Shop for great Usborne Children's Books!
www.DaveTheBookGuy.com
Shop for great Usborne Children's Books!
www.DaveTheBookGuy.com
Change is good. Wait, I mean bad. Or is it good?
Remember when the criticism of President Bush was that he wouldn't change his strategy for or assessment of the war? We were to believe that NOT changing one's position in response to new information is a character flaw.
But now that Barack Obama seems to have reassessed his own views on Iraq, he can't stress to us enough that he hasn't actually changed his position. It's as though now we are to believe that to change one's mind in response to new information is some sort of character flaw.
Which is it?
One reason to be hopeful about a potential Obama presidency is that the man is saying some good things about race, things that only the "first African-American"* with a shot at the White House can say.
I think maybe Obama had his eyes opened a little when his relationship with the Rev. Wright blew up in his face. Obama may not have realized until then how other people react to someone who talks like Wright does. Maybe now Obama "gets it." And if he's got Jesse Jackson mad at him, well, he must be doing something right.
This week, Obama addressed the NAACP and actually talked about how blacks need to take responsibility and be accountable for themselves. Here's an excerpt from an AP story that ran in the Pioneer Press:
"If we're serious about reclaiming that dream, we have to do more in our own lives. There's nothing wrong with saying that," Obama told a crowd estimated at 3,000.
"But with providing the guidance our children need, turning off the TV set and putting away the video games, attending those parent-teacher conferences, helping our children with their homework, setting a good example. That's what everybody's got to do."
He added: "I know some say I've been too tough on folks talking about responsibility. NAACP, I'm here to report I'm not going to stop talking about it. Because as much I'm out there to fight to make sure that government's doing its job and the marketplace is doing its job, ... none of it will make a difference - at least not enough of a difference - if we also don't at the same time seize more responsibility in our own lives."
Amid building cheers, Obama declared: "When we are taking care of our own stuff, then a lot of other folks are going to be interested in joining up and working with us and taking care of America's stuff. We can lead by example, as we did in the civil rights movement. Because the problems that plague our community are not unique to us. We just have them a little worse, but they're not unique to us."
John McCain was scheduled to address the NAACP convention today. I haven't heard what he said, but here's what I'd like to have heard him say:
"My opponent is right. Listen to him. I know the way the game is played; I'm supposed to find fault with everything he says. But this is bigger than merely which party wins the White House. Obama is right on."
Of course, an endorsement like that just might turn the NAACP against Obama. Advantage: McCain. Politics is tricky business!
(*I just don't think the term "African-American" fits Barack Obama very well. His mother is a white woman from Kansas. He was not raised in the 'hood. In fact, he did some of his growing up overseas. His father -- whom he had little contact with -- was not African-American. His father was Kenyan. And Kenya is in east Africa, it's not in the west where slaves came from. So what are Obama's qualifications to be an "African-American"? Merely the tone of his skin color, apparently. So he's being judged by the color of his skin. Stereotyped. It's the "one-drop rule." As I've written before, why don't we call him a "Kenyan-American"? So it's ironic that while being "African-American" allows Obama to say things to the NAACP that a white man couldn't, it's maybe also true that not being a more traditional "African-American" is the reason Obama sees things a little differently than the Jesse Jackson-led black establishment.)
I heard some sort of ad on the radio that said we should recycle because recycling creates jobs. Well, first of all, "creating jobs" isn't really a good enough reason to do something. I could go around committing random acts of vandalism -- breaking windows, putting dents in cars, destroying people's lawn furniture -- and that would "create jobs," but it doesn't mean I should do it.
But beyond that, does recycling really "create jobs"? Sure, now there's a guy driving a recycling truck, but there are probably now fewer guys driving garbage trucks. (Probably more total drivers, more total trucks and more total fuel burned up, though, showing one way that recycling is inefficient.)
We've always been told that recycling is efficient, saves energy, and conserves resources. If that's the case, I'd expect it to actually take fewer workers when we recycle. I'd expect it to take fewer workers to turn old newspapers into new newsprint than it takes to cut down trees, haul them to a pulp mill, and create virgin newsprint. I'd expect it to take fewer workers to melt used aluminum cans and turn that aluminum into new cans, than it would take to mine new aluminum ore, smelt it, and make new cans.
If recycling means fewer jobs, that's good. It means it's a more efficient way of doing things, and it frees up money and workers for other purposes.
What's Wrong with Being Middle Class?
Now that I'm working at the Pioneer Press, I'm a union member. That means I get the union publications with the union take on the world, and I gotta tell ya, I sometimes wonder if it's the same world I've been living in all these years. Judging by what I hear from the union, we're all helpless, oppressed victims. It raises the question I've always had about labor relations, which is, If you hate your employer so much -- if your view your employer as your enemy -- why don't you get a different job? (To which the response is usually, Where else would I find a job that pays this well?)
Anyway, the point I'm getting to is that I'm now exposed to viewpoints from a lot of people who see the world differently than I do. Here is a good example from the May 16 issue of "The Guild Reporter." Anne Feeney, apparently a musician and songwriter, and an official with the American Federation of Musicians, wrote a piece about the the importance of songs to working people. Here's an excerpt to think about:
"France has a fantastic labor movement even though its union density is lower than ours. But French workers have something that we do not have -- class consciousness. This is something that has been drilled out of us by corporate America.
"No matter who we are, we say we are 'middle class.' People on food stamps think they are middle class. People with six-figure paychecks and millions in assets consider themselves middle class. Can we really all be middle class? Who benefits from the perception?"
I have a simple answer: We all do.
I've made the same observation: That we all think we're "middle class." Growing up, that's how I thought of myself. After all, we had everything we needed. It was when I went to college and mixed with people who weren't from my small-town, rural area that I began to see this. A lot of people had a higher standard of living than I did, but they thought they were middle class, too. They could always point to someone else who had more. I remember someone from the cake-eater suburb of Edina telling me, "We're not rich, but you should see our neighbor's house." As long as someone else has more, you're not "wealthy," I guess.
But I don't think our lack of class consciousness is bad. It's what is great about this country. America has always been the land of opportunity. Here, neither native-borns nor immigrants are constrained by what class they are born into, the way it still is in some countries. And that's great. If you see yourself as "middle class" just like everyone else, you're free to succeed and improve your lot in life.
Feeney seems to want people to wallow in their victimhood, stuck in the "working class," singing "The Internationale," feeling sorry for themselves and accepting their lot in life.
I much prefer my way of looking at it. Where does Feeney get this idea that "corporate America" has "drilled" class-consciousness out of us? The lack of class consciousness is a long-time American tradition. It's part of what has made this nation great.
Barack Obama wants us to know that patriotism isn't about waving flags or serving in the military, it's about "loyalty to America's ideals."
Sure it is. But then the question becomes, just how far will a person go with his or her loyalty? Will he or she put his or her life on the line for her country? Or merely give a speech? It's about actions speaking more loudly than words.
As Jesus said in John 15:13, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
The same might be said of patriotism.
"For 2nd month, more troops die in Afghanistan than in Iraq"
That's the headline. Why wasn't it "Fewer troops die in Iraq than in Afghanistan"? The story even mentions that one reason for this is that deaths in Iraq are down.
I hope the critics don't start calling for a pull-out from Afghanistan. After all, they've been telling us that they aren't soft on terror. Of course they support the war in Afghanistan, they say, because that's where Al Qaida was. But with things looking better in Iraq, look for them to start blaming Bush for "his" "quagmire" in Afghanistan, even though it is an international effort, with Americans making up only about half of the 65,000 troops there.
Now Obama and Hillary are making nice, and we are told to believe that they didn't really mean the nasty things they said about each other; it was just politics.
But then why should voters believe the nasty things Obama and Hillary now say about John McCain?
