Follow Your Dreams

It is not the Apple II, Macintosh, iPod, iMac, iPhone or iPad that define Steve Jobs' contribution to our lives. These are simply the by-products of Jobs' quest for beauty. In partnership with Steve Wozniak, tinkering with electronics and rudimentary software, Jobs and "the Woz" were the essence of "flower power" blossoming at the dawn of the personal computer age in the 1970s.  

In his 2005 commencement address to Stanford graduates, Steve Jobs urged the graduates to follow their dreams, unfettered by the constraints of other peoples' thinking. We will not reiterate here the various paths that Jobs followed that would brighten the lives of millions of humans. Instead, let us reflect upon his own explanation of what drove him, and what we might do to find fulfillment in our own brief time on this earth:

Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

Steve Jobs, June 12, 2005

Thank you Steve.

Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post

Choosing Mediocrity and Greed

Choosing Mediocrity and Greed
Minnesota as a Microcosm of the Nation



Before Governor Dayton capitulated to demands the state continue to operate on a budget that excoriates the backs of lower income Minnesotans’ I wrote a commentary on the reasonableness of his proposals. They were based broadly on two assumptions most Americans have subscribed to forever.

First, there are functions government can provide better and more efficiently than the private sector and should provide through general taxation. Secondly, those who benefit the most from living in America should contribute more than those who benefit the least.

It turns out, because of the growth by topsy of our system of taxation; both the state and federal tax systems are regressive with the exception of the income tax. Income tax is the only tax opponents of increasing taxes point at. They never say income in front of tax.

Minnesotans in the top 1% of incomes pays less as a per cent of their income in state and local taxes than the bottom 99% of us.

Opponents of increasing taxes on the very highest income brackets point out taxpayers in the top 10% pay 56% of income tax. This is true according to the Minnesota Revenue Department’s Tax increment study (MDTI) of 2011. In the same paragraph they note the same taxpayers bore 38.5% of the total tax burden having 42% of a total income. The bottom 10% paid no income tax but they paid 2.4% of the total tax burden but received less than 0.9% of the total income.

Tax rates by deciles from the MDTI shows the rate of all taxes on Minnesotans (state and local) is the lowest for the highest incomes at 9.7%.

How the Democrats and Dayton could not get this into the media is beyond me. The scoring of his proposals after watering down his original proposals showed that 90% of his increase would be paid by the top 5% and fully 80% by the top 1% of incomes.

This would hardly be confiscatory on those poor million/billionaires. The MDTI shows this would be an increase of 1.77% on their total tax rate. Since state and property tax is deductible on federal taxes this would lower the effect on their state tax rate to a 1.22% increase. The federal government would pay for about 30% of the increase coming to Minnesota.

Instead of solving the budget problems the legislature pulled a Pawlenty. A name that should become an adjective describing kicking the fiscal can down the road by delaying payments, borrowing from future revenue, and defunding social safety nets for the politically and financially impoverished.
This is what the legislature did. Politicians will surely write in and try to confuse you about this. I invite you to explore the Minnesota Revenue web site yourself.

Minnesota is a microcosm of the nation and its fiscal madness. Both are saying, in effect, we cannot afford to join all other advanced nations in providing the same safety nets and services other nations do. They have convinced enough people that undeserving, slothful, and devious people are “milking the government cow from 300 million teats”. They still believe the fabrication of the welfare queen driving up in her Cadillac to get her welfare check that was disproved thirty years ago.

I have not found an IRS document like the Tax Incidence Studies. I did find a publication on the top 400 incomes reported for 2008. The top 400 reported had an average income of 270 million dollars. Approximately one third had an average federal income tax rate of less than 15%. Only 15% of such returns had an average between 30 and 35%. Less than 4 out of 5 returns for the fabulous 400 reported wage or salary income. They had income only from rent, dividends, interest, capital gains, and the like. All these are subject to preferential tax treatments. It also indicates these 88 of these folks do not contribute anything to social security.

The average tax on $270 was 49 million for an average tax rate of 18.11%. When you hear politicians say you can’t overtax “job creators” and throw 35% figure at you it might be interesting to ask them if they know the average rate billionaires pay in income tax. Their response will be the rich invest their money and create jobs. The rich invest their money in relatively mature and large business and industry. That is impossible to do and keep your investment in the U.S. Both General Motors and Ford are making most of the cars in other countries. Chrysler is owned by an Italian company. IBM, General Electric, you name a titan of Wall Street and they are global. Much of the uber rich create jobs in other countries.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “The rich are different from you and me.” I would rather dwell on a quote from Warren Buffet one of the richest men in the country. “There is something wrong with a system where I pay less of my income in taxes than my secretary”.

