Lunacy in America: Progressive Thinking, Progressive Tax Plans and Flu Season Deaths

man_question_mark

The Frontiers Of Medical Privacy – Forbes www.forbes.com

Every time I think the lunacy that is becoming pervasive in America has gone as far as it can, I am again astounded by another extension of instability of thought.

This article attempts to conflate the effort of researchers to use cellular material harvested from an African America woman during a cancer treatment procedure, with involuntary sterilizations that Continue reading

Advertisements

Treatment-resistant bacteria threat rises: What are the options?

Treatment-resistant gonorrhea threat rises in North America

Treatment-resistant gonorrhea threat rises in North America
By Julie Steenhuysen – Reuters.Com Jan. 8, 2013

Treatment-resistant gonorrhea threat rises in North America | Reuters.

A Reuter’s article today again illustrates the disturbing trend in our biochemical battle with other species, like the bacteria mentioned in this article–we are losing this war!  In the last few weeks, we have seen a number of articles outlining the discovery, or at least public disclosure, of new superbugs. Here is just a recent listing of articles on some superbugs: Continue reading

Phillips $10 million dollar $60 light bulb: just your average government project part 4

Phillips $10 million - $60.00 light bulb

Each morning I look forward to reading the morning paper.  Since she got an iPad, a little over a year ago, my wife keeps saying why don’t you cancel the paper and just read the paper on-line.  It is a routine, I know, but this habit helps me start the day and get my mind in gear—usually.  And maybe now I am ooooollllllddddd fashioned.  Or perhaps just old, but I really appreciate the ritual—ritual sounds much more mature than routine and lends an air of distinction to this anachronistic practice don’t you think?

Well, as I was reading once again I am presented with yet one more justification on why we need to have a serious discussion about the national economy, the role of government in the economy, and why we need to move much of the ‘new found’ federal responsibility back to the states, and the private sector; as if any more justification was needed on top of, Cartagena Hooker-gate, GSA let’s all meet and have a party at the taxpayer’s expense-gate, and Solyndra-gate.

The point of today’s reflection is an article, in the Boston Globe by Peter Svensson, “Rebates to ease shock of a $60.00 light bulb.”  I think everyone needs to read this article, if you have not done so already.

Having been in the technology sector for many years, and having a few friends who have either invested in or started, “green” energy companies, I have a passing familiarity with the basis for the creation of this bulb.  There was a $10 million contest, sponsored by our federal government to stimulate the production of more energy efficient light bulbs, driven by political pandering to the let’s save the environment from the evils of incandescent light bulbs crowd.

The justification was that incandescent bulbs convert a large amount of energy to heat, therefore it is wasted.  This is a valid point.  Another point is that from these group’s figures, the average life span of a 60 watt incandescent bulb is 1,500 hours and therefore the contest was for not only a green bulb but one that lasts longer so the cost could be justified.

The contest rules were for a bulb that lasted much longer and it had to cost $22.00, or less, in the first year, with the assumption that the price would go down as adoption and production increased.  Oh yea, it was an American program, and you would think it was also to stimulate American jobs and American business? Nope!  Only one company, Phillips, and if you don’t know Phillips is based in the Netherlands, entered the contest.  Of course they won.  But there is a catch!

The bulb will cost $60.00 not $22.00 or less.  Of course the argument from the groups is they are forcing electric companies to provide rebates for the purchase of the bulb so the price will be offset by $20 or $30 dollars, but if my math is correct $60 – $30 is still $30 which is more than $22.00, last I checked.  And now, as this is coming to light (so to speak), Phillips says they will offer an initial discounted price of $50.00 so the price will be in the $20 to $30 range… Great deal isn’t it?  They got $10 million so you can bet the discount will last until they sell the first million bulbs (that’s $10 million divided by the $10 dollar discount). And let’s not even ask the question if the chemistry in these bulbs might be more hazardous to the environment once they are disposed of.

The thing that gets me about this whole program is that all of this “savings” are coming from us in the first place, so we are not saving anything.  The rebates are charged back to us in the form of higher cost per kilowatt, and the $10 million came from us in taxes.  Most importantly, we are increasing the cost of light bulbs from about $1.10 per bulb to over $50.00. And this is predicated on saving the planet, lowering our energy costs, and stimulating the American Job market . . .  Well forget the American Job market part I guess . . .

Last point I have on this subject is, if the statistics I hear quoted about incandescent bulbs are accurate, then I am the luckiest S.O.B. in the whole world because . . .