The Twin Cites are having trouble getting enough volunteers to help with the Republican National Convention. Only 6,000 people have signed up; 4,000 more are needed. Should we be surprised? As I've told you before, many people in St. Paul -- including our elected officials -- have been acting like they are ashamed to be the host city. Some of our city council members have even said that they plan to spend the convention PROTESTING! With an example like that, why should we expect the citizenry to be enthused about volunteering?
A while back, local "progressives" decided that real-looking toy guns were a problem. Someone might (and had) point them at the cops, the cops wouldn't know they were toys, and the cops might shoot someone (as I believe they had). Now, a simple-minded person such as myself might think that the lesson there is don't point any gun -- toy or real -- at a cop. But I guess that's why I'm not a "progressive." The geniuses decided that we needed laws mandating that "replica" guns be painted colorfully, so they could be distinguished from real guns.
Well, I said at the time, "If I were a bad guy, I'd paint my real gun orange, so the cops wouldn't shoot me." Guess what? Story on the news last night, cops are now being confused by real guns painted to look like colorful fake guns. Once again, they don't know which are real and which are fake. But now, they have to assume that the real guns are fake, instead of assuming that the fake guns are real. Advantage: bad guys.
Final, lighter-side "I told you so." Several years ago, when gas was cheap, and auto manufacturers were rushing to see who could build the biggest land yacht, Ford introduced a giant SUV called the "Excursion." That made me think of a cruise ship. A great big boat. What I asked myself what could top that. What could be an even worse name for a land barge? How about, instead of naming the vehicle for just one ship, we name it for a whole fleet? How about, the "Armada"?
Ha, ha. I thought that was funny. But guess what? Yesterday I saw a Nissan Armada. A quick check reveals that the model has been around since 2004.
Maybe truth really is stranger.
Fair or Foul? It Depends on How You Look at It
No, this isn't a post about whether Major League Baseball should use instant replay to resolve homerun disputes. Rather, it's about how we determine "fair" or "foul" in arenas of public policy or social issues.
In his Sunday "Real World Economics" column, Ed Lotterman wrote about that the issue of whether it is "fair" to extend unemployment benefits to 39 weeks during times of higher unemployment, while other out-of-workers had received only the standard 26 weeks of benefits.
Ed wrote that how you see the issue may depend on whether you value "horizontal equity" or "vertical equity." (Read Ed's column for his explanation.) That got me to thinking. And I realized that how we decide to come down on an issue may often depend on whether we look at it in a "micro" view or a "macro" view.
With the unemployment example, if we look at it as a matter of what's fair between Stanley, who received 26 weeks of benefits, and Oliver, who received 39 weeks, we may say, "That's not fair! Ollie is getting a much better deal than Stan! Stan is getting ripped off!"
But what if we look at it as a matter of what's good for the country as a whole? Then, we might say that it is bad for the nation to have large numbers of people out of work and without income, so it is a benefit to all 300 million of us to help the unemployed through a tougher-than-usual time to find work.
Who is it about? The individual or the larger society? Which you focus on may determine your stance on extending unemployment benefits to 39 weeks.
I think we can extend this to other, polarizing issues. Take immigration. Let's frame the issue like this:
12 million foreign nationals have entered our country illegally. We have no idea who they are, where they are, or what they are up to.
Let's be honest, everybody. If we put our focus on the macro, and phrase the issue thusly, doesn't that sound like a serious issue that any nation should be concerned about?
But let's try framing immigration this way:
Juan and Rosie entered the U.S. illegally 20 years ago. They are hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying members of the middle class. They have four well-behaved children, who are U.S. citizens. The family attends church every Sunday. Juan is a Little League coach and Rosie is a Girl Scout leader.
Again, let's be honest. How hard does your heart have to be to want to send Juan and Rosie back to Mexico?
One more example, and this is the biggie: abortion. Let's frame it this way:
In the past 35 years, tens of millions of unborn babies have been killed in the United States.
Can anyone truly look at it that way without flinching?
But what happens when we reduce it to the individual level? What if we look at it as the story of "Jane," who is surprised to find herself pregnant at a very young age, has no support from the child's father, and can't afford to feed a child. Having a baby now may put "Jane" at a disadvantage from which she will never recover. It will change her whole life.
How can you not sympathize with Jane?
And that's why we find ourselves so often polarized, with both sides wondering how the other side can be so blind or so dumb. But it really is about how you look at it; about what aspects of the issue you focus on. And sometimes, all the difference in the world is found in whether we look at the forest, or merely at one tree.
One Man's Bad Economic News Is Another Man's Opportunity
One thing about economic news, the media always thinks it's bad. Dollar down? That's bad. Imports cost more. Dollar up? That's bad, too. It hurts exports. Housing prices going up? Bad. People can't afford houses. Housing prices going down? Bad. People are losing equity.
But the truth is more complicated. In economics, there's give and take, action and reaction. Whether something is "good" or "bad" might depend on who you are. If you've never owned a house before, the current "housing crisis" has made this a great opportunity to buy.
What are some of the other "bad" economic stories we've been hearing? Let's see, there's all the "good manufacturing jobs are going overseas." There's oil prices are up. There's the dollar going down.
But economics has a way of balancing things out. It's like a balloon. You squeeze one end, the air has to push out somewhere else. And one day, you see this headline:
Factories slowing shipment of jobs overseas
Some work returning to U.S. amid soaring transportation costs
Yes, thanks to higher shipping costs (due to oil prices) and the devalued dollar, the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs is being slowed, or maybe in some cases even reversed.
The cost of doing business in China in particular has grown steadily as workers there demand higher wages and the government enforces tougher environmental and other controls. China's currency also has appreciated against the dollar - though not as much as some critics contend it should - increasing the cost of its products in the U.S.
For many manufacturers, though, oil prices that have hurtled past $130 a barrel have been the tipping point.
Emerson, the St. Louis-based maker of electrical equipment, recently shifted some production of items such as appliance motors from Asia to Mexico and the U.S., in part to off-set rising transportation costs by being closer to customers in North America.
The world economy is not static. What comes around goes around.
Digging Your Own Grave with a Shovel Purchased on Credit
David Brooks of the New York Times had a good column that ran in the Pioneer Press today. He writes about what's wrong with this country -- that we've lost our sense of thrift, hard work, frugality. He also mentions state lotteries. Gambling is a moral hazard. Whether or not it should be legal is a separate question. But for the government to sponsor and encourage gambling seems to be to be nothing sort of immoral.
Now that Obama has earned the nomination, here's what we are told it means: "This country is not ready for a woman president." Of course, if Hillary had won, that would have "proven" that: "This country is not ready for a black president."
Don't they realize that only one of them could win?
John Edwards dropped out ages ago. Does that mean the country isn't ready for a white male president?
-----
If we are to continue to be told that what Al Franken has done for decades as a "satirist" has nothing to do with his aspiration to be a U.S. Senator, then on what basis are we being asked to judge him qualified for the job of Senator? Norm Coleman may have once been a long-haired rock-n-roll roadie, but he doesn't ask us to vote for him based on that. He asks us to vote for him based on his career in public service. If Franken's career as a "satirist" is not relevant, then we have to judge him totally inexperienced.
And is he a "Satirist"? I'd say he's made a career out of vulgar jokes and insult "humor." Would Jonathan Swift have written a book called "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot?" But Franken wants us to think that his Playboy piece is "satire" amongst the "art photos."
Come to think of it, Franken is playing the "satirist card." You can't criticize him for what he says, because he's a "satirist." I guess he thinks he can get away with anything. Sort of like the Rev. Wright. He has a built-in excuse.
Here's another interesting twist. Several years ago there was a proposal for a LeRoy Neiman museum, to be right here in St. Paul, the artist's hometown. But the idea was derailed by some women who objected because Neiman has done work for Playboy. They thought that made Neiman unworthy of a museum in his hometown.
I wonder if some of those same "progressive" types are now defending Al Franken, the "satirist."
First, the mayors of St. Paul and Minneaolis worked together to try to get a national political convention to come to the Twin Cities. Success! The Republicans will be in St. Paul in September.