In a kinder and gentler time conservatives like Theodore Roosevelt knew it was not good to charge those riding in first class on the ship of state the same as those in steerage. Ronald Reagan recognized the need for a progressive tax and after his 1982 tax cut raised taxes 11 times. Reagan’s tax increases in 1983 were called the largest peace time tax increases in American history.

In a kinder and gentler time the public made a decision to protect our disadvantaged, handicapped, and disabled. We decided to honor our elderly, protect them from poverty, and provide dignity for them in their dotage. We are not broke. We can afford it. We choose not to. We choose to go back to 30% poverty for those over 65. We choose to go back to the poor farms. We choose Hoovervilles. We choose Grandma and Grandpa living with their children for the last decades of their lives.

I don’t remember the Hoovervilles but I do all the rest and I don’t choose it.

Surprise-Surprise

Pew Research published a new poll about the public's view of problems facing the nation September 8th. The heading on their e-mail alert stated now more people view jobs and the economy more important than the nation's debt.

In the article there is a graph that shows the levels of concern for jobs, the budget deficit, inflation, financial and housing markets since March 2010. Jobs has always, since March 2010, been the area of most concern. Only in March, 2011 was inflation within 6% of jobs and the budget deficit has never been less than 10% below jobs in the publics concern.

Not only were the Republicans able to ignore the public's concerns. They were able to distract (along with Obama and the Congressional Democrats) the majority of the media with their constant message of deficits and the extortion of the debt limit raise.

Until Obama learns how to avoid falling into letting Republicans control the subject we will all go through this over and over again.

Medicare Did It Right, Again


For those who believe Government cannot do anything right I offer this example of a Government program that has done quite a few things right. The agency is the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Boy that will explode a few right wing heads.

Six years ago the FDA approved, in an expedited process, stent devices similar to the stents used to open heart arteries that are plugged up with cholesterol plaques for use in preventing strokes and more specifically recurrent strokes. It seems intuitive that if it helps in heart disease and the problems in stroke are very similar it should help in stroke as well. It just isn’t that simple.

CMS knew it was not that simple. Since most strokes caused by cholesterol plaques occur in older patients Medicare was likely to be responsible for much of the cost of the new therapy. Standard medical therapy consists of strict control of blood pressure, strict control of diabetes, control of cholesterol/lipid levels, drugs to reduce the ability of blood to clot, cessation of smoking and life style changes.

CMS refused to pay for the stent treatment unless it was done for a controlled study to prove the stents would be effective. So a study was devised where matched patient populations were all given the intensive medical management and half were also given the stent after appropriate disclosure that it was a new procedure study. Adding the approved stent (Wingspan stent) would add $88,000 to the $24,000 cost of the intensive medical management.

The study found the stent produced no long term benefits and was statistically similar to the medically treated group after the immediate post operative period. The stent, however, was associated with a large increase in death and recurrent stroke in the immediate post operative period.

It is possible that further studies will find a niche for the stent in a rigorously selected group of patients. Stents for atherosclerotic heart disease went through a period of reappraisal. It is still the object of some skepticism and will undoubtedly continue to be studied and its indications for use will be refined.

Still, the indiscriminate use and the additional $88,000 cost will not be a factor in Medicare inflation. CMS did the taxpayers a great favor. Not only in protecting the Medicare funds from more rapid depletion but in influencing the private insurance industries costs. When Medicare makes this kind of move the private insurers almost always follow quickly. Medicare gives them cover for excluding this kind of unproven therapy from coverage.

Think of the vast number procedures and treatments that are no more than intuitively performed in this country that should be examined critically. That is the purpose of the section of the Affordable Care Act concerned with comparative effectiveness. You know, the part that Republicans demagogue as the rationing of care.

Ref. Stenting versus Aggressive Medical Therapy for Intracranial Arterial Stenosis: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoal105335
Brain Stents do more Harm than Good, Rob Stein
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/brain-stents-for-stroke-patients-do-more-harm-than-good-study-shows/2011/09/02/glOAAtRWS9J

Government should stop licensing marriage

Government - Federal,State and Local should get out of the
Marriage Business

My wife and I recently had a conversation about the coming constitutional amendment vote here in Minnesota to declare marriage as the union of only a male and a female. This is being proposed after the Republican dominated House and Senate of the state passed a bill that cannot, by our constitution, be vetoed by the Governor. The arguments for this include the threat such unions pose to traditional marriages and the admonitions in the bible against such unions. Homophobia is alive and well in Minnesota.

The bible argument is a bit strange. There are, to my understanding, biblical admonitions against bestiality. Definite proscriptions against same sex unions, I believe, are based on loose interpretations of allegory from the old Testament and St Paul in the New. Many interpretations of any part of the bible have confounded scholars (especially skeptics) for centuries and, I suppose, still do. Even if you are so faith endowed you believe in the inerrancy of the bible you should agree there are many ways to interpret much of the bible.

