a government of the people, by the people and for the people. A government that derived it’s power from the people who consent to be governed. A representative republic based on laws of equity, so that a majority could not disenfranchise a minority. The idea was that God had given man some rights that no government could take away, and that no government had the right to grant.

And since that time, there has been an ongoing struggle with those who think these unalienable, undeniable rights should be limited, monitored and managed, and those who think that government should keep their hands off of the unalienable, undeniable rights.

But what if I can suggest a really good justification to limit, monitor and mange your rights? What would you say then? I would say, “NO” no matter what your argument is. But for the sake of this discussion let’s look at some justifications that are popular in the public square right now.

C.S. Lewis’ Discussion of Progress
Justification of limiting, monitoring and managing a people’s rights was a major topic of discussion in a set of articles in 1958 in the ‘Observer’ that discussed man’s ability to ‘progress’.

C.S. Lewis wrote an article in this discussion. (The article is reproduced in the book, “God in the Dock – Essays on Theology and Ethics” and it is well worth the time to read the article. Of course it is well worth the time to read most anything Mr. Lewis wrote.) Mr. Lewis contemplates the impact of science’s advance on both mankind and Government.

Through the course of his examination and discussion, Mr. Lewis comes to the following observation, quoting: “…I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretensions which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They ‘cash in’. It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science. Perhaps the real scientists may not think much of the tyrants’ science – they didn’t think much of Hitler’s racial theories or Stalin’s biology. But they (that object) can be muzzled.”

He concludes that from this reasoning, “We must give full weight to the claim that nothing but science, and science globally applied, and therefore unprecedented Government controls, can produce… (the solutions that are needed to address) the extreme peril of humanity at present.” Finally he writes that we will see one day that, “We have on the one hand desperate need; hunger, sickness, the dread of war,” or any current crisis, “We have on the other, the conception of something that might meet it; omni-competent global technocracy. Are not these the ideal opportunity for enslavement?”

Mr. Lewis looked to a day when men would take charge of the destiny of others, and do so with the might of science behind them, offering them solutions that require the limiting, monitoring and managing of people’s rights in exchange for these crisis solutions.

Interestingly, Mr. Lewis uses the phrase ‘Government and subjects,” as opposed to those who govern and those who are governed. Was there a message in this choice of words as well? So let’s turn the page of time to look at the how things have developed.

The Weather and the Climate Part I – Once upon a Cooling
Give me a few paragraphs by way of an introduction for this segment. I was a young person who was on his way to an Engineering Degree in a prestigious east cost engineering and science school. I was a founding member of the Planetary Society, where the intellect of science greats, such as Carl Sagan, were board members. I looked to Carl Sagan as a model of how a scientist and scholar could bring complex information and technological data to the public in a means that could be understood and reasoned. Dr. Sagan was a Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences at Cornell, and he was part of the development team for Viking and Voyager expeditions. I respected his credentials and his accomplishments.

In his popular books and his series, “Cosmos” he presented technical scientific information in a manner that any thinking person could begin to contemplate. He did not shy away from difficult concepts and did not avoid the ‘messy process’ of scientific understanding.

In a book he released in 1974 called, “Broca’s Brain,” Dr. Sagan discussed a concept called the Scientific Method. Dr. Sagan wrote that the Scientific Method’s most striking property was its self-questioning and self-correcting aspect in reasoning and consideration. He wrote, “Vigorous criticism of new ideas is a commonplace in science… It does not matter what reason the proponent has for advancing his idea or what prompts his opponent to criticize them: all that matters is whether the ideas are right or wrong, promising or retrogressive.” In the scientific community, Dr. Sagan described, any objection of substance is allowed in the debate, as long as ad hominem attacks on the personality or motives of the authors are excluded.

Dr. Sagan explained in an examination of ‘questionable science’ the following approach to discussing these ideas:

“But the success of science, both its intellectual excitement and it practical application, DEPENDS (emphasis added) upon the self-correcting character of science. There must be a way of testing any valid idea (emphasis added). It must be possible to reproduce any valid experiment (emphasis added). The character or beliefs of the scientist are irrelevant; all that matters is whether the evidence supports his contention. Arguments from authority simply do not count; too many authorities have been mistaken too often. (emphasis added) I would like to see these very effective scientific modes of thought communicated by the schools and the media; and it would certainly be an astonishment and delight to see them introduced into politics. Scientists have been known to change their minds completely and publicly when presented with new evidence or new arguments. I cannot recall the last time a politician displayed a similar openness and willingness to change.[1]”

I wonder if Dr. Sagan would recognize the scientific community today?

Dr. Sagan joined with several other prominent scientists to put forward the concept of “Nuclear Winter,” in his TAPPS report. The summation of the finding was that if 100 megatons of nuclear weapons were detonated, “in low yield airbursts over cities,” with the resulting fires and the associated smoke, “an epoch of cold and dark almost as severe as in the 5000 megaton case (would result). The threshold for what Richard Turco has called The Nuclear Winter is very low.”