The earth killing $1.11 incandescent light bulb

They claim that an incandescent bulb only lasts for 1,500 hours.  I have by a quick count at least twenty-eight, 40 – 60 watt incandescent bulbs in my house now.  I have been in this house for over ten years. I replace on average two bulbs a year. Most of the lights in my house burn five hours a day, some more, some less, but this is my best guess on the average.  So, my lights are lit about 1,825 hours per year.  Given the 1500 hour average life, according to these green groups, I should be buying and replacing about thirty bulbs a year.  But you know what, I don’t . . .  I never have.  In fact, the reason that incandescent bulbs burn out as quickly as they do, albeit much more slowly for lucky me, is because the vacuum in the bulb at manufacture is not as complete as it could be.  And it only costs me $1.11 cents to buy these evil, world destroying, 60 watt bulbs, or $2.20 per year.  This means, I theoretically change them all once every fourteen years.

Now, if I buy twenty-eight of these new bulbs that are supposed to last twenty years, even with the discount, it will cost me $840.00.  I can buy 756 of my old bulbs for that price, which would have lasted fifty-four years at my current replacement rate.

Light bulb manufacturers, all the way back to old Tom Edison, knew they could make bulbs that lasted for a long, long, time—10 to 30 years. In fact, they have, by accident and random chance.  My grandfather’s house had some of the original Edison bulbs with a base the size of a ping pong ball and a filament that looked as thick as a pencil lead.  If they were not broken over time, they would all probable be burning today. Good for homeowners, but bad for GE, Sylvania, etc.  These guys new that bulbs could be cheap because you bought a lot of them every year, and if you only buy a few every twenty years then they will cost a whole lot more.  And guess what, they were correct back then and they are correct now!

Since I am now living in California, and I can’t buy many incandescent bulbs because they have been outlawed, I have a few CFL bulbs, and so far I have had to replace these bulbs at least once a year and in one case, in the globe ceiling fixture in my closet that has two 40 watt bulbs, much more frequently.  In fact, if one of these suckers blows out in the fixture, the other one dies, seemly out of sympathy, in just a few days.

Due primarily to labor and benefits costs, and secondarily because we have a dwindling lower wage labor pool because everyone must go to college, we are already non-competitive in manufacturing.  Now, we will begin increasing the cost of lighting by almost fifty times as we move to these “save the planet” bulbs.  Many supporters of these bulbs argue that in the long run we are going to save so much more in costs of energy because of their efficiencies.  Well, due to past experience I am both skeptical of the claim, and dubious that the short term increase of costs on an already non-competitive economic structure will ever be offset.  And even if it theoretically will lower costs in the long run, I am starting to doubt we will be around as a vibrant economy for it to matter anyway; which means we won’t be buying a lot of $60 light bulbs because we won’t be able to afford them.

While I am all for limiting the impact we have on the environment, like everything else in life we need to also maintain some viability.  In this case, the viability is tied to our cumulative cost and its impact on our economic i.e. national and cultural viability. Perhaps If we really want to save the planet then we should likely all agree to commit suicide now.  Then we will no longer have an impact.  I guess, that is, after the ecosystem once again returns to stasis after the population blooms of bacteria, predators, carrion feeders, etc. — all go through their own population explosion-die off cycles as the excess food sources from the rotting polluting corpses we leave behind are finally consumed and absorbed into the ecosystem.  On second thought, this will likely be a bigger polluting source that all the incandescent bulbs so maybe we should just keep the incandescent bulb and balance it by what we save by not committing suicide in the first place—Cap n’ Trade at its finest.

Oh yea, can’t use cap n’ trade, cause the state is going to use that to pay for the High-Speed Rail to nowhere!

I long for a Citizen Politician

Where have all the good men gone?

As I watch the current primary political spectacle, and await, with more than a modicum of trepidation, the coming presidential election of 2012, I long for the emergence of a “citizen politician” like those that founded, what once was, this great nation.  Where have they gone?  What has happened to our national values, that we no longer can produce such remarkable and dedicated individuals?  Have we so corrupted the elegant system, designed by the framers, that we simply cannot find those truly fit to serve the nation, instead of serving their own, or some subgroups desires and wishes.  Has the process been so corrupted that the simple citizens we most desire, and who would best serve, will not stand up to our current infinite scrutiny, or will not run because they do not want such public ablation of their character? We once had a collection of people, who felt that it was either their destiny, or their obligation, to serve their neighbors to build a better life for all, and to develop systems to assure that character, integrity, and nobles oblige, were the justifications for their fitness.