My biggest problem, however, with the biblical argument is there are many people, even here in Minnesota, for which the bible is not their religious touchstone. Besides devotees of Dawkins, Harris, and Sagan Minnesota has the largest population of Somalis in the country and the second largest (to California) of Mung for whom the bible is of little import. There is a Buddhist Temple in Minneapolis. The Wiccans are a secretive lot and I’m not sure of their numbers. The reader can name many more religions I’m sure.

Man and woman unions had the added salutary effect, as far as the churches and synagogues were concerned, of producing offspring to fill up the pews and church coffers. Kings, satraps, and head men every where were given more fodder for their armies as well. Besides it is good for control of the masses if they accept control in the intimate matter of long term relationships they will accept control in many other areas as well.


There have been threats to my marriage but never have I considered the cohabitation of members of the same sex a threat. We had a gay couple live directly across the street from us in St Louis and they were wonderful neighbors. Quiet, industrious, and kept their property in great repair and the landscaping was outstanding. They were friendly, polite, thoughtful and circumspect. I have gay relatives who have not come out and so they are circumspect about their preferences. My wife had/has many gay friends because of the fine arts degree she returned to college for. None of these associations ever caused the problems between us that raising four kids did.

This is not just a rant without a proposed solution. I look at marriage as a religious construct. It was probably proposed centuries ago by the same kind of priests Jesus threw out of the temple in the oft repeated story in the bible. The motive was not to limit the number of wives and maybe the untold part of the story was it was not even to limit who married who. Remember Solomon and his finagling and multiple wives. David and even Moses had multiple wives. A practice we now abhor and have done away with. We can do the same for people who through no fault of their own have a same sex orientation.


The major biblical admonition most often quoted against same sex union is by St. Paul an author that can, without stretching the imagination, be considered probably schizophrenic. The bolt of lightning that knocked him off his horse had the effect of causing him to hear voices longer than a simple concussion should. In any case the churches seemed to have latched onto this rite in all cultures and most religions. There were other benefits besides the initial monetary one. The money coming into the church just for the ceremony was probably enough.

Man/woman marriage also had the salutary effect of producing offspring that populated the pews of the churches and the armies of the kings.

When civil government decided to get into the marriage business is difficult to determine. It varies from country to country but started somewhere in the middle ages. Certainly it started much later than the religious certification of marriage.

Libertarians do not believe the state/government has any business in the marriage of a man and a woman. A libertarian view on same sex marriage is more difficult and I suspect more varied. Be that as it may, my view is the state has no business in the marriage controversy at all. This may be the only situation where I am in at least partial agreement with Libertarians.

The state/government based its involvement on controlling sexually transmitted diseases, eugenics, to protect the citizen from illegal/improper marriage, and to keep accurate records. It was also used to prevent whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Orientals, Indians and others in many states in the United States. The arguments now are effectively reduced to the biblical admonitions and the accurate records for issuing a license at all.

My opinion on this divisive and contrived political controversy is all government entities should stop issuing licenses to anyone. Religious sects should be free to marry whom ever they feel comfortably fits within their religious convictions. Gays, lesbians, and transgenders do fit into some orthodox religions it seems. If there are none local to all these groups they can form a congregation of their own if they wish.

The state can require couples to come forward after exchanging vows and register civilly as is done in some European countries. The couples signatures and social security numbers should identify the individuals for purposes of the state and federal governments. Surely this information can be transmitted securely to the IRS, Social Security, state and all other agencies that would require this to afford them the legal status of marriage without calling it anything except registering. The couple can call it marriage, bonding, union, partnering or anything else they want to.

This should protect divorce lawyers that will then be called to divvy up assets if the couples decide to part and decide if one should contribute the others cost of living. It should allow the couples to visit each other in the intensive care unit and make decisions about resuscitation. It should allow the remaining partner to collect the deceased partner’s estate, pension, and social security if appropriate. It should allow the couple to file joint tax returns no matter the construct of the union. There is nothing in the word marriage that is magical.

Those who want a big $25,000 church wedding and an even more expensive divorce can continue to do just that.

I want no part of peeking into anyone’s private life and I don’t think the government representing me should either.

The "No New Taxes" Fantasy

There is no free lunch. We pay our taxes to support security for all of our citizens, wealthy and otherwise. Plug the tax loopholes, kill the subsidies going to fossil fuel providers, and step up to the cash register to pay legitimate bills for maintaining the infrastructure that supports an egalitarian way of life.

Social Security is a huge pool of money, but it exists because we pay for it during our working lives. This is not a tax designed to meet the day-to-day expenses of governance, it's a savings account administered as a trust fund so that those of us who are fortunate enough to live to see retirement can be sure of having some of that retirement supported by what we have saved.