And so started a discussion in the press and science publications concerning, first Nuclear Winter, and then Global Cooling. On the issue of Nuclear Winter, there was back and forth on the estimates of the impact of man on the environment. There were discussions in the Planetary Report, the magazine sent as part of your membership to the Planetary Society, as to the models used and data analyzed. I can’t locate my old copies I had since my charter membership (yep, I kept them), but I remember the debate between Dr. Sagan and one of the founding Advisory Council members concerning Global Cooling and the merits of the science. I remember discussions about the effects of saturation bombing in Dresden and the lack of microclimate changes noted in the aftermath. I remember several other issues and no satisfactory rebuttal to the concerns of over stating the facts and the rate with which the ecosystem (meteorological, biological and physical) recovered and the lack of empirical evidence to support the idea that these man-made events would with any permanence impact the climate. The balance of the Earth’s systems (thermodynamic, meteorological and physical) were exceptionally elastic and self-correcting.

The debate was rich and it seemed genuine. No one’s status as an ‘expert’ made one claim more valid that any other, only the data, the analysis and facts established the arguments.

I remember the weather models that were based on fluid mechanics simplified so that water did not changed state from water to water vapor, because the transfer of heat could not be included in the calculations. I remember boundary value statements that threw out turbulence impacts and weather singularities like tornadoes and micro bursts that caused the models to fail.

In all my review of the material of that time (1974 to 1985) that I had collected, read and studied in my degree pursuit and otherwise, there was never a scientific study that finally fixed the idea that the world was cooling and the cause was man’s industrial and biological activities. Every computer model, run for hours on some of the biggest crunchers available then, always failed to model a pattern or scenario that resembled the dangers described in the initial debate. The empirical evidence didn’t fit, unless huge conditions were placed in the analysis that did not model reality. Things that made sense when modeling jet engines made no sense in atmospheric models and the science did not conform.

Scientific conjecture became apocalyptic warnings. “But can you risk it, if this is proven as correct?” where the concluding remarks in studies that did not prove the hypothesis of Man-made Global Cooling. Computer models that proved the hypothesis did not come close to modeling the real world, with so much idealizations and data set grooming. Although the process was repeatable, the mathematics and computations were never accepted as any type of proof.

In the end, the issues settled into a quiet discussion that stopped deserving the degree of consideration and attention that they had demanded. Based on real science, the global reasoning always lacked the meteorological ‘missing link’. And as such most of America forgot this issue and scientists and researchers were honest enough to agree when the facts did not line up and the results did not support the anticipated conclusions.

But through all of this, the science never found its way in to the political discussion. It never reach a place where the desire to find a positive conclusion prompted scientist to mortgage their integrity and to be more concerned about the message than the truth.

The Weather and the Climate Part II – And Now for Some Heat
Over the course of the next ten years, all through the 90’s, the scientific research continued. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo Volcano in the Philippines in 1991 demonstrated that even in the aftermath of such a cataclysmic event which caused a recorded drop in global temperatures of one degree Celsius, the effects balanced out within a year.

Theories concerning sun spots had been proposed as driving climate swings that might propel a cycle that appeared to be more than 100 years in its period.

But something happened to the debate. Over the course of time findings were being made and data was being presented as conclusive in the argument of man’s impact on the climate. When questions were asked the dissent was not directly addressed. When data was scrutinized and questioned no clarifications came. Conclusions that would have been debated were more and more being presented as accepted fact. The tone of the journals changed, debate became a chorus of like minded fellows congratulating themselves on being intelligent. When opposing criticism was submitted, the validity of the reasoning or challenge to the analysis was not addressed and discussed, but the virtue of the person raising the issue became the focus of the ‘debate’. And over time it seemed the nature of funding for research that was supposed to explore the validity of conclusions became money paid for findings that supported the popular chorus of opinion, not research and analysis that anyone wanted to be repeated and validated by peers.

Then, somewhere in the mix, the popular media got involved. The news reporters pulled the issues and analysis from the scientific journals and began reporting on opinions as conclusions. The Chorus grew louder. Now politicians were taking up the tune. The UN got in to the act. Global ‘Man-made’ Climate Change became something someone referred to like one might refer to the ‘Theory of Evolution’ not understanding why the issue of the ‘missing link’ is still so vital to the proof of the hypothesis. And the funding grew, because now it had the full backing of a political issue.

You can be shouted down if you don’t believe. You can be marked as a backwards, uneducated hick if you dare question the parts of the ‘findings’ that should not be presented as ‘FACTS’ but rather as a Theories.

There is an old saying in statistics that correlation does not demonstrate causality. Just because you see more falling stars on the day you eat more eggs, doesn’t mean that the number of eggs you consume in any given day will have anything to do with a meteor shower later that night. (Re-read that last sentence, it makes sense, really.)