Recently, I have wondered, what were the characteristics that defined this group of remarkable men, those who risked and sacrificed so much to build this nation? Over the past year I have read a number of biographies of our founding fathers; men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin.  Each in its own way revealed bits of what united these men in such a grand and ambitious undertaking.  In another way, it has led me to wonder if we still have the tools in place to create others like these men, or if the circumstances of our modern world, our changed mores, faith, family, values, and education system have been altered so profoundly that we no longer build the necessary combinations of character, strength, conviction, patriotism, and dedication to generate leaders with a sense of purpose, responsibility, and faith in something grander than themselves with unshakeable and selfless commitment to their country and fellow citizens.  I guess the real question is, are we lost?

Our First President

George Washington was a complicated and interesting man.  All of us, who have studied history in modern schools, have read about Washington as the father of our nation, but the image of Washington that I learned in school both understates his contribution to the birth of this nation and fills our head with minor and false facts (like the story of the cherry tree) that do not provide a true measure of the man. To the continental colonists at the end of the revolution, George Washington, was more than any other, the father of this nation.

As the country was being forged, Washington, and many others just like him, felt a profound sense of duty to the rest of Americans to fight to the death against tyranny and eventually to build a great form of government to perpetually protect the nation’s people from the resurgence of tyranny from both abroad and within.  Today, we often hear as to what the framers felt was the role of faith and God in the creation, prosperity, and future of our nation.  Today, in our modern world of agenda based spin, we hear polar opposite views.  On the one hand, it is stated that the founders believed there is no role for religion in government.  Religion was not to have any part in the governance of the nation. And at the fringe, there are those that profess that it is a violation of the constitution to even allow and discussion, mention, or intimation of religion in any public venue, action, or event.  On another hand, we hear that religion is a clear part of our government, and became the basis for the governing system we chose. Further, at the fringe of this side, we hear that this, or that, religious view was inculcated into the constitution to promote this or that moral value.  Like everything else today, the truth is much more complicated than a sound-bite, and lies somewhere, nuanced, in the middle of the argument.

President Washington felt that National Policy needed to be rooted in private morality, which relied on “the eternal rules of order and right . . . ordained by heaven itself.” It was in consideration of the grand opportunity wrested by the sacrifice of the American people, through the providential victory of the revolution against England, that Washington’s held the view that this opportunity was granted by the unknown machinations of an almighty God. Washington wrote, “The sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly and considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

Washington and many of the other founders were big believers in the hands of some higher power guiding them to their destiny.  They also felt that only good and just men could reap the benefit of these grants from some higher power.  They believed in strength, justice, and the power of courage and conviction.  They were humanists, who felt it was their duty to help the downtrodden and the weak.  But, we should not confuse this humanistic view with their additional view that people were also individually responsible for their own destiny and lot in life.  As an example, Washington also wrote,

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity; religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

Washington also wrote,

“Let no one go hungry away . . . provided it does not encourage in them idleness.”

The New Constitution

In 1787, as the continental congress was meeting to establish the foundation for a new and necessary form of government to control this new nation, there was significant controversy.  Read either of the recent biographies of George Washington, Washington, by Ron Chernow, or of John and Abigail Adams, First Family, by Joseph Ellis and you will see that the current level of histrionics, division, diatribe, and intrigue are nothing new.  Further, most of America had no knowledge of what was transpiring inside the State House in Philadelphia, in 1787, or what kind of government was being developed by the men who had assembled to compose our new nation.  The mystery was so complete that after the vote by the members of the congress in approval of the new constitution, Benjamin Franklin reportedly was approached by Elizabeth Powell as he left the State House.  When she saw Franklin, she is reported to have inquired as to what form of government had been produced by the members inside the convention.  Franklin responded, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it!”

Like politics today, this new constitution was not immediately revered by all.

George Mason, a friend of George Washington, declared that the new form of government “. . . would end either, in a monarchy, or a tyrannical aristocracy.”

Looking at the current state of America and its politics I think many would argue it has met Mason’s fate. It just depends on which side of the political spectrum one is, as to whether or not it is now ended as monarchy or tyrannical aristocracy—Occupy Anywhere anyone?

Citizen Politicians

I think we need to find a way to alter the current political selection process, and fundamentally eliminate the position of professional politician from our culture and revert to the original concept of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  The “by the people” part was not designed to be rule by a professional political class as we are today.  Just what was the concept of citizen politicians at the time of the founding?