Large pools of money draw politicians like maggots to rotting meat. Tell your representative and senator to keep their mouth hooks off the Social Security landscape. "No New Taxes" in Minnesota has already put us $6 billion in the red. Let's start paying it off, but not so fast that our bridges collapse in the "rush hour" traffic.

Let's look briefly at the current "rush" to reduce the deficit at both the state and federal levels. We're told that our current debt is unsustainable, that soon, we will be spending our entire budget just to service (pay interest on money already borrowed) our debt.  Too bad, but that's the way credit systems work. Whether it's your mortgage, credit cards, or your line of credit, once you incur the debt, you must pay the lender. This is both a legal obligation and a moral responsibility. So, paying the debt does not involve "new taxes" at all, it simply requires us to do what we said we would do when we borrowed the money.

The obligation we're talking about is an old one, stretching back years, or decades, spanning times when the economy was good. Now that it is not so good, can we simply declare bankruptcy and stop paying the bills? Yes, at the individual and corporate level, but at the cost of a poor credit rating in the future, impoverishment of our moral standing in the community, or the demise of a once-profitable business. No, at the democratic government level. We incur debt at this level because of perceived legitimate needs at the time the debt was incurred. Maybe the cause was to fight global totalitarianism, maybe to clean up the aftermath of the "perfect storm", maybe to build national networks of rail, road, electrical or communications grids.

Whatever the need, it was judged sufficient at the time to justify incurring the debt. Now we must pay the piper, even if our individual contributions (taxes) have to be somewhat larger than we had earlier anticipated.  The popular slogan, "no new taxes", deceives us into thinking that we are going to be spending money we don't have on "new" programs. Nothing could be further from the truth.  Current budgets at the state and federal levels address continuing needs that have, in many cases, not been fully funded at the outset. Some of these programs need to be phased out in an orderly manner if they are no longer in the best interests of the citizenry, but this can be done carefully, with aforethought, so that the providers of these services can retrain and relocate without creating a major economic upheaval at home or abroad.

In future essays here, we will explore how population changes, opportunity costs, and undue reliance upon the science fiction of Ayn Rand have resulted in the current crises of government spending. For now, it will suffice to simply do as we have always intended in the past, that is, pay our bills, even if the rates on existing tax bases have to go up.

Hope for Florida afterall

We can all be grateful that visitors to Orlando can now focus on the family entertainment fantasies being played out at Disney World rather than the side show emanating from the Orange County Courthouse. Those dissatisfied with the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial, should redirect their vitriol to the gullibility of the American public, all too ignorant of the protections we enjoy because of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Florida still has a long way to go to qualify as the apex of civil rights in the U.S.  But, yesterday's verdict takes a giant leap forward from the heyday of the Orlando Klavern blowing up the residence of NAACP worker Harry T. Moore, killing both Harry and his wife, Harriette.  In 1972, the end of the 28-year reign of terror by then Sheriff of Lake County,  Willis V. McCall, revealed a change in the times in Florida, long a stronghold of anti-union and segregationist sentiments. Perhaps it was the influx of retirees and snowbirds seeking respite from northerly climes, as Isabel Wilkerson suggests.  Or, maybe just the relentless force of reason, implying that justice for one can mean justice for all.

We'll never know what the verdict might have been had Casey Anthony been black, but the day after America's birthday, all Americans can celebrate the fact that a jury of her peers lost no time in affirming that a person accused of first degree murder cannot be deprived of life or liberty in the absence of compelling evidence to convict.

Cross-posted to The Rennaisance Post

Scopes Monkey Trial Revisited

Words flowing from the pens of ordinary folk are exceedingly ineffective in expressing disappointment. When tragedy strikes, we send condolences, try to express our concern for the bereaved, all the while feeling our own impotence in trying to make things feel right again.  So it is in Tennessee, and everywhere that true patriots and dutiful citizens contemplate the meaning of what they do.

As reported in the Memphis Flyer, "Governor Bill Haslam signed the "Special Access to Discriminate" bill into law yesterday, preventing city and county governments from passing ordinances requiring contractors to treat LGBT employees equally."  This, from a man whose campaign website proudly proclaims: "Bill's values are Tennessee's values"

Bill Haslam understands that protecting our conservative values comes first.  He respects the Bible’s admonition against losing our moral compass: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

In his headlong rush to preserve the Second Amendment, he tramples the First by disavowing separation of church and state, and puts "conservative values" ahead of responsible governance, and equal protection under the law.