Some how trained and credentialed members of the different scientific disciplines abandoned the scientific method as a way to validate ideas. Instead the ‘scientific community’ began making a consensus as though a political compromise of facts will some how create and substantiate the laws of physics, complex systems, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, meteorology and a host of other disciplines that are part of the puzzle.

And so the cacophony rose to a crescendo as a former Vice-President received a share in a Nobel Peace prize and ‘environment journalists’ made fake movies about drowning Polar Bear cubs. And from somewhere in Washington DC, maybe the UN Building, a giant booming voice declared, “All the science has been worked out, there need be no more dissent, but let the Consensus that replaces truth be proclaimed, taught, learned and digested as a core fact of the universe.”

Of course, the only casualty was the facts and all the millions and trillions of dollars wasted in trying to impact something we have shown no ability to change no matter how many dollars we burn. Oh, wait that would add to global warming, right?

The Point and the Waste
When you actually believe something, that belief impacts your life and the way you live it, unless you are just a psychopath. When you stand up and say, “This is so important we want you all to do things that will impact billions of lives, so that the world’s fever can be quenched!” And instead of living an example of how life should be lived to put the fire out, you do everything to add to the fire. Consequently your sincerity in your fundamental belief has to be called in to question.

Some people deny God by saying, “There is no God.” Others deny God by saying, “I am a child of God, I believe!” and then do everything to create a negative testimony by how they conduct their life. The word so eloquently applied by those who love to catch a Christian in a non-Christian circumstance is ‘hypocrite’. Those who believe in God will fall into sin, it’s the great struggle between man and what he is called to become. But a hypocrite is something else. A hypocrite might be described as a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they don’t really hold in order to conceal their real feelings, beliefs or motives. “Do as I say, not as I do,” can often be sited as evidence of such a divided heart.

If I believe it, I have to live it. More so if I call for sacrifice. And the whole ‘man-made, global climate change’ issue is a call for all of us to sacrifice. I could write another 7 pages just on the sacrifices we are all supposed to embrace, sacrifices to stop ‘global climate change caused by man’ and his activities. But the activities of the global climate change advocates are contrary to the sacrifices they are calling us to make. Leave the details of that argument for another day. Rather, look at how the world governments and the United Nations are attempting to address the issue. Through the transfer of money.

And now we stand on the precipice of Waste in the grand finale of ‘man-made global climate change’. If the singular issue was saving the planet, then the advocates would start with their own backyard. The advocates would be leading the way in going ‘green’ and reducing their carbon footprint. But observation would testify against them. They look to trade indulgences in their ‘man-made global climate change’ sins by exchanging money in carbon credits for the carbon ‘climate pollution’ they make. As if breathing and living were pollution.

Carbon Credits, whose hellish idea was that? If I sin in the religion of climate change my penance and ‘mia copa’ is to go to the temple of the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange or the CarbonFund (http://www.chicagoclimatex.com and http://www.carbonfund.org – just in case you think I made that up) purchase an indulgence where your sins are washed away by the clinking sound of coin and rustling of dollars to expunge the footprints made by your carbon path. And how do those moneys translate into reversing the bad you have done? Well according to one Carbon Credit Website, your ‘tax deductable donation’ goes to “high quality, third-party validated renewable energy, energy efficiency and reforestation projects.” Check them out and make your own judgments for the individual.

But in the global arena, the UN expects huge carbon producing countries like the US to give huge numbers of dollars to all the other nations. What would those dollars do exactly? What have any of the dollars given to the UN ever done before? Should I go through the list of abuses, or should I get a list of actual, documented, verified programs that have achieved their humanitarian purpose, and then analyze how much of each dollar goes to administration, positions filled by uncles and sons of some ambassador or such. If this sounds jaded and one sided, maybe I have seen too many UN programs that have been polluted and defiled by this group before.

Better solutions for developing nations abound that have nothing to do with ‘climate change’ that would have an immediate effect on those nations if the actual dollars given ever reached the people for which they were intended. But that is another story for another time, as well.

In the mean time, here at home, our Federal Government with its one hand firmly grasping the authority to declare opinion is fact in this ‘man-made-global-climate-change’ issue, and with its other hand reaching deep into our pockets, makes the claim that it must legislate a cooler climate for the United States and it’s people. I am pretty certain that was somewhere after “promote the general welfare” in the Preamble of the Constitution.