Now, Barack Obama decides that he will come to St. Paul tonight, to the Xcel Energy Center, which will host the GOP convention, and declare himself the victor in the battle for the Democratic nomaination. This is widely seen as a poke-in-the-eye to the Republicans.
And how do they Twin Cities' two Democrat mayors respond? They're ecstatic, of course. (St. Paul mayor Chris Coleman less publicly so, since he backs Hillary Clinton.)
Isn't there something sort of... tacky... about that? Shouldn't they show some a little more courtesy toward their invited guests, the ones they worked so hard to lure to town?
But what should we expect? After all, the Twin Cities' political leaders worked to bring either political convention to town, but they thought all along that they'd get the Democrats. They've been very diasappointed that they'll have to tolerate Republicans -- those people -- coming to town.
Here's a little essay I wrote last fall on that topic:
Congratulations, it's a Republican!
The words "It's a girl!" took me by surprise. As anyone in the family would tell you, "Downings always have boys," and recent generations of the family tree proved that to be mostly true. So I had just assumed my first child was going to be a boy.
But while I was surprised,I was not disappointed.
We can't say as much for the St. Paul city fathers, who are awkwardly trying to embrace the reality that they have been delivered the 2008 Republican National Convention. Like expectant parents who say "We don't care, just as long as it has 10 fingers and 10 toes," the city fathers conceived of twin pitches for both major parties' 2008 conventions, saying, "We don't care which one, as long as it brings in 10's of thousands of people and 10's of millions of dollars."
But clearly they had assumed their efforts would give birth to a Democratic Party convention, and now they are disappointed. With the nursery already painted blue, they're in no mood to paint the town red.
Faced with such a disappointment, a person -- or a city -- must resort to coping mechanisms. If we put the city on the analyst's couch, we can see how it is trying to compensate for the way its "child" has disappointed it.
For instance, like a parent who gives a child a non-gender-specific name, the city has played down the "Republican" aspect of the convention. In June (07), the city released its first "National Convention Planning Newsletter," with a headline reading, "Welcome to Saint Paul's First Convention Planning Newsletter." Which convention would that be, exactly?
And like a parent who tries to redirect the interests of a child of the "wrong" gender, in an attempt to remake the child in his or her own image, the city fathers seem intent on reshaping the convention into something it is not. Dissatisfied with the convention they've gotten, they are shifting their focus away from the invited Republican guests and onto the anticipated political protesters. Accommodating protesters seems to have become the first order of business for some city council members, including Dave Thune, who has proposed that protesters be provided with a "Peace Park" (Irvine Park, anyone?) where anti-war protesters can hang out and organize their demonstrations.(I wonder, if the Democrats were holding their convention in St. Paul, would anyone at city hall be proposing a "Life Park" for anti-abortion protesters?)
It's as though the city is writing this unwanted child out of its will and adopting a substitute heir. In fact, every time I hear city officials talking about the convention, they begin by apologizing for the birth of their progeny.
That's how it unfolded at a public meeting I attended last March (07). Councilman Thune gave an odd little speech, sounding apologetic and telling people that the convention really was a good thing for the city, even if it was the Republicans. He pointed out that not everyone coming to St. Paul would actually be a Republican. There would be people working on the sound and lights for the convention, for example. And even union members driving bus loads of people to town. You know, normal people.
As people spoke and asked questions, they talked as though Republicans were people on another planet, assuming there weren't any in the room. A woman in the crowd claimed that other cities that have played host to Republican conventions have regretted the decision. She went on to say that while she knew local Republicans, she worked with local Republicans, and she even liked local Republicans, we don't want anything to do with those "national Republicans," because, essentially, "you know what they're like."
Now try substituting in some other group that represents a minority of St. Paulites, and see how welcoming and tolerant her words sound.
At a business luncheon I attended in May (07), city marketing director Erin Dady gave the same sort of apologetic explanation for why it is okay that the Republicans are coming to town. She offered that it was nice that she was finally getting a chance to meet some local Republicans, as though we usually keep them locked up in the attic when company is coming.
An attendee asked why we even wanted to have the Republican convention in St. Paul, considering that most people in the city aren't Republicans. Again, try substituting another group that doesn't hold a majority in St. Paul. Up against that litmus test, St. Paul wouldn't even be able to host another convention of the Ancient Order of Hibernians!
So if you're wondering why the city fathers haven't been handing out celebratory cigars, it's not just the passing of the smoking ban -- or even the passing of the "smoke-filled room." But if they don't stop acting like they are ashamed of this convention and don't stop treating it like some sort of red-headed stepchild, the whole St. Paul family risks becoming a national laughingstock.
We've all known for years that being overweight is a common cause of diabetes, right? Everyone knows that.
But not so fast.
Now, researchers have discovered that when overweight diabetics undergo stomache stapling surgery in order to lose weight, their diabetes goes away. Right away. Not eventually, after a certain amount of weight has been lost, but right after the surgery.
So it appears that the truth is more complicated. It's not the weight that caused the diabetes. Rather, it appears that the weight gain and the diabetes may have been two separate effects, both caused by what the people had been eating. When the stomach stapling forced them to stop eating like they had been, their diabetes went away -- even before the weight did.
My purpose here is to issue a reminder of the danger in confusing correlation with causation. Just because we see two things going together doesn't mean one causes the other. So it may be with much of the anecdotal evidence given as "proof" of Global Warming.
Reading the news coverage of the California Supreme Court decision which said it is unconstitutional for that state to prohibit same-gender marriages, I can't help but think that, if there is any logical consistency amongst the judiciary, then there is no way the state can prohibit polygamy, either.
"An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's radce or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights," wrote Chief Justice Ronald George.
Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "But, Dave, this ruling only says that everyone is entitled to one spouse. If everyone is denied the 'right' to more than one spouse at a time, then there is no discrimination."
Not so fast. Let's look at the bigger picture.
First of all, as I've written before, I'd like us to stop using the term "gay marriage," and stop talking about how gay people have not been allowed to marry. That's simply not true. There has been no requirement that people applying for a marriage license prove that they are not gay. Gay people have indeed been getting married, probably just as long as there has been marriage. The thing is, they've had to get married to someone of the opposite sex. EXACTLY THE SAME as people who are not gay.
So, my point is, everyone has been treated exactly the same.
However, the argument that has carried the day with the court is that there has been de facto discrimination, because gays have been prevented from marrying the people they really want to marry.
So then what about a person whose sexual orientation is bisexual? I'm not trying to speak for others, here, but it sure seems to me that the heart's desire of such a person might be to have both a wife and a husband. Isn't forcing a bisexual person to choose one or the other another example of de facto discrimination?
As San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom has written, "...all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation, have the right to marry." If that means the right to marry in a way that fulfills any individual's particular orientation, then how can California deny multiple spouses to a bisexual person?
And I won't even get into polysexuals...
We've been hearing a lot about "skyrocketing" food prices. This is a good example of journalists' predictable tendency to use cliches. If a price is going up, it's "skyrocketing." What is that supposed to mean? A report I just read says that overall food prices will go up 4-5% this year. Is that "skyrocketing"?
It's popular to blame corn being made into ethanol for food price increases. Some people have called for an end to ethanol production, thinking that will bring down food prices. Is that reasonable? Take away a market to reduce demand, and thus price? Is that fair to farmers? If we think that way, then let's expand the idea. Let's ban suburban and exurban development. That will hold down the price of farmland, with it no longer being bought up for development. And by keeping people from becoming commuters, we can reduce petroleum usage. That would help hold down the price of petroleum products, and big expense for farmers.
Yes, I'd like to say some things in defense of farmers. I grew up on a farm. I have two brothers who continue to farm. Farming is very, very important in a state like Minnesota. But we seem to have lost sight of that. While we wring our hands about the fate of Northwest Airlines, whether jobs will be lost, whether we will remain a hub, we don't seem to give a hoot about the strength of the state's ag economy. Studies have shown that being an airline hub means people in Minnesota pay more for air travel than they would otherwise, but we don't care. We want our airline here. We say we need the jobs. But agriculture? All we care about is bitching that the price of milk or bread has gone up.