We know who was the first on Gov. Haslam's list to be denied equal protection under the law. We desperately need to know who is next. Women? Muslims? Teachers of evolution? Atheists? Democrats? Lincoln Republicans? Hillbillies? Intellectuals? Or, perhaps we should ask, "Who is last on his list?" Nixon Republicans? Fundamentalist fanatics? Apocalypse prophets? Dog fight promoters? Run-of-the-mill plain vanilla bigots? Most Tennesseans probably think they're safely ensconced in the middle of the pack. It would be safer to ask, "Was Hitler the only Nazi?"

One presidential hopeful put it most prophetically  before the last election: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post

Earth Fart

This really is about planetary flatulence matched only by the oral flatulence of the promoters of hydraulic fracturing.

Briefly, deep wells (thousands of feet deep) are drilled into rock formations. Shale is often a target because it may hold large quantities of natural gas, not as pockets, voids or chambers, but as gaseous molecules permeating the rock itself. At the bottom of the well, the drillhead turns and cuts a horizontal bore that may extend thousands of feet into the rock. A slurry of water and sand-like particles (and proprietary compounds such as diesel oil) is pumped into the hole under extreme pressure, causing fractures in the rock (think of water freezing in cracks of rock and forcing the cracks to widen). The particles in the slurry “prop” the cracks open so that gas can bleed into the fracking fluid which is then transported back to the surface where the gases are recovered from the fluid.

The process is controversial, not only because the drilling and energy companies refuse to disclose the “proprietary” ingredients in their hydrofracking slurries, but because the groundwater in regions subjected to this process is frequently contaminated by toxic heavy metals and flammable gases such as those flowing from the kitchen tap in the following video clip.

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Why should this concern Minnesotans? Let us examine a few recent events to see if there is cause for concern.


National Public Radio has reported that an energy company has recently purchased 155 acres of land near Red Wing, MN, in the Hay Creek watershed. Their stated purpose for the purchase was to create a "sand pit". Interesting that  the Minnesota Administrative Rules, in particular, 4410.4400 Mandatory EIS Categories, would have required an EIS  "For development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand, gravel, stone, or other nonmetallic minerals, other than peat, which will excavate 160 acres of land or more to a mean depth of ten feet or more during its existence,..."  Perhaps the 155 acres was just coincidental.

The sand is unusually suitable for "propping" material in hydrofracking operations for oil and natural gas recovery from deep wells. It turns out that the bluff country flanking the Mississippi River is underlain by extensive sand and sandstone structures containing sand similar to that in the Hay Creek deposits. Minnesotans and Wisconsinites need to know if this is the beginning of a new mining industry with the potential to reshape significant portions of the Mississippi River valley.

Let us also examine recent TV commercials aired frequently by Exxon/Mobil.  Here, a gentleman of kindly countenance explains in a paternal tone that trillions of cubic feet of natural gas awaited only an "idea" for their release and use as a "clean" domestic fuel for American consumption. How uniquely American; Yankee ingenuity at its best! No mention of hydrofracking; no mention of the environmental devastation reported from several states already involved in hydrofracking; no mention of groundwater contamination.

Lynn Stalmaster couldn't have cast the commercial any better.

Cross-posted to the Renaissance Post

Way too much Orange in GOP Fruitcake

First Richard Nixon, born in a citrus orchard (lemon?), who resigned his presidency to protect his pension. Now, we have Marilyn Davenport, self-proclaimed Christian humorist sharing her private chuckles with her like-minded friends, copy also (by mistake) to the President of the United States? She has "humbly apologized" for her abysmal behavior, but not for her bigoted mind. Nor will she resign from the Orange County GOP Central Committee of which she is a part. Elected part. California law says she can't be fired (from a duly elected position), so the onus is on her to resign.  Is it citrus pollen, or, something in the water out there? Arizona, California, Texas, Florida, hmmm?

Don't bother trying to get to the "contact us" page on the Orange County GOP server, it hasn't been able to handle the traffic. Or, maybe it's a deliberate move to:

My little digital dictionary lists, among others, the following synonyms for "humble":  lowly, working-class, lower-class, poor, undistinguished, mean, modest, ignoble, low-born, plebeian, underprivileged; common, ordinary, simple, inferior, unremarkable, insignificant, inconsequential.

All of the above seem somehow inadequate; too quick to apologize, too slow to think.  Where does the party find them?

Cross-posted to the Renaissance Post

"The War Prayer" Revisited

Not since Mark Twain’s “The War Prayer” have we seen a clearer encapsulation of the consequences of irrationality. Paul Meyers, known in the blogosphere as ‘PZ’, has given sentient beings pause for thought in his April 3 essay, “Shades of Gray“. Twain’s inability to publish such thoughts, posthumously discovered in a cache of his unpublished works, reveals a hopelessly bigoted public (yes, Mother, those were our grandparents), steeped in religious fantasy so pervasive that they were completely unable to examine their own lives as Socrates would have required them (us) to do.

Mother of All Ironies?