From inconclusive science combined with opinions of people who should be defenders and practitioners of the scientific method, coupled with political figures with agendas and a media that won’t think past the hype, we have a mania that looks and feels like a run away train. Don’t question the findings, don’t argue about our authority, don’t wonder about how the money will solve the problem, just do as we say! WE HAVE SCIENCE ON OUR SIDE! And we have the full faith and power of the Federal Government, who has solved all problems they have targeted to solve. Like the War on Poverty or Veterans’ Health Care or improving Education (at any level) or any of 1000 failed programs. (Ok Veterans’ Health Care has not fully failed and there are a few veterans who actually get treatment and live…)

Millions and millions of dollars in Cap-and-Spend, oops, Cap-and-Trade are being bet against our economy on a gamble that is called ‘man-made-global-climate-change’. Do you remember what C.S. Lewis wrote, mentioned earlier in this article? “We have on the one hand desperate need; hunger, sickness, the dread of war,” or any current crisis like ‘man-made-global-climate-change’, “We have on the other, the conception of something that might meet it; omni-competent global technocracy. Are not these the ideal opportunity for enslavement?”

Your money will be confiscated by law under the authority of what is best for us and the world. The current budget from the White House for 2010 includes the revenues in its projection from the yet-to-be-passed Cap-and-Trade. And as if this country’s citizens life blood in the form of the dollars raised from our labor were not enough, we have a ton of special interests that have been persuaded by research dollars or the way the Federal Government is going to spend our tax dollars.

Look at the publicly traded companies lined up and ready to waste more dollars. Which companies have spent millions on convincing our Federal Government to make laws concerning which light bulbs you can buy under the proclamation they reduce ‘man-made-global-climate-change’! Just ignore where those bulbs are made and what impact the manufacture has on ‘man-made-global-climate-change’ by the carbon foot print it leaves in China. Or the cost difference in the two products. Or the environmental impact if one of the new CFL’s break! Got your hazardous materials crews on stand-by? What about the Government owned Auto makers or the Ethanol farmers, how much money from our economy and additional cost do those efforts represent?

In the end I have lost trust in the Scientific Community and our Federal Government. The first question that comes to mind any more is, “What are you selling, how much will it cost me, and what truth aren’t you telling me?” The public trust has been damaged. We have lost public servants and only have career politicians and folks with masters and PhDs in science grubbing for the Federal handout to fund their pet project. Who cares if the science is right or wrong, just get the next funding nut.

Our government is not supposed to be trying to control us. The purpose of our government is to govern us with laws and through a representative democracy. That is what is says in the Constitution. This government was not empowered to lie to its people, to coerce them into giving up more of their freedom in exchange for some money and some goodies so that they might be enslaved through the magic of applied science. The government’s job is to serve the electorate, WE the People. The idea was to be a servant to the people, not a leech using politically derived conclusions and calling them ‘science’ so no one will argue.

“I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretensions which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They ‘cash in’.” Mr. Lewis warned us all. This country was not founded on the idea that there is a right of rulers to rule and do what is best for us even if we don’t like it.

WE the People have an obligation. We must keep ourselves engaged and educated. Even when it has been a hard day’s work, we have to be vigilant and aware, questing and striving to understand or we will get fooled again… and again.

What is that I hear? Are those the sounds of chains being dropped or picked up? Are we going to allow this waste to happen to our destruction and allow them to teach what is unproven as truth to our children? Are we just going to leave it to the really smart people or rather to people who say they are smart, smarter than you and me…Can you buy carbon credits for killing polar bears?

If this kind of waste and these kinds of lies go unchallenged, there is no end to what can be done to us in the name of, “our own good”. I was wondering if there were openings in the Thought Police, but then I changed my mind. I think when I grow up, I will just join the Green Police. So give me your money, turn off your car and candescent lights, stop breathing so hard, and cool off. All your effort is changing the climate, and the weather is on the change. Watch out for the storm.


[1] Sagan, Carl, Broca’s Brain, “Chapter 5 – Night Walkers and Mystery Mongers; Sense and Nonsense at the Edge of Science”, New York, NY, Ballantine Books, 1974.

“Truth” and “Right”

Recently I was talking to a person who did not agree with me on a particular circumstance. As the discussion progressed the person said to me, “Well the behavior I am witnessing here is not very Christian-like. I mean, didn’t Jesus say, ‘Love thy neighbor’? The behavior I am seeing in this situation doesn’t sound like love at all.” The person in question professed some understanding of the Christian faith.

Now before I progress much further in need to say I am a Christian. Without going through the catechism of understanding and faith, I believe in all that Jesus Christ through the Church teaches. Ok there are grounds right there for tons of discussion. But skip those discussions for now.

Getting back to the conversation, I answered the concern the person raised in the following way:

First, while it is true that Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor” (Old Testament Leviticus 18:19, Jesus Christ 5 times in the Gospels, St. Paul twice in the epistles and St. James in his letter) that was not all that Jesus said. To focus on and set the context properly, look at the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke where the quote comes from. A lawyer questioned Jesus, trying and tempting him, saying, “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” The intention was to snare Jesus in his answer.

And Jesus answered, “You all must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, You all must love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” This is the quote in context.

Before Jesus Christ said, love your neighbor, He said, “Love God,” and in that instruction, He had some parameters. There is an unmistakable order to Jesus Christ’s answer. It was not incidental and was not accidental. It was intentional. And this is not just theological badminton.