Many of the founders regarded any open interest in power as unbecoming of a gentleman. As a result, people like Washington, Adams, and Jefferson preferred to be drawn reluctantly from private life by the irresistible summons of public service.  Ron Chernow writes in his book, Washington, “George Washington felt even to say the word, president, or to merely broach the topic, even in the strictest confidence with friends would seem to betray some secret craving for the office on his part.” Chernow reports that Washington confessed his quandary to Alexander Hamilton in a letter where he said,

“For situated as I am, I could hardly bring the question into the slightest discussion, or ask an opinion, even in the most confidential manner, without betraying, in my judgment, some impropriety of conduct.”

John Adams and most of the founding presidents, all felt that nobles oblige, should be the guiding sentiment for their service.  As such, they did not believe that a candidate should campaign for the office.  They felt that people should be elected because their prior contributions and actions were so remarkable, as to render the populace unable to see any another as capable of assuming and performing in the office. As such, it was the fact that they had to go and actively campaign for such a position of power innately under-scored their lack of suitability for the job in the first place.

The solemn and grave nature of properly taking this almighty gift of independence and effectively creating and implementing a new government, worthy of the people who had sacrificed so much for this opportunity, led James Madison to create a strong metaphor for Washington to use to captivate the populace.  Madison wrote,

“. . . to be shipwrecked in sight of the port would be the severest of all possible aggravations to our misery.”

Meaning, that after we had collectively sacrificed so much, cut our ties to England, and now were left with such difficulty and strife if we fail to provide a just form of government for the people would just be the worst sort of failure and pain.  Madison’s view was predicated on the sacrifices and misery suffered by the new Americans in 1787.  How much more has been sacrificed and suffered in this quest to live up to our potential, and love of country and its promise in the past 225 years? Are our current politicians living up to the sacrifice of those who have gone before?

Nobles Oblige Often Led to Financial Hardship and Ruin.

For most of the first 152 years, elected public service was a significant economic burden. Many left political office with their business and personal financial interests in significant disarray.  These individuals accepted the service to their nation as a patriotic duty or to establish a historical place for their family name.  As an example, at the time Washington became our first president, his prior service in obligation to the needs of his forming country had left is estate on the edge of financial ruin.  As he was being elected president, he was left with no choice but to put his extensive land holdings in Ohio up for sale and to seek a loan of 500 pounds from Captain Richard Conway of Alexandria Va. Shortly after he made this initial request, he had to ask for an additional 100 pounds from Conway, to defray the cost of moving to New York and the cost of lodging so he could assume the new presidency.  So committed to the service to his nation, Washington still felt it was his duty, as he had throughout the Revolutionary war, to forgo any salary. Despite his dire fiscal situation, Washington informed congress of his intent.  Luckily for Washington, congress insisted that he accept his salary, so in some small measure, the fiscal burden was somewhat ameliorated.  Once again, when Washington left office, his personal fortunes had continued to suffer as a result of the demands of service to his country.

The Coming Storm

As I look at this year’s presidential primary election, and listen to both sides of the debates, I wonder if we have, in Madison’s words, been left shipwrecked in sight of our port.  I find myself more and more longing for a Washington, an Adams, a Jefferson, a Madison, a Monroe, a Jackson, or a Lincoln to emerge.  I yearn for some citizen politician, motivated by their love of country, their own nobles oblige, some sense of destiny to arise from the depths and steer us from the fate of the looming rocky shore. I desire the rise of a true citizen politician, one who feels it is unbecoming of the character of a gentleman to seek power or political office.  I know there are those who believe that in this larger and more expansive world, politicians must campaign actively and very extensively and obtrusively be in our face to gain election. I wonder, is this really and sadly the case?

We have had a few this political cycle whose names have been floated for office, individuals apparently not overtly seeking election—people like: Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio.  Each of them to date has rebuffed the invitation to lead their party in this election for various reasons.  Despite their apparent reticence, there are some who are still actively interested in wresting them as candidates to the national stage.  Despite their resistance, feigned or real, sadly, they are also firmly entrenched as members of the professional political class.  Where are the real citizen politicians?  The ones who would be dragged to this lofty, powerful perch as a result of their sense of duty and obligation?  Can we not find some method to identify them and bring them to the national attention without the need for a popularity contest composed of little more than national character assassination? Though I do which this is not the case, perhaps it is simply a pipe dream to believe once again we have and can find such men.

I now most fervently hope that we will not soon be laying plans for all of our children to be reading Daniel Defoe’s, 1919 work, Robinson Caruso, as our new national survival guide!