In the year 2011, one hundred years after the birth of Ronald Reagan, the American electorate is torn between honoring the "Great Communicator" and finally recognizing the shambles he made of the infrastructure of sentient governance in America. Almost lost in the string of pearls today recounting civil war in Libya, broken nuclear reactors, and the death of Elizabeth Taylor, was this little gem from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood:

"It is not acceptable to have just one controller in the tower [at Reagan National Airport] managing air traffic in this critical air space".

This, in response to the unassisted landing of two commercial aircraft at D.C.'s Reagan National Airport. Hello! Is anyone home? Apparently not. Or, maybe they were just sound sleepers. They? Who are we kidding?  A solo air traffic controller sleeping through his watch just a few miles from the Pentagon, White House and National Capitol?  If you can control the airspace around the nation's capitol with a single person in the tower, why do we need two pilots in the cockpit of a single aircraft? Are we really safer without an Air Traffic Controllers' union? Who would have done away with such a union? And, why? Ideology, demagoguery, or, all of the above? Certainly not reason.

It is long past time to begin to answer these questions. Can we continue to believe in the free lunch fantasy in which good things happen even though we are unwilling to pay for them?  Go figure!  Really, GO!

Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post

Genie Leaves Bottle

Well, the demons have escaped. Yes, those previously bottled up in Japanese reactors near the coast, and those unleashed by Wisconsin Gov. Walker and his henchmen in Madison. Rather than recount the indignities suffered by Wisconsin teachers and civil servants, it is fair to question whether this is an isolated incident, or simply fueling similar fires all across the country.

Case in point, the recent passage of SB1 in Missouri, the "right to work" law. This disingenuous  law pretends to "allow" job seekers to accept employment in union shops without having to make mandatory dues payments to their unions. Apparently, someone has convinced the state legislature that job-seekers are avoiding Missouri because union jobs will require them to make payroll deductions for their dues. Protestors have renamed this bill the "right to work for less" law. Surely, this isn't intended to be union-busting.

Is there any other evidence of possible union-busting in current Missouri legislation? Just ask Senatrix Jane Cunningham, who has recently sponsored a particularly odious attack on Missouri teachers. Her (brainless child) Senate Bill SB372 wreaks havoc on teachers by stripping away tenure, reducing minimum pay for certain classes of teachers from $33,000 to $24,000 per year (teachers are clearly overpaid), prohibiting teachers from participating in election campaigns for their own school boards (Sieg Heil!) and they will be subjected to rigorous teaching competency evaluations annually, to wit:

 Each teacher must have an annual comprehensive, performance-based evaluation conducted. Fifty percent of the evaluation will be based on the performance of students for whom the teacher has responsibility. Fifty percent will be based on the district's teaching standards developed under section 160.045. No more than forty percent of a building's teachers will receive a standards-based score in the top thirty-three percent. Teachers must be evaluated regularly and twice annually in the final year of their continuing contract. Advance notice of evaluations will not be given. Evaluations must be maintained in the teacher's personnel file.

If all this is necessary for public school teachers, surely it must also apply to the state's elected legislators. After all, they're responsible for the entire population of the state, including the kiddos!

While you are recovering from your cerebral hernia from that last passage, you'll find comic relief in another Missouri masterpiece conceived by (you guessed it) Senator Cunningham herself. This little gem addresses the critical needs of children under the age of 16 to enter into mainstream commerce. Specifically, SB222 modifies Missouri child labor laws.

It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed. It also repeals the requirement that a child ages fourteen or fifteen obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed. Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished. It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ. It also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment.

Quite clearly, these little angels don't have enough schoolwork to fill out their afternoons, so they have to turn to the busy work of commerce to keep their idle minds occupied. To top it all off, this bill was championed on the supposition that lemonade stands and lawn-mowing businesses have been unduly oppressed by existing child labor laws. I would be very circumspect about drinking any of the Kool-Aid from her kitchen.

Not to leave the latest rant without some positive rumination, here's a note of interest:

A teacher somewhere in your neighborhood tonight is grading and preparing lessons to teach your children while you are watching television. In the minute it takes you to read this, teachers all over the world are using their "free time" and often investing their own money for your child's literacy, prosperity, and future. Copy and post this if you are a teacher, love a teacher or appreciate teachers.

Why do singles and childless couples pay taxes to their local school system? For the privilege of living in an educated society.


Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post

Governor Goofs?

We're not talking about former Governor Rudolph George Prpić infamously named "Governor Goofy", by Newsweek Magazine.  We're referring to MN Governor Dayton's signature on the bill last week to authorize changes in environmental review that will, hopefully, streamline the processing of permits for siting industrial projects.

The Legislative Auditor's report, released last week, concluded that the permitting process was too lengthy and costly in Minnesota. This bill, House File 1 and Senate File 42, was purportedly designed to reduce the time taken to process environmental review applications.