Jesus says there is an order to what you do. First, love God, with everything you are. Out of that you can do the rest. With that love of God first and foremost in place you can love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus did not say, first love your neighbor with all sacrifice and adoration due to God, then go and love God. Nope. He started from loving God to loving your neighbor. And the love of your neighbor had parameters as well. Love your neighbor as yourself.

I remember a book that made the rounds when I was in grade school. It was a book called, “I Am Third” and was marketed as the memoir of Gale Sayers, one of the best running backs in the history of the NCAA and pro football. It was also the story of his friendship with Brian Piccolo as I recall being told. The meaning of the title was from what Sayers called his credo, "The Lord is first, my friends and family are second, and I am third."

Well, Gale Sayers’ neighbor would come in third with him. In my case, me and my neighbor are further down.

In my life, God is first, my wife second (per St. Paul’s instruction to love my wife as Christ loves the Chruch), my family third, my Church forth, some specific people are fifth and sixth, and I am seventh. My neighbor might be getting short shrift. But the idea is that I do not hold my neighbor higher than I hold God, or several other relationships I put first in my life.

When I finished my explanation, the person I was having the discussion with seemed to doubt the legitimacy of my argument. They seemed to think that my neighbor had a right to a higher level of consideration. Indeed, I was almost accused of misunderstanding my Christian calling, of cutting my neighbor a raw deal. After all, it was reasoned, didn’t the world understand best what was meant by ‘Love thy Neighbor’? This whole application of the Bible, the Gospels and what Jesus Christ had actually said couldn’t possibly be applied to your neighbor’s expectations of your actions. What if they were not Christian?

The discussion kind of fell apart as the other person was very certain that ‘neighbors’ have exceptional rights, and that God would understand. After all, God would expect a Christian to adhere to those exceptional rights. “You know, kind of like a sacrifice or bearing your cross,” the person with whom I have been speaking, explained to me.

The issue is that the world has already fit Christianity, Jesus Christ and God into the smallness of their own interpretation. This type of thought goes along with, “God doesn’t really care if a baby is aborted, so long as we are living the best life we can.” Or, “You can’t really expect everyone to believe in (fill in the blank), as we have learned so much as human beings since the time of Jesus.” Have you ever heard those arguments?

It is almost as if I am being told, “It really doesn’t matter what the Bible, or the Gospels, or the Church says, we have already decided what it all means.” As I have been told in the past, “If you are going to take all of that stuff literally, you will be a fanatic, not a reasonable person.” Then I ask, by way of a reasoning comparison, what about a Muslim who prays five times a day? “Well,” I am told, “they really believe that. It is cool that they are so committed.” But when the conviction is on the part of a believer in the Christian faith, when the commitment being discussed is attached to a Christian, well then we have an ignorant, backwards, closed minded idiot, not capable of understanding Darwin.

And the comparative facts don’t enter into the argument. In fact, ‘facts’ have very little to do with the whole thing. The media, the press, and the world look on and participate in missing the facts and frustrating understanding. It is like they don’t really care what the truth is. They care about how the story sounds.

It is that same world and media that looks on this situation and seems to be saying, “Hey, we know what’s right and what’s wrong. We know what is proper. Don’t try to reason past us.”

If two kids in public high school decide to pray out loud before they eat in the cafeteria, it is the same ‘world and media’ that will jump to its feet in active protest partially quoting Thomas Jefferson out of context to bring to bare the impenetrable wall separating church and STATE. But if I make an observation concerning “state-run-schools” I am instantly branded and cast as an extremist for using inflammatory language by inferring that the schools are “STATE-run”. The same STATE that keeps the prayer from happening in schools becomes the offensive issue when you point out that the STATE runs the publicly funded schools.

The ‘world and media’ have no shame in this hypocrisy of reasoning. The ‘world and media’ do not strain themselves to use the terms, “right and wrong” when the identical arguments are used to point out that the term ‘STATE’ used in the misquote of Thomas Jefferson and the misunderstanding of the impenetrable wall was the means by which I say our education system is a, “STATE run institution”.

The “world and the media” don’t care that what Jefferson was talking about was the prevention of the Government from infringing on the practice of individuals of faith as opposed to protecting the Government from churches.

But its ok, the world and the media “knows what’s right and what’s wrong!” That attitude calls for judgment. And not the judgment of man. Rather the judgment that passes man. Oh, part of that judgment will be by the people of the world who still reason. They will judge the media. The rest of the judgment will come from He who judges all.

The first judgment is underway. Have you seen subscription rates and failures of certain ‘newspapers’ and network television ‘news’ broadcasts? The judgment is in your ratings and your readership, oh media. The second judgment is yet to come.

Or, wait a minute, maybe we could give the media a great big bail out, like a TARP for newspapers and news organizations on TV that aren’t doing well, because the public has judged.