But it's good for the state of Minnesota when the farmers do well.
While a shrinking percentage of us may live and work on farms, Minnesota remains very much a farm state -- the nation's sixth largest agricultural producer in 2006, according to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Furthermore, agriculture is the second-largest industry in the state, trailing only manufacturing, and surpassing other important sectors such as services; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance and real estate; construction, transportation, communications and public utilities; and mining.
The state Ag Department also reports that agriculture is the second largest employer in Minnesota. Agricultural employment accounts for 24 percent of all jobs in rural Minnesota, and 13 percent of all jobs in metropolitan areas.
Most of those 300,000+ jobs are off-farm, in processing, distribution, supply and service fields, and many are in the Twin Cities, home to such well-known, ag-related companies as farmer-owned Land O'Lakes and CHS, privately-held Cargill, and publicly-traded General Mills. They are joined in the Twin Cities by other, less-visible businesses, including several large ag-oriented advertising and public relations firms, and ag-focused publishing companies.
Look, none of us likes to pay higher prices at the store, for groceries or for anything else. But keep in mind that a large percentage of the money Minnesotans spend at the grocery store stays right here in Minnesota, recirculating in the state's economy. Unlike, for instance, the extra money you spend on ever-more-expensive petroleum products, which leaves the state -- and most likely the nation -- never to return.
And in a case of turnabout-is-fair-play, it gets better. Minnesota's farm commodities and processed food products are sold to other states and exported to other countries ($2.98 billion in exports in 2006), so strong demand and higher prices mean more money flowing into the state. That's "new" money that otherwise would not be part of the state's economy.
Just like strong oil prices are good for Alaska, a rising citrus fruit market benefits Florida, or strong demand for lobsters enriches Maine, a strong farm economy is good news for the state of Minnesota.
We applaud good times for local medical device companies, but don't worry about the price of pacemakers. We cheer when taconite mines reopen thanks to rising global demand and prices for steel, but don't see headlines about what that means for the price of refrigerators and automobiles.
So why don't we recognize how good it is to have the state's farm economy back on its feet? Why does news coverage seem to ignore the positive, and focus only on the affect on consumer prices?
Could it be because we have lost our connection to the farm? A generation ago it still seemed pretty much everyone had relatives on the farm. Maybe that time has passed.
(Ironically, a recent "good news" story reported that at Plymouth-based Mosaic, the world's second-largest agricultural fertilizer maker, the stock price has quadrupled and profits are up 12-fold in the last year, as the price the company receives for the fertilizer used by farmers has nearly doubled.)
Barack Obama is now clearly trying to distance himself from his outspoken and controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But why does it seem like he just got done making excuses for him? Oh, because he did.
What's important to point out here is that the Rev. Wright has not changed. All that has changed is that the rest of the country has seen who he is. Obama has known the truth about Wright the entire time. And apparently, Obama was comfortable with the real Wright.
That makes this an "I'm sorry I got caught." Obama was happy to align himself with Rev. Wright as long as he could keep him in the closet, so to speak. Now that we all know the real Rev. Wright, Obama will throw him under the campaign bus.
Obama a different sort of politician? Doesn't look like it. He's just as self-serving and duplicitous as anyone else.
And another thing: I don't like the way Obama tries to get himself off the hook by referring to Wright as his "former" pastor. Obama didn't turn his back on him; the guy recently retired.
Theme of change doesn't play in Indiana
'We want it like it used to be,' says one typical voter
It seems not everyone is excited about Obama's call for "change." Some people in Indiana, for instance. The New York Times quotes an Indiana resident:
"We hold onto a lot of traditional values," said Brian L. Thomas, 39, as he bought a cup of coffee along the courthouse square here on Wednesday. "Saying you're ready to change is probably not the best or only thing you would want to say around these parts. Frankly, we want it to be like it used to be."
But that would be change, too, wouldn't it?
This story makes me think of those polls that report that a lot of people, maybe a majority, aren't "happy with the direction the country is headed in." I'd respond the same way if asked. It's only natural. Most of us think there's something wrong that needs fixing.
But the mistake the pollsters, and the people who report on the polls, seem to make is that they think the poll results mean that the voters are prepared to "throw the bums out." They think these polls mean that the party that controls the White House or Congress is going to get voted out.
But that's not looking at the big picture. I can think that the country is headed in the wrong direction, but still think that the party controlling the White House offers the best chance of reversing that trend. That's because I don't think that the "direction" of the country changes every four years. I happen to think that the country has been headed in the wrong direction for several decades. I'm looking for someone who, if he can't reverse that, can at least try to slow it down.
So if I don't like where we're headed, that does mean I want "change." I just don't want Obama's version of change. His change will make things worse. To me, his change is the equivalent of throwing more grease on the slippery slope. I want someone who will put down an anchor.
I'm like those people in Indiana. I do want a change. But my idea of change is to undo the unwise changes we've already made.
Coming soon to the New York Times: For a good time, call...
A journalism practice that really irks me is quoting people whose names aren't given because they aren't "authorized to speak to the media" about the subject. I question this practice for two main reasons: 1) How trustworthy is information from someone who has shown he or she isn't trustworthy when it comes to following the boss' orders? 2) A person not authorized to talk about the subject might be a person without full knowledge of the situation.
I'm much more persuaded by comments from people who will actually attach their names to what they allege.
On the Web, people seem to think they can pontificate in comments on blogs or news sites, call other people names, and then hide behind some "handle." I've had opinion columns printed in the daily paper -- complete with my real name, my photo, and email address -- and then seen how some brave souls anonymously endeavor to tear me apart on the paper's Website. But why should I give two seconds to the comments of someone who lacks enough conviction to even give his real name?
Would John Hancock, he of the most famous signature in American history, be as famous if he had signed the Declaration of Independence with "want2Bfree"?
But it would seem my standards are too high for the New York Times, which is supposedly this nation's leading newspaper. In a story about the recent Clinton/Obama debate, the Times included this paragraph:
"Congratulations for taking journalism to a new low (who even knew that was still possible)," said one person who posted to the ABC News Web site, and identified himself or herself as a college professor who had assigned the debate as homework. "I almost felt like I needed to apologize for suggesting that they watch the debate, but instead we used your sorry display as a way of talking about how the media covers politics today."
Got that? The Times isn't merely protecting the source's identity here, the Times actually has NO IDEA WHO THE SOURCE IS!
And that's a problem, at least in my world. Look, I have no reason to think that supposed college professor isn't really a college professor, isn't really sincere in his or her remarks, or has some ulterior motive, but how do we really know? What's to prevent political operatives from posting "comments" designed to help one side or hurt the other?
Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Write a letter to the editor, and a newspaper will require you to give your real name and address. Prior to publication, you may even get a phone call to confirm that you really wrote the letter.
But on the Web? Who cares?!
And if you're the New York Times, you figure, "Hey, it's on the Web; it must be true," and you put it in print.
What's next for the Times, "quoting" graffiti found on rest room walls?
Liberals and Conservatives Think Differently
Liberals and Conservatives Think Differently. Well, no surprise there. But I'm not talking about merely having different opinions, I'm talking about different ways of thinking, that help lead the two groups toward different conclusions, and thus, different opinions.
I've recently read a few things that speak to this difference. You might enjoy reading them, too.
"The central conservative truth," Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself."
That's how Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News began a column this month. I agree with the sentiment expressed by the late Democratic Senator from New York. That's why liberals act as though the answer can be found in new laws and new government programs. Meanwhile, conservatives -- sometimes labeled "reactionaries" --- point toward a need to adhere to tried-and-true values. Dreher eplores this idea in relation to current economic conditions.
In another column, Dreher writes about how liberals tend to have a view that everything is always wrong, but believe that achieving perfection is only a matter of passing the right laws. Conservative, on the other hand, believe that the world is imperfect, but that centuries of human experience have put us at a place that's about a good as it can get. Abandoning long-standing cultural norms can only lead to trouble, conservatives believe.