A Horse named Walker

One important difference between a tyranny and a democracy is that dictatorial leadership is not constrained by the principle of a quorum, defined as "the minimum number of members of an assembly that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid". Robert's Rules of Order, the quintessential authority on parliamentary procedure, notes that the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons".

The practice of preventing attainment of a quorum, is, like filibusters and re-reading of the Constitution, a long-standing ploy to defer substantive action of a deliberative body either because there is no alternative to a dire outcome, or to protect a minority view from being desecrated by majority action. Both of our major political parties have used these and complementary procedures to effect their purposes. The conservative media have been too quick to cast the quorum rule in the light of a trick that defeats "the will of the people" in the current case of Wisconsin.

In fact, the will of the electorate is to have deliberative legislatures examining issues important to our governance. It is a perversion of any democracy to say that elections resulting in a majority of one party over the other means that minority party members should pick up their marbles and go home. Elections almost always result in a single party being in the majority. What they do with that majority, and especially, how they protect minority rights, is a measure of their mettle. Do we really want to return to the days of party bosses, where the Whip dictated the character of the vote, rather than merely calling for one? The legitimacy of a particular bill's passage is inversely proportional to the degree of "adherence to strict party lines" among its supporters.

And so, we find ourselves in the embarrassing position of having a state Governor unabashedly refusing to debate the merits of a potentially union-busting bill in Wisconsin. How dare he refuse to hear the arguments of dissention? How dare he lie about the available remedies for a budget shortfall? How dare he insert himself into limiting legislative debate? Where abides the "separation of powers" doctrine in Wisconsin? How dare he lock the doors of the state house?

I am reminded of a horse named Walker. A perfect horse to break-in a would-be ploughman. In harrowing the garden, Walker usually did what I suggested. But when it became clear that my guidance would lead us through the lilacs, he quietly came to a stop and awaited further instruction. He even looked back to verify that the reins were telling him what I really wanted him to do.

WALKER, Percheron X Standard Bred (with just a touch of Arab)

How is Walker to be remembered? Stubborn and unerring in plowing his way through the lilacs? Or, strong, unflappable, patient, willing to accept guidance but not blindly so, and willing to pull his share until the work is done. The more harrowing view is that of the south end of a northbound horse.



Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post

Fox Guarding the Hen House

Only the Governor's veto can now stand in the way of the Minnesota legislature's most recent ineptitude, if not malfeasance. 

Crossing the Governor's desk next week is the spectre of emasculation of Minnesota's environmental protection act, Senate File 42, and House File 1  This ill-conceived legislation would put the fox in charge of the hen house in an illusory attempt to decrease the time between applying for a permit to site an industrial plant and granting the permit. Playing upon the urban legend of "guv'mint inefficiency" the revision to Minnesota environmental statutes would be reworded:

Article 1, section 7, allows a project proposer to prepare a draft environment impact statement for a project for submission to and review, modification, and determination of completeness and adequacy by the responsible government unit. 

Current law requires the local "responsible unit of government" to undertake the environmental review specifically to avoid real or perceived bias in the content of the review. But, we're not done yet! The new bill goes even further by violating basic principles of judicial review:

Article 1, section 9, modifies the procedures for judicial review of decisions regarding the need for an environmental assessment worksheet, the need for an environmental impact statement, and the adequacy of an environmental impact statement.  Current law provides that these decisions may be reviewed by a declaratory judgment action in the district court of the county where the proposed action or any part of it would be undertaken.  This section provides that these decisions would be subject to review by the Court of Appeals, rather than the district court.

Reasons for this miscreant revision are obvious enough, opposition to citing industrial plants, especially "dirty" ones, arises from the grassroots at the local level. Sending the citizenry to St. Paul to attend Appellate hearings will clearly reduce citizens' involvement in the review process. No evidence has been provided to show that such a diversion of responsibility from district courts to the appellate court will be more expeditious, or, could even be handled on the crowded docket of the appellate court.

Best Governor Money can Buy?

Riddle overheard on the streets of Milwaukee:

QUESTION--How do you spell Walker?

ANSWER--B L A G O J E V I C H

Wisconsin really is broke; you get what you pay for and this Governor is clearly a bargain-basement purchase. If you need further proof, just look up the Journal-Sentinel Online or, better yet, hear the recording Audio: Prank Interview there of a prankster, posing as billionaire David Koch (Walker gift horse), in a telephone conversation with the new Boy Governor. I won't say anything more here at the risk of revealing the aural pornography in store for the listening audience.

Tommy Lee Jones said it best in No Country for Old Men, "You can't make up such a thing as that. I dare you to even try."