Just as a closing thought, here’s something I once read:

At the other end of the room, a group was listening to Balph Eubank. He sat upright on the edge of an armchair, in order to counteract the appearance of his face and figure, which had a tendency to spread if relaxed.

"The literature of the past," said Balph Eubank, "was a shallow fraud. It whitewashed life in order to please the money tycoons whom it served. Morality, free will, achievement, happy endings, and man as some sort of heroic being—all that stuff is laughable to us. Our age has given depth to literature for the first time, by exposing the real essence of life,"

A very young girl in a white evening gown asked timidly, "What is the real essence of life, Mr. Eubank?"

"Suffering," said Balph Eubank. "Defeat and suffering."

"But . . . but why? People are happy . . . sometimes . . . aren't they?"

"That is a delusion of those whose emotions are superficial."

The girl blushed. A wealthy woman who had inherited an oil refinery, asked guiltily, "What should we do to raise the people's literary taste, Mr. Eubank?"

"That is a great social problem," said Balph Eubank. He was described as the literary leader of the age, but had never written a book that sold more
than three thousand copies. "Personally, I believe that an Equalization of Opportunity Bill applying to literature would be the solution."

"Oh, do you approve of that Bill for industry? I'm not sure I know what to think of it."

"Certainly, I approve of it. Our culture has sunk into a bog of materialism. Men have lost all spiritual values in their pursuit of material production and technological trickery. They're too comfortable. They will return to a nobler life if we teach them to bear privations. So we ought to place a limit upon their material greed."

"I hadn't thought of it that way," said the woman apologetically.

"But how are you going to work an Equalization of Opportunity Bill for literature, Ralph?" asked Mort Liddy. "That's a new one on me."

"My name is Balph," said Eubank angrily. "And it's a new one on you because it's my own idea."

"Okay, okay, I'm not quarreling, am I? I'm just asking." Mort Liddy smiled. He spent most of his time smiling nervously. He was a composer who wrote old-fashioned scores for motion pictures, and modern symphonies for sparse audiences.

"It would work very simply," said Balph Eubank. "There should be a law limiting the sale of any book to ten thousand copies. This would throw the literary market open to new talent, fresh ideas and non-commercial writing. If people were forbidden to buy a million copies of the same piece of trash, they would be forced to buy better books."

"You've got something there," said Mort Liddy. "But wouldn't it be kinda tough on the writers' bank accounts?"

"So much the better. Only those whose motive is not money-making should be allowed to write."

"But, Mr. Eubank," asked the young girl in the white dress, "what if more than ten thousand people want to buy a certain book?"

"Ten thousand readers is enough for any book."

"That's not what I mean. I mean, what if they want it?"

"That is irrelevant."

"But if a book has a good story which—"

"Plot is a primitive vulgarity in literature," said Balph Eubank contemptuously.
Dr. Pritchett, on his way across the room to the bar, stopped to say, "Quite so. Just as logic is a primitive vulgarity in philosophy."

"Just as melody is a primitive vulgarity in music," said Mort Liddy.”[1]

This bit of fun was written by Ayn Rand, in a “tongue and cheek” send up of where things might progress from her perspective in 1957. Seemed funny then, not so funny now. Could have been written for the Media today I guess. Ah, forget judgment. Hand me your wallet.

_____________________________________________________________
[1] Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged, “The Non-Commercial”, New York, NY, Signet, September 1996.

You People Waste My Money - #1 7-1-09

You people waste my money!!! –




Everyone has experienced this, unless you have never used a drive through, take out or fast food.

You go to some place to get some food because it’s close or convenient. You know, it’s on the way. It may be that you have come to this place because you actually like the food so much, that you went out of the way to get there. So you wait in line, you plan what you are going to get, you finally get to the front and you place your order. You willingly pay the price and wait for your food. At last, you are given the bag with your order. But of course you are in a hurry and you have to leave and get back to do something, and you really don’t get to check out your order until you get to your destination and you finally get to open the bag.

And when you do, it’s all wrong. It has happened to everyone. I have even been with someone who got an order so wrong, that had they eaten it as prepared they would have had a very violent allergic reaction. But my whole point in this story is the idea that sometimes our time and our money is wasted. Maybe you have the time to go back to the fast food store and get your order corrected. But if you can invest this effort, nothing will return the time it takes to do so. This is the cost of an honest mistake.

Maybe your circumstance doesn’t allow the opportunity to retrace your steps. Do you throw away edible food that does not match your tastes, or change the food yourself by picking out or scraping off the offending ingredient? Not exactly satisfying but at least you get to eat, and the money you spent and the time you invested has some return. Maybe its mushrooms, melted in the cheese and steak, and just one will risk your life. You might find someone else to eat the food. In this case it’s a waste of time and money so far as your meal is considered. The worst case would be if you had to throw away the food, wasted and without fulfilling the purpose of having a meal. Wasted time, wasted money, wasted resources.