In my experience, liberals are more likely to have what another news story, by Shankar Vedantam of the Washington Post, calls an "action bias, or the desire to do something rather than nothing" when things aren't going the way you want them to. Trouble is, the story says, this is the same human reaction that causes people to buy high and sell low.
But liberals seem more likely to assume that "doing something" or "changing course" will always give a better result than the unacceptable current condition. Whether it's what's going on in Iraq or the economy, if the current situation isn't perfect, they insist we must do something. That flies counter to the conservative way of thinking, which acknowledges that the world is imperfect, but believes that adhering to time-tested practices is the best way to weather a storm.
Keep It Simple So People Will Listen
Sven and Ole had just finished painting a sign along the side of the road:
"Save yourself! Turn back before it's too late! Death awaits you unless you change your way!"
A man sped by in his convertible, shaking his head. "Crazy Bible-bangers," he muttered.
Sven turned to Ole and said, "Do you think we should have just written, 'Bridge out ahead'?"
There's a lesson in there that we can tie to my previous post. Whether you're a Christian evangelist or Al Gore, be careful that your message doesn't seem too extreme. No matter how passionate you might be about your cause, if you overwhelm people with too much talk of certain death and fire and brimstone -- whether Earthly or other-worldly -- you run the risk of people dismissing you as a crackpot and shutting out your message entirely.
I'm not the only one to have observed that Global Warming seems eerily like a religion. Listen to the true believers; even they know it in their hearts. You'll hear them say that heretics who doubt them "don't believe in Global Warming." In doing so, even they admit that it's a "belief" system!
But just because you don't believe in the divine or supernatural aspects of a particular religion doesn't mean that you cannot find value in some of the tenets of that religion. A Christian such as myself, for example, can find wisdom in the teachings of the Buddha. An atheist can agree that not killing and not stealing are worthy goals to work toward, along with loving your neighbor as yourself.
It's just that the atheist doesn't believe that if he does steal, he will be sentenced to eternal damnation in the fires of hell. And he doesn't believe that he needs to perform certain rituals and rigidly adhere to a specific lifestyle in order to save himself, the way some members of some religions do.
That's sort of like my perspective on the Global Warmists, who want to save not my soul, but my Earthly body from the Earthly fires of their version of an Earthly hell. I think some of them are nuts, competing to be greener-than-thou with their carbon credit indulgences and their sudden lifestyle conversions.
But that doesn't mean they aren't right when they say we should use energy wisely. And not pollute. I can't argue with those ideas. It just gets to be a matter of defining who's a sinner and who isn't. Sort of like trying to define what it means to "remember the sabbath." There are religious denomination that interpret that to mean you can't even turn on a light switch, or you'll be working on the sabbath.
In the same way, what constitutes being a "sinner" on the road? The good Global Warmists, of course, drive the Toyota Pious. I mean, Prius. That's a good outward show of how holy one is. But how much do they drive? Do they drive when they don't need to? What about that? Owning a Prius doesn't mean you're holier than your neighbor, any more than showing up in church every Sunday does. The more important thing is, what are you doing the rest of the week, when everyone isn't looking?
My point is, just like members of other religions, Global Warmists may have something useful to say. Just don't ask me to bow down to Al Gore, who seems more and more like a cult leader.
Speaking of Al, the Wall Street Journal reports this as an excerpt from his autobiography, "An Assault on Reason":
When I was a boy growing up on our family farm in the summers, I learned how to hypnotize chickens. You hold the chicken down and then circle your finger around its head, making sure that its eyes trace your hand movement. After a sufficient number of circles, the chicken will become entranced and completely immobile....
It turns out that the immobility response in animals is an area that has received some scholarly attention, and here is one thing the scientists have found: The immobility response is strongly influenced by fear. A fear stimulus causes the chicken's amygdala to signal the release of neurochemicals, and controlled experiments show that they make immobility much more likely.
No, I'm not saying that television viewers are like hypnotized chickens. But there may be some lessons for us larger-brained humans in the experiences of barnyard hens.
Immobilizing with fear? Might Al have finally found a use for the lessons he learned from hynotizing chickens?
Anyone else think Global Warmists might simply be Al Gore's chickens?
I mentioned a couple of posts ago that I admire the work of Dr. Seuss. The way he conjured up ideas, pictures and words was just amazing. (And if he went a little left-wing whacko in his latter years, I'll give him that.)
But while the Good Doctor is best known for his hugely-successful children's books, he was already a big success before he began writing for kids. He had already made a name for himself as humor/editorial cartoonist, and that led to some very succesful advertising work.
The cartoons that follow were taken from the book "The Suess, the Whole Seuss and Nothing but the Seuss: A visual biography of Theodor Seuss Geisel" by Charles D. Cohen, 2004, Random House Childrens Books. Look for it in your library or favorite book store. This is a great coffee table book for adults.
It's ironic, given Seuss' environmental sensibilities later in his career, that he made so much money advertising bug sprays and petroleum products.
Saw this headline today: "Home sales rise as prices tumble."
What else would anyone expect? That's the market at work. Declining house values are bad for some people, good for others. If you're a first-time home buyer, depressed prices and a market flooded with houses for sale are great!
And wasn't it not so long ago that we kept reading and hearing about how awful it was that not everyone could afford a house, because prices were soaring? And didn't we used to hear about how unfair it was that some people were denied mortgages?
But everything is always bad, isn't it? Strong dollar? No one can afford to buy our exports! Weak dollar? Imports are more expensive! Whatever change takes place, it's bad.
We've been going through some changes at the Pioneer Press, where I'm now employed. Of course, that has led to some complaints. Today I overheard someone on the phone saying, "Well, people don't like change." And I thought, "Don't tell that to Obama."
Obama has been winning converts with his mantra of "change." But he never defines it. And that's been working out great for him so far. Because people really LOVE change -- in the abstract. When the change isn't defined, everyone is free to imagine his or her own version of a change for the better. The problems come when you have to define the change. That's when you find out who's coming out a winner, and whose ox is getting gored.
Same thing with "reform." We're always going to have "tax reform." And everyone thinks that means they will personally pay a smaller, more "fair" share, and "the rich" will pay more. Trouble there is, we can't agree on who "the rich" are. Or maybe we can: it's anyone with more money than us.
I really admire the work of the late Dr. Seuss, so the opening of a new movie based on one of his classics brings the fear that what he wrote and illustrated so perfectly will be butchered by Hollywood. Not to worry, says Chris Hewitt in a review in the Pioneer Press (Full disclosure: where I now am employed in classified advertising.), the film does the book proud.
But my mind kind of got off on a tangent after reading this paragraph of Hewitt's review:
There are any number of ways to interpret "Horton," which was probably Seuss' intent. Obviously, there's a saving-the-environment message that takes on new urgency in the age of global warming. The mayor's political rival (Dan Fogler, his voice dripping evil) suggests the arrogance of one nation thinking it knows what's best for the rest of the world. And there are jabs at the teaching of intelligent design in here, too, if you're looking for them ("Our community has standards, Horton!" Burnett insists).
I've observed before that we tend to see what we want to see, and mostly that means we see whatever supports our existing world view. That's probably what's at work here. Hewitt saw three messages that I think we could describe as jabs at President Bush/Republicans/Conservatives.
When I get a chance to see the movie, I'll have to see what I see in it. Will I see those messages, too? And if so, will it be because those messages were intended by Dr. Seuss? Or because those are the political views of the film makers, through which they have interpreted Seuss' original story?
It just so happens that I see another message in the book. One that actually seems pretty obvious when you consider these lines from the book/movie, which Hewitt quotes in his review:
"If you can't see, fell or hear something, it doesn't exist." (Uttered by the villains who would destroy the Whos.)
"A person's a person no matter how small."
Don't those lines sound like part of an anti-abortion story?
I got to wondering if anyone else had ever thought about that, so I went to what our President refers to as "The Google" to find out. And by searching for "Horton + Seuss + abortion" I found out quite a bit.
It seems that others indeed have seen that message in the book. But an attempt by a pro-life group to co-opt Horton's words was reportedly met with the threat of lawsuit from Dr. Seuss! So it seems unlikely that Dr. Seuss intended his story to be about abortion when he wrote it. Way back in 1954.
It's also worth noting that this was Dr. Seuss' second book featuring the elephant Horton. In the first, "Horton Hatches the Egg," our big-eared hero tends to a bird's egg through thick and thin, when the mother decides she can't be bothered with the responsibility that goes with her egg. In effect, Horton adopts the unhatched child of the irresponsible mother.
Now, doesn't that sound like a story calling for adoption instead of abortion?
For a guy who wasn't trying to write pro-life books, Dr. Seuss sure was good at it.
News Item: Geraldine Ferraro says Obama wouldn't be where he is if he weren't black
Obviously. That's not to say Obama isn't a talented politician, but his meteoric rise to become possibly the next president has been helped along by the "novelty" of the color of his skin. And Ferraro is right, too, that she would never have been tapped as Mondale's running mate in 1984 if she were a man.
(Honesty 24 years after the fact. And when it's politically expedient. What else would you expect from a politician?)
But it's true, and I don't intend that to take anything away from Obama. Consider, if you will, Jackie Robinson. He was a very good baseball player. But his number 42 would not have been retired by every major league team if he had been just another white guy.
News Item: Immigrants from Liberia serving with Minnesota National Guard in Iraq become citizens
The West-African nation of Liberia was founded by freed slaves from the American South. That their descendants can now choose to voluntarily return to the U.S. to seek a better life and become citizens speaks to how much some things have changed for the better.
News Item: "Saturday Night Live" criticized for portraying Barack Obama with non-black cast member.
I Say: Here we go again. I thought that Obama "transcends" race, so what's the big deal? This really is silliness. Fred Armisen, the SNL cast member who portrays Obama, is said to be of Caucasian and Asian heritage. Obama is of Caucasian and African heritage. So you've got a guy who is half Caucasian portraying another guy who is half Caucasian. That sounds appropriate to me. If you portrayed Obama with a totally African-heritaged performer, would that somehow be more accurate? What about Obama's mother's side? The white people from Kansas? Are we supposed to just pretend they don't exist? Hide them in the attic like some deep, pale, family secret?
I remember a similar flap several years ago, about the Broadway musical "Miss Saigon." I've never seen the show, but as I recall a central character is the product of a U.S. serviceman's liaison with a Vietnamese woman -- an "Amerasian." The controversy was that the role was being played by someone who was not Asian. I thought the tempest in a teapot was summed up best by an actor who said, "That's what actors do. We play people we aren't."
News Item: Scientists surprised to find snow forms around bacteria
It's good for scientists to be surprised sometimes. They tend to think they have everything all figured out, and they spend too much time pursuing research designed to support what they already believe is right.
But as Donald Rumsfeld would say, We don't know what we don't know.
That's the exciting thing to me, that there are things out there yet that no scientist has even thought to look for. What's the fun in knowing everything? Discovery is where the excitement is. But too often scientists don't want to learn or discover;,they just want to be prove that they are right. What can I say? Scientists are human, too.
I've seen several examples of stubborn, narrow-minded scientists on PBS science programs. These guys have made up their minds about something, and they don't care what new evidence you present them with. It's either meaningless, or it proves their point. For example, there have been competing theories of how the Easter Island statues were erected, competing theories of how animal flight developed, competing theories of how to build a pyramid or raise a giant Egyptian obelisk.
It might make for good television, but I don't' think it's very good science. Rather than have these guys compete to see whose theory is "right" -- criticizing and mocking each other like children -- I'd like to see them approach the subject with open minds, knowing that very likely neither one of them is right, or maybe they are both partially right.
But that would be science. Being stubborn and competitive is being human.
As The Amazing Randi said, scientists are just like the rest of us. They have an amazing ability to find and see just what they want to see.
News Item: War in Iraq is "second longest" for U.S.
Only the Vietnam War lasted longer, they say. But is that really true? When there is no declaration of war and no surrender, how do we know how long a war lasts? Some have said that the "war" in Iraq was short and went very well. It's the peace that is giving us all the trouble.
Do we measure the length of a war by how long our troops are on foreign soil? If so, then once again we're forgetting "The Forgotten War." We still have heavily-armed forces in Korea, staring across a demilitarized zone a the enemy. That war has been going on for nearly 60 years now. And don't we still have troops in Germany? And Japan?
News Item: Computers Have Trouble with "Foreign" Surnames
If your name is O'Dowd or D'Angelo you might be disrespected by computers, which often don't know how to handle a name with punctuation in it. But let's not get carried away saying that some people have "surrendered to technology." An Associated Press story told of "Iraqi immigrant Lina Alathari [who was] once known as Lina Al-Athari, but dropped the hyphen in America. 'There is no pronunciation difference, so I'm fine with it,' she said."
Two points here: One, "Americanizing" your name
when you become an American is nothing new. People from many continents
have been doing that for centuries. Two, when she was in Iraq, wasn't her
name written in Arabic? So it wouldn't have ever really been "Al-Athari."
One of the reasons I decided to get serious about putting my opinions into writing a few years back is that I was tired of politicians and reporters "discovering" things that I had been saying years earlier -- when everyone just acted like I was nutty for saying those things. Twenty years ago, I thought maybe I just didn't know any better. But as the years passed, I saw over and over again that I was right all along. I just had to wait for everyone else to catch up to me.
Here's a recent example. The front page of today's Pioneer Press has a story about the planned light rail line down University Avenue. A headline declares, "With the rail route fixed, attention now is on the streetscape, and historians and neighborhood activists all chorus: 'Don't treat it like Rondo.'"
Rondo was the African-American neighborhood in St. Paul that was destroyed by the construction of I-94 in the 1960s. We're often reminded of that, and the effect the freeway had on the neighborhood even gets blamed for present-day problems in St. Paul's black community.
University Avenue is just a few blocks over and parallel to I-94. It's central to the city's African-American and, increasingly, Asian-American communities. How will they be affected by having this train rammed down their throats?
Are we in danger of repeating the mistakes that caused the destruction of Rondo? I've been asking that for years. I've tried to raise the issue with anyone involved with the project -- city officials, transit activists, paid lobbyists, what have you. I even asked the question directly of the mayor of St. Paul, four or five years ago, in a public forum.
What was the response? Everyone just looked around as though they were thinking, "Who let this nut in here?" Then they moved on to another question.
But now, now all of a sudden all of the "experts" are asking the same question.
The powers-that-be tell us that the rail line will be a good thing for everyone. It will bring development and jobs. I bet that's what they said about the freeway back in the 1960s, when "progress" was the word of the day. (Now we have "progressives" who hate freeways and want to build trains.)
Ironically, there's a big patch of prime real estate right next to I-94 that has never been developed in the 40 years since the freeway went in. Home Depot has proposed building a store there, but the train advocates oppose it. It doesn't fit their "vision" for life in the new age of the train.
Come to think of it, they also promised us that lots of great developments would spring up around the Metrodome, one of the train's stops in Minneapolis. But in 26 years, that development has amounted to about one sports bar. And now, a new stadium is being built for the Twins, and the Vikings want a new stadium, too. The Metrodome may have outlived its usefulness without ever spurring development.
But somehow they're sure that this time, all sorts of wonderful, "transit-oriented" development will occur thanks to this latest planned addition to the transportation infrastructure. I've got to wonder, how many blighted or vacant properties along University Avenue will still be blighted or vacant in two, three, four decades, when the "progressives" among us grow tired of light rail, and become infatuated with the new latest thing? (I don't know what that will be, but I'm sure Portland will already have it.)
Barack Obama has been getting good mileage out of his contention that we are all in depspair and he can offer us "hope." ("There's trouble, right here in River City. And that starts with 'T' which rhymes with 'D' and that stands for despair." But not to worry, he'll teach us all to feel happy with the "hope method" -- if you just "hope" it, it'll come true.)
But the recently-departed William F. Buckley knew better. He knew that there is no need for despair in America. Here's a quote from a collection published by the Wall Street Journal:
Despair is inappropriate for a culture as buoyant as our own.
-- Address at the Yale Political Union, 2006
Mainline
Minority Meets Moral Majority
The New York Times reports that one-quarter of adult Americans have left the faith of their childhood. Neela Banerjee of the Times writes that a Pew survey shows a slim majority of Americans -- 51 percent -- are Protestant Christians:
"Evangelical Christians account for a slim majority of Protestants, and those who leave one evangelical denomination usually move to another, rather than to mainline churches."
Okay, let's see if I've got this right: Protestants are a slim majority of all Americans. So-called "Evangelicals" are a slim majority of all Protestants. That would seem to make the "Evangelicals" a sizeable and important group. Doing the math, they must make up at least 26 percent of the population.
Yet the New York Times doesn't consider this substantial group "mainline"?
The same story reports that Roman Catholics are only about 25 percent of the population. That leaves 24 percent of the population divided among other groups.
So by the Times' own story, "Evangelicals" comprise the largest religious group in the nation.
What, then, does the Times consider to be "mainline"?
People in stone houses should not throw glasses.
Is Going
Backward Really "Progressive"?
Why is it that a conservative who wants to return to the values of an earlier time is labeled a "reactionary" who wants all the women kept barefoot and pregnant, while a liberal who wants to return to the 1920s -- with new streetcars and chickens in the backyard -- is called a "progressive"? (Funny, no one ever asks if the "progressives" also want to bring back segregation.)
Here's some of what passes for "progress" these days in St. Paul:
[COMGAR-L] Community Henhouses Meeting
The Midway Chickens group is exploring ways to create small-scale, shared urban henhouses in backyards. If you are interested in being part of this discussion, please come to our next meeting on Tuesday, February 19th, 7-8pm at the J & S Bean Factory at the intersection of Hamline & Thomas Aves in St. Paul. I encourage Midway residents to become involved, but the meeting is open to anyone!
If you are unable to attend but would like to be in the loop, please email me at faith@riseup.net.
More about Midway Chickens: Keeping a small flock of chickens in the city is quickly becoming a popular way of producing fresh eggs, teaching children about food, building soil fertility, and reducing your environmental impact. The new Midway Chickens group will be working to help neighbors start small-scale backyard henhouses (individual or shared), and support existing chicken keepers in sharing information and resources.
*COMGAR is for community gardeners in the Twin Cities Metro Area (and Greater Minnesota) to share timely information, seek advice from other gardeners, and learn about resources available to gardeners. **Send emails to comgar-l@lists.umn.edu. Questions and requests to remove or update subscriptions to info@gardenworksmn.org. Archived COMGAR postings available at http://lists.umn.edu/archives/comgar-l.html
I think I've figured out who "progressives" are: Progressives are modern-day hippies with money (usually earned through a public sector job). But where hippies used to simply give up their cars and go raise chickens on a commune, now they are THE ESTABLISHMENT, and use that power to try to enforce their beliefs on everyone through the power of the government.
And part of the reason they are so intent on legislating their beliefs upon everyone else is that they feel guilty about having money and being the establishment. They feel better about themselves if they can make everyone else suffer. It's sort of a complement to the "buying indulgences" of "carbon offsets." In this case, they get all of us to be surrogates doing penance for them.
The Trade-off:
Liberals Rush In Where Conservatives Fear to Tread
I've noted before that I enjoy syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr., of the Miami Herald. Though I sometimes may disagree with his opinions, reading his column gives me an appreciation that other people can look at the world around us and draw different conclusions, based on being different people with different experiences. Mr. Pitts, being a black man in the South, has a different perspective than I.
But the great thing about Pitts' writing is that he gives his view and states his case in such a way that even if I'm not persuaded to come around to his side of the argument, I at least go away with a greater appreciation of how other people feel about the topic. This isn't the case with all liberal pundits. Too often they don't enlighten me at all, but just berate me as a stupid, evil conservative.
Pitts wrote recently on the topic of: What do social conservatives need to do to attract black voters? Pitts answer: Be on time for a change.
By that, he meant that it's not enough to be on the right side of racial issues NOW, social conservatives need to be on the right side of issues while they are being debated. Don't tell me you're for the Civil Rights Act now, Pitts says, you should have been for the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
That's interesting, because conservatives such as myself are by definition and by nature wary of change. And in fact, I have asked myself sometimes where I would have been on the issues if I had lived in an earlier time. A century ago, would I have said, "Give women the vote? Are you crazy? We've never done that before. It could mess up everything."
Or 150 years ago, would I have said, "Free the slaves? Are you nuts? What about the rights of slaveholders? The whole society will fall apart."
I think that's a fair question. I find slavery and women not voting as incomprehensible as the next guy. But if I had lived in an earlier era, would my conservative nature and mindset have put me on what I obviously now would consider the wrong side of the issue?
So I understand Pitts request to "be on time."
But there's a flip side to this. Just as conservatives can be too slow to embrace change, liberals can be too quick. They can rush in without thinking things through. And the consequences can be serious.
Pitts himself directs us to an example when he writes that conservatives should "Support initiatives that help ensure stable, father-present families."
Paging Dan Quayle.
Sounds to me like Pitts is describing what is already part of the social conservative agenda. Remember Republican Vice President Dan Quayle, and his remarks about how TV character Murphy Brown having a child out of wedlock set a bad example? He was mocked for it.
It's liberals, rushing in where conservatives fear to tread, who have helped destroy families. Liberals have told us that it doesn't matter whether cohabiting people are married. It doesn't matter whether pregnant women are married. It doesn't matter if people divorce -- it's better for the children. It doesn't matter whether a child has a father in the household.
Maybe if there had been more conservative foot dragging, we wouldn't have so many children growing up without fathers in their lives.
So it works both ways. Conservatives can delay good change, but liberals can bring about bad change. Not all change is good, nor is all change bad.
The tricky part is knowing the difference.
No Free
Lunch Blowin' in the Wind
People like to believe that they can get something for free. But you know the old saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
Well, maybe there is sometimes. If your rich uncle buys you lunch, maybe it really is free -- to you, at least. But that's the thing, there is always someone paying. Trouble is, a lot of people think that if the government pays, it's "free."
Here's a recent example: A photo in the newspaper shows wind turbines on top of a government building in Duluth, Minn. The caption reports that the turbines generate up to 6,000 watts of electricity "for free" when the wind blows.
For free? Really? Who paid for the wind turbines? The $80,000 wind turbines? The caption says that was the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and Minnesota Power. That means the $80,000 came from taxpayers all over the state, and from utility customers who buy from Minnesota Power.
That's "free"? Hardly.
But is it a good deal? I'm no expert on this, but I'm going to try to figure it out. I just checked a recent electric bill of my own. As I read it, I'm paying a little less than 6 cents per kilowatt/hour. At peak capacity, these turbines in Duluth put out 6 kilowatts. That means they are producing about 36 cents per hour -- if the wind is blowing. That's $8.64 per day. Or $3,153.60 a year. At that rate, it would take more than 25 years just to reclaim the $80,000 investment! That's with the wind blowing and all the turbines going -- all the time. It doesn't allow for maintenance costs. Or for the present value of money. And all they are getting is enough electricity to run three or four toasters.
At $80,000, the capital cost to produce that windpower in Duluth is more than $13,000 per kilowatt. In comparison, I also recently saw a report that Xcel Energy wants to increase it production capacity at its Monticello nuclear plant. At a cost of $100-135 million, the utility would increase its output by 70 megawatts. As I understand it, and as I do the math, that's only about $1,500 per kilowatt.
Who knew "free" electricity could be so expensive?
As a final link in the alternative energy/something for nothing vein, I offer hybrid cars. I think some Prius drivers think they are getting something for nothing. Where do they think the electricity comes from? One Prius defender, writing a letter-to-the-editor, said that the car doesn't use electricity from nasty, coal-burning power plants, because "it generates its own electric power from an innovative regenerative braking system."
That's right, it's a regular perpetual motion machine. Every time it stops, it generates enough power to get it going again.
Of course it doesn't. Generating electricity while braking, by using the kinetic energy of the moving car, is a good idea, but it doesn't create something from nothing. It is a method of recapturing some of the energy that the gasoline engine used to get the car moving. In that sense, the hybrid system is a way of making the gasoline engine more efficient. But it isn't a way of getting something for nothing.
And in addition to generating electricity during braking, doesn't a Prius also simply charge up the battery while the gasoline engine is running? You couldn't possibly generate enough electricity during braking to run the car much otherwise. So what I'm getting at is, a Prius is a GASOLINE-POWERED car. It might be a more-efficient type of gasoline-powered car, but it is gasoline-powered all the same. It isn't a "zero emission" vehicle.
About the only way you could get a zero emission car would be to have a plug-in electric, recharged by a windmill on the roof of your garage. But looking at those figures from Duluth, I don't think that's going to be practical any time soon.
(Anyone out there know more about the Prius? Let me know if I don't understand it correctly. And another question: How do you heat the interior of an electric car during a Minnesota winter? OK, I just went to the Google, and it sounds like the gas engine in a Prius will run during the winter in order to run the heater, even when the car is idle at a light. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? But how would an all-electric car keeps the passengers warm?)
Taking a
Shot at GOPers, Mormons Still OK
Saturday's paper included a story about how some really expensive scotch is being stocked in St. Paul, in preparation for all those rich Republicans coming to town for the GOP national convention (NOT "the RNC," by the way. The "RNC" is the Republican National Committee.)
Playing to stereotypes, I imagine in Denver they're importing some really expensive weed in preparation for the Democrats coming to town.
But seriously, this story wouldn't have been complete without getting some smarmy remarks from Democrats. Former St. Paul mayor George Latimer obliged, saying, "Thank goodness Romney didn't win because all the people in there would be drinking water."
Ho, ho, ho! Mormon joke!
Is it politically correct to make Mormon jokes?
Some will say that it's merely a fact that Mormons are not allowed to have alcohol. But then would the same joke be acceptable if directed at Minneapolis Congressman Keith Ellison -- a much-celebrated Muslim? Or would that be "insensitive" and "intolerant"?
And I think we know the answer to this one: What about a joke with a punchline that said, "Thank goodness Obama didn't win because all the people in there would be drinking malt liquor"?
Oh, boy, that one would be a no-no.
So where, exactly, is the line?
A Donkey
Walks into a Bar and the Bartender Asks, "Why the Long Face?"
Today I read a column about how Republicans are happier than Democrats. That doesn't surprise me at all.
Despite the picture painted by liberals and the media -- that Republicans are greedy, selfish and mean-spirited -- I think that in many cases, Republicans are Republicans because they are people who are more optimistic than Democrats.
Republicans tend to think that by working hard and flying right, and with the help of God, they can succeed in life. (Which is not the same as "get rich.") Democrats tend to think they are helpless, exploited victims, who need the government's help.
Now, some people really are victims, or exploited, and do need the government's help. So it's only natural that they would back the Democrats and their policies. But I see an awfully lot of upper-middle-class Democrats who like to think of themselves as "victims" and "the little guy."
It's those folks who are obsessed with money. They're always going on about how it's unfair how much money some CEO makes, while the "working man" like them has so "little." I also think it's obscene the way that CEOs play the game and rake in the ridiculous piles of cash, but at least those cases are very few. They don't represent many people. And I don't measure myself against them.
So, am I a "happy Republican" because I'm so wealthy? Hardly. In fact, if my wife and I were two union auto workers, or two public school teachers, our household income would be greater than it is now. Yet those two groups are very representative of the unhappy "have-nots" who loyally vote Deomcratic.
We have a long tradition of choosing war heroes to be president. It starts with George Washington, of course. There was Andrew Jackson, "Old Hickory," a hero of the War of 1812. Civil War general U.S. Grant. Spanish-American War hero Teddy Roosevelt. WWII hero Dwight Eisenhower -- who like Grant was no politician, but drafted based on his success in winning a war. Then JFK, himself the hero of "PT-109."
At one time, it seemed impossible that a Vietnam War hero would ever become president. I mean, there weren't any "heroes" from that unpopular war, were there? In fact, Bill Clinton made it almost a badge of honor that he had avoided serving in the war.
Then a funny thing happened. John Kerry tried to reinvent himself as a war hero, after getting his start in politics by being anti-war, and -- some say -- anti soldier.
But it didn't work out for Kerry.
So that's it, then, right? There's no chance of there ever being a Vietnam War hero elected president.
Not so fast. Here comes John McCain.
Yes, John McCain is now the presumed Republican nominee. And, he's something very rare -- a genuine Vietnam War hero. While John Kerry's pal Jane Fonda was vacationing in North Korea, John McCain was living in a cage as a prisoner of war.
John McCain really is a war hero. But here's a prediction: his campaign won't be based on it. When you're the real thing, you don't have to tell everyone about it.
I went to my caucus last night. What a crowd! A typical crowd of local GOPers (House District 64B) would be maybe 100 people. But with 250 chairs set up, the rest of the school gym was filled with people standing. There were more than 400 people for sure, maybe even 500.
Four years ago, there were maybe about eight people in my precinct meeting. Two years ago, I was the only one! But this year when we broke up to meet by precincts, there were 27. However, it appeared that only a very few of us had ever attended a caucus before.
People were eager to cast their ballot for their preferred presidential candidate. But Minnesota's GOP caucus straw poll is non-binding. So the way to further your candidate's chances is really to send delegates who favor that candidate up the ladder of party conventions. I don't think people realize that, however, and we didn't even have competition for the four delegate positions from our precinct. Four people were interested in doing it, so they became the delegates. And I don't even know which candidate they favor!
I did not ask to be a delegate. I was a delegate four years ago. That meant I went to the state house district convention. There, I was elected to attend the congressional district convention and state convention. But I really didn't enjoy the process very much, and felt I was wasting some nice spring and summer weekends sitting inside listening to people who didn't know anything ramble on about some pointless, nonsensical resolutions they wanted passed. But four years ago we had an incumbent president up for reelection, so there was no debate about the party's candidate. Maybe this year will be more interesting.
There's
No Negotiating with Evil
A headline over the weekend told of two bombings in Baghdad markets, which killed about 100 people. I have two observations about this:
1 -- The bad guys are a lot more patient than the American people. And possibly smarter. They won't give up, but they think that we will. With recent reports about the "surge" working, and reports that perhaps Al Qaida in Iraq is making its last stand in Mosul, some Americans were beginning tho think that, hey, maybe we could win this thing after all. Al Qaida couldn't have that, so they had to do something to get the carnage back on the front page, and discourage the American public.
Mission accomplished.
2 -- Some people -- including people who think they would make a good President -- continue to say that the answer is diplomacy and greater cultural understanding.
What kind of "understanding" can you reach with people who strap bombs to women with Down syndrome, send them into crowded public places, and blow them up from a safe (for themselves) distance?
dave ["at" ] downingworld
[.com] -- If you'd like to know what I
think about a particular topic, drop me a line: I may use it for a future
blurb. But remember: I'm not really a know-it-all; I just play one on the
Web. Thanks for tuning in, from your host David W. Downing.
HOME -- Public Affairs -- Marriage -- Ronald Reagan
Farm Life -- Slice of Life -- Humor
DowningCommunications -- Downing Pumpkins
Dave's Usborne Books Online Store
keep count with WebCounter, http://www.digits.com/