Fiscal bankruptcy is curable, but moral bankruptcy?  Ask Blagojevich.

Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post

A New Infantile Paralysis

My generation grew through childhood during those perilous years before Jonas Salk developed an effective vaccine against the poliomyelitis virus. One strain of the virus induced paralysis in about 1% of infected persons, children being especially susceptible, hence the name, infantile paralysis. The Good News is that the last reported case of wild polio virus transmission in North America occurred in 1979. The World Health Organization hopes to be able to declare world-wide eradication of the disease early in the 21st century.

The Bad News is that a new virulent plague of infantile behavior among elected officials is currently sweeping the country. This behavior has already paralyzed government in Wisconsin and is rapidly closing in on Washington, D.C., where it may cripple the federal government within the next two weeks.  What are the origins of this plague and the prognosis for a cure?

Best Idea in 5000 Years

Born on this day in 1809,  it is appropriate to celebrate the intellectual and human freedoms promised by the work of Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln.  Coupled with Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, issued only four years after “The Origin of Species”, these documents mark the dawn of a new awareness in 19th Century life, that would prove to be every bit as empowering as the Renaissance in Europe had been during the 14th to 16th centuries.

Health Insurance? Surely, you Jest!

The issue has never been one of insurance, but of health care. Young people don't worry much about it, elders do. Confusion may stem from the notion of "Life Insurance" which is recognized (when purchased at a young age) as an investment because everyone knows you can't insure against death; accidents, yes (hence "term" insurance), but death, no. So the misnomer has gotten us into trouble because it is a deception, just as the "Patriot Act" has nothing to do with patriotism, rather it is used instead of "tyranny" or "authoritarian", two more accurate, but less endearing terms.

Coming Home to Roost

Today we recall, on what would have been Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday, the various hills and valleys traversed in world history as a consequence of his election to the Presidency of the United States. There will be claims and counter-claims as to the President's involvement in, or, even knowledge of, events such as the "arms for hostages" exchange, or support for the death squads of the banana republic "freedom fighters". We will argue whether it was Reagan's ascendency as a world leader, or the crushing weight of its own bureaucracy that brought about the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Because Reagan was so insistent upon revisiting the principles of governance exemplified by the writing of the founding fathers, we should re-examine those principles, beginning with the proposition that all politics are local.

Procustes ad infinitum

"There you go again..." is the only possible response to the procustean pronouncement of Judge Roger Vinson in his ruling on the Affordable Care Act. Rising from his constitutional procustean bed to compete with the inanity of Mississippi jurisprudence, the honorable Florida jurist has decreed, "I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

Nominate NBC for the Darwin Award

Keith Olberman’s firing represents an example of why corporate America cannot be allowed the privileges of moral beings in governance (as in the Citizens United v. FEC decision). The problem is not the virtually anonymous and certainly soul-less bean-counting of soul-less executives reviewing polls and Nielsen ratings. After all, could any of us pick Phil Griffin, Steve Capus, or Brian Roberts out of a lineup?  Rather, the problem rests in unaccountability for mindless decisions like this. There has clearly been a conscious effort among MSNBC executives to REFUSE TO THINK, a sin condemned by luminaries from Plato to Ayn Rand.

The Road to Theocracy

Just moments after President Reagan had been taken to the hospital following John Hinckley's attempt to assassinate him, Secretary of State Alexander Haig pronounced: "As of now I am in control here in the White House."  Oops, not even close to the Constitutional intent for presidential succession. Secretary of State (Hilary Clinton, today) is fifth in line, rather than second. Even worse, the President had not been declared unable to fulfill the duties of his office.

Gun Control

Many enthusiastic recreational shooters have seen the signs posted at the driveway to the firing range: “Three shots through the same hole at 100 yards, now, THAT’S GUN CONTROL”. Well, yes, fine shooting; a tribute to the individual holding the gun, the quality of the gun, ammunition, and the sighting system. But, the real meaning of “GUN CONTROL” used in newspapers, broadcast media and casual conversation in our society is code for a suite of much longer phrases, mostly questions:

Why does our society have so many shootings?
Who is going to take away our guns?
How can I buy a gun?
Do mentally handicapped persons have a right to own guns?
How old do I have to be to own a gun?
Guns don’t kill people, people do!

Let’s look at these one by one.

Barbourous oral flatulence

Mere words cannot convey the depth of human contempt for the Barbourous pronouncements issuing from the Mississippi gubernator over the last few weeks. After recently attempting to justify the racist behavior of his hometown Citizens Committee in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, Gov. Haley Barbour trumped his own play by suspending the double life sentences of  Jamie and Gladys Scott for their alleged role in an $11 armed robbery in 1994.  So surprising was this turn of events that the womens' attorney and the NAACP proclaimed this a victory for JUSTICE IN MISSISSIPPI.