In this entire scenario, we are willing participants. We choose to go where we went. There is a chance that we can go back to the food store and inform the folks who do the work there that there was a mistake and allow them to offer a solution to this situation. We choose to be involved in this situation. We have the option to be involved in the possible solution, even and including not going back to that fast food restaurant and thereby voting with our dollars.

Of course, I have not discussed any aspect of the frustration and anger that such a scenario might just cause. And in all of this, we have assumed that there is no malice or intent on the part of the purveyor of fine fast food. That is, they did not actually mess up my order on purpose. Mistakes do happen. And the fast food joint would usually feel bad and offer some form of restitution for the mistake. I think we all understand this situation and have experienced some aspect of this story. Now, pickup the experience with all of its parts and apply it to our City, County, State and Federal Government.

Come with me as we walk through this comparison.

Begin with the idea of choice. I am constantly being bathed with the concept that we are a society of choices. In shadow of that perspective, I have no choice in my taxes, none at all. I work to earn money. My income comes from the money I earn by exchanging major portions of my life, talent and energy, with a marketplace. I can never have back the minutes I spend to create this income. I trade that part of my life. That income, the money I am paid, represents a part of my life. That time of my life that I will never have back to use in another way, to spend with friends, family or investing in my ability to possibly increase how I trade my time for income. From that income the Federal and State government takes a portion, without regard as to what I may actually “owe” in taxes for any given year.

Follow me with this for a minute. At the end of the year, I have made some total amount of money. That amount might be a modest hill or massive heap. The government then comes out, weighs the gold, and says I owe them some amount of money based on a percentage of that total amount I made. Almost everyone I know, regardless of their ‘social status’ pays something. But unlike the way I describe it here, without permission, without consideration of what that amount might be, the government “takes” your money, in advance of the debt, and holds it from 15 to 3 months before it is due. There is the first consideration.

Going beyond this first issue, look at what happens with your money, you are compelled to give to the government. We live in a Republic, a representational form of government, in the greatest country in the history of the world. However, in the midst of this greatness, stands a huge septic tank of injustice, criminal neglect and shameful waste.

We hear about the programs that waste money. We hear jokes about $50 hammers and $1000 toilets. Then we go on about our business. In our busy lives that keeps us spinning, we file these oddities away as some strange, funny and singular quirky news item. But look at it from this perspective. The news reports on a group called “Citizens Against Government Waste” where the top Tax Wasting projects are documented and discussed. The list is compiled after the submission of the 2009 Appropriations Bill, and before it was passed. They documented 19.6 Billion Dollars in wasted spending and ear marks. No one in Washington stopped the bill from passing. The current administration tried to make a big deal out of cutting 100 Million from the budget, while the 19.5 Billion that would have remained sailed out of our pockets and into the great black whole of waste. And that is just the waste that is easy to track.

If our nation’s population between the ages of 15 and 64 are eligible to pay taxes number approximately 206 Million, that is a waste from every American in this tax paying group of approximately $100.00 per person wasted. Add on to that the wasted time in investigations for political agendas (steroid use in sports for one), over seas trips to confirm that a natural disaster is bad, or our money spent on the UN who then uses the money to help the world hate the US. That $100.00 starting point is a drop in a large empty bucket that when you add it up you can out strip a nice monthly wage for most people. All on the back of your tax dollars. And the folks who are paid by those tax dollars, the leaders who are supposed to be representing us, only listen when the polls say we might just vote them out of office and make them loose their government pensions and perks, also funded by the Tax Payer!

The instances where I have a choice in how my tax dollars are spent are so removed from the decisions of how much of my income is confiscated before I even owe a dime, makes the entire discussion an ever increasing frustration of extortion approaching theft. I think of the words from the Declaration of Independence and wonder that we as citizens are, “more disposed to suffer , while evils are sufferable…” But where do the ‘evils’ become insufferable?

I am almost sick to death. I am so tiered of hearing people who are paid by me, with money taken from each and everyone of my paychecks, waste so much time doing absolutely nothing. I mean nothing at all of any value. They waste the money they take from me, without any accounting that is real, or any concern about the fact that they are living off of me and what I do to make money for my family. I am sick of paying money to people and getting nothing at all in return, except the demand for more money.

Before you jump to any conclusions, I pay my taxes every year. I learned that lesson early on. I am not a nut case who thinks that there should be no government at all. I actually read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights and the other amendments, and believed that was how things are. I have read so much American History and Political and Economic teachings that the books fill my front room. And from that, and reality from where I sit, there is a big disconnect!

I am a nut case for thinking these documents have any meaning. I am a nut case for thinking the governments of my City, my State and my Country work for me and my fellow citizens as opposed to the other way around. In that regard I am nuts. But more than that, I am sick of these people wasting my money. Wasting my life and robbing my family of its sustenance.

