We’re All Ignorant

Let’s start with common ground: we are all ignorant, we’re just ignorant about different things. The other side of that coin is that we all know stuff, and while a lot of the stuff we know is common knowledge, each of us has some knowledge no one else around has.

That’s one of the great benefits of diverse gatherings of people: when we get together we can call on our broad collective knowledge to cover for our specific individual ignorance. This applies equally to families, towns, states, and nations.

This is one of the reasons I glory in diversity, and support it whenever and wherever I can.

But that does not mean that I give up my responsibility to think for myself, and to evaluate as best I can what I hear, what I see, and what makes sense.

Essential to this evaluation process is the ability to think clearly, and to have access to accurate information.

Both of these essentials have been under attack for decades, and the results are clear to anyone who looks.

Schools, particularly primary schools, no longer teach analytical thinking (essential to evaluating information), nor vast parts of the history of this country (essential to a sense of perspective). Schools no longer challenge students to form, and defend, their own viewpoints. There is little or no discussion of ideas and principles, and none of everyday ethics or of the commons.

Accurate information is almost a thing of the past – most popular media is owned by a few large corporations, and these corporations use their media to present only those viewpoints that support their ideologies.

The traditional protections for public access to the airwaves have been dismantled. The fairness doctrine not only is gone, it is unknown to the majority of listeners and viewers.

Case law now supports the Fox News Network’s position that corporations using the public airwaves are under no obligation to tell the truth, even in “news” programs. Media owners can lie in their programs, even when they know they are lying, and it is legally condoned activity, say the courts.

Reasonable entry of individuals into the public discourse has been, like political dissent, limited to “free speech zones”. Even the Internet, an unprecedented opportunity to open discussion to “the masses”, is under attack, with the powerful demanding control of who speaks, and when, and how.

The founders of the United States of America knew, and said, that our democracy depends upon an informed public. We are uninformed, and misinformed, and we are therefore losing our democracy.

What do you think?

The Essence of Democracy

Here is a really short post for today.

The essence of democracy is the right to be wrong.

The key to democracy is the right to state your opinion, and to have it heard – to place your ideas in the public discourse, for review, discussion, and development.

Remember that we are all ignorant, just about different stuff. So, no matter what we say, there are those who are certain we are wrong, just as there are those who we know are wrong.

What becomes fascinating as we move through life is how many things we knew were wrong tend to become not wrong as time goes by. Our understanding of the world, and of people, tends to become broader, and we better understand that things we previously saw as black or white are in fact shades of gray (and red, yellow, blue, green…)

If we are allowed only to be right. most good ideas would be suppressed – by those who have the power to control what is determined to be right and to be wrong.

It is a ability to voice our understandings and to hear the ideas of others that makes for an informed public and a reduction in ignorance. It also results in improvements in a democratic society, usually a threat to those in positions to control what is determined to be right and to be wrong.

So, speak up!

What do you think? Really.

Travel by Airplane

I was born in 1946, part of the postwar “baby boom”.

As it turns out, I was born into the most privileged society in the world, at the height of its privilege. As a white male born into a middle class family, I was a beneficiary of most of that privilege.

Although it is hard to believe now, by the early 1950s, one man, working full time, at minimum wage, could support a family of four. High quality health care was generally available, and affordable, for most people throughout the nation, urban or rural. Free public education was easily available for most people, and well funded.

To be sure, there were profound systemic problems-it was not Eden.

One man could support a family of four, but not one woman. Women then, as throughout most of human history, did the bulk of the everyday work of households, and their work was little valued, and rarely paid. Education opportunities were best for those of European heritage. While racial oppression was beginning to ease, it was still widespread, although class distinctions were at probably their lowest since the founding of the country.

But this piece is not about these inequities, important though they were, and are. This piece is about technology in our daily lives, and the profound changes that can happen in one lifetime.

I was born before there was television; movies were in black and white. Recorded music was on records, which were large, brittle, inconvenient, and monophonic. There were no electronics to speak of: no video games, no personal computers, no cell phones, no iPhones, no CDs, no DVDs, and no Bluetooth.

And the only people traveling by airplane were the military, businessmen and the wealthy.

It occurred to me the other day that most of us have little concept of what a post-petroleum world will be like. Petroleum is unique as an energy source in that it is energy dense (that is, a lot of energy is contained in a small volume), can be stored and transported safely at normal temperatures and pressures, and is easily converted to usable energy. Each of these qualities is important; which is most important varies depending on the use to which we wish to put it.

In airplanes, the critical quality is energy density. Weight and volume is important in flying. The more the fuel weighs, and the larger the space it takes up, the less the payload can be (fewer people) or the shorter the trip between fueling stops. In practical terms, this means that soon airplane flight will again be rare-a mode of transport used only by the military, some business people, and the wealthy.

It means that in my lifetime I will have lived through the entire time where airplane flight was available to the average person.

I wonder what else will disappear? Since nearly all plastics are petroleum based, what will we do without abundant inexpensive plastics? What about cheap and easy transportation of people and goods?

What do you think?

The Stock Market as a Ponzi Scheme

The term “Ponzi Scheme” has re-entered the common lexicon, brought to the forefront by the current machinations in the stock market and other financial arenas.

The name comes from an Italian American (named Ponzi) who bilked a number of people in a crooked investment scheme. He claimed to be investing their money, but in reality he paid high returns to early investors with money from later investors. The more people he paid, the more people invested with him, and they, in turn, received payments from subsequent investors.

Eventually, of course, the money ran out, and the whole house of cards imploded.

You may not see the similarity with the recent stock market collapse. After all, in the stock market you actually own stock (or some other “instrument”). This stiff is real