I could go on with examples of the current events of the world to illustrate my point, but that can wait until my next commentary. Think of TARP, Stimulus Bill #1 and Stimulus Bill #2 and the meddling of the Federal Government in hundreds of matters where they don’t belong. But there will be time in the future to ‘discuss’ all of these and other issues.

I am not using my real name in publishing these thoughts and considerations. Consider me a Pamphleteer in the nature of our Revolutionary forefathers. Though I am not as august a person by any account, I am a citizen and I have been educated in spite of the Schooling I have received. My opinions are expressed to see if there is an echo or an answer. I am not ready to risk my family in this fight until I know others are ready to risk their sacred honors sharing the like precious faith of those that founded this Country by the Grace of God. If you agree, post back and I will answer. I do not know everything, but I know what I know.

You People Waste My Money - #2 9-1-09

It has been written,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government,
laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,” of one branch of government against all others, pursing the designs of absolute power and approaching despotism and radical revolution it is the Right, it is the Duty of the Governed,
“to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for,” ours and our children’s future security.

Our Founding Fathers said that, “the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.” (T.J.)

In a democratic republic, those who ‘run for public office’ are servants of the people who consent to be governed by these ‘would be’ servants. Servants who are given power, given in trust. Those who would govern enter into a sacred trust, purchased with the blood of past patriots, men and women who served their country, “who struggled to consecrate,” this land and our government with their, “last full measure of devotion.”

By our power to vote, our sacred right, privilege and responsibility, we call those who are elected into account, to answer for what they have done and left undone. In the end, they are servants of the Public Trust, a covenant, where the servant answers to the People they Serve! They work for us or they cheat the trust they are given.

In a democratic, representative republic, the, “people should not be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.” Interesting idea from a strange little movie. Could have been a slogan from a pamphlet.

If a ‘public servant’ is not ‘representing’ the will of the people, they should ‘fear’ unemployment. They should fear that they will be dismissed from office and have to reenter the Private Sector. Of course many find jobs funded by the public trust, our taxes, and don’t really ‘fear’ unemployment at all. But the idea is that these servants are paid and receive all manner of benefits at the public expense, from the people’s life blood, our money ‘taken’ as taxes! They should and do work for us!
But then, there are hosts and hosts of others that have never been elected! Never examined or approved by the People. They are employed by the Government, without the consideration of the election that governs the ‘service term’ of ‘public servants’. They are paid from our taxes, from our blood and money. They are not subject to public consideration. They are paid members of the government who will not change from election to election, from administration to administration, from vote to vote.

The whole portion of the government, spanning all three branches of government are consistent, unchanged, the same from year to year. This ‘second government’ is never subject to any referendum of the People who they serve, in as much as they work for the Government, which works for us. This is the Government Bureaucracy. In its own way it is a living being with its own sense of survival. One of its first directives is self-preservation as opposed to a primary consideration of ‘serving’ the public interest. Not to lump every ‘civil servant’ into one category, but in a government system that is rife with waste, who looks over the every person’s function in the great system, this monster, the Government Bureaucracy. In business, when it does not make business sense, a position is changed or eliminated and the health and value of business and the investors is considered in balance with the person who fills the position. In Government, who decides when a position is no longer necessary and worth the tax dollars paid for the position? Who evaluates the answer to this question?

And so a whole, permanent part of our Federal Government sustains itself with our tax dollars, without giving and account of being accountable to the ‘People’ they ‘should’ serve. Or are they serving ‘The Government’?

In either respect, this is just one reason to fear our government. And now, the executive branch has decided to expand this un-accounted ‘fourth’ branch of government with a new breed of bureaucrats called “Czars”. Not the first time the term has been used. But in the current administration we have more than 30 at last count. Paid from the public coffers, with agendas that are not subject to public referendum. And what do these ‘Czars’ do? Do they have some sort of charter, public ‘job description’? And who holds these ‘Czars’ accountable to their charter or job description? Who ‘checks’ their credentials and qualifications? Someone, some other ‘Czar” in the executive branch? Who?

Looking at the current and recently resigned Czars, are the implied answers to the previous questions comforting or concerning to ‘We the People’? Can we remind ourselves for a quick second, what were the qualifications or credentials of Van Jones? What are the qualifications and agenda for Mr. Sunstein? What are the credentials of the others? I don’t just mean where they went to school. Aren’t there clearance flags that have to be passed to have access to the place of the White House? How many plans do they have, how many private agendas not subject to public referendum are being carried out? Who will assess the work that comes from these efforts, the progress and results? We are a Government of laws, a republic. Who will assess the results and appropriateness of the results to your Government’s interests? To the interests of the People who have given this government ‘power’?

“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” But what if their power is beyond the people’s ability to, “throw off such Government and provide new guards for,” our security? Are we giving away our Liberty, our unalienable rights? Will our posterity recall that we gave all away in a democratic election? I did not vote for this and none of this was on the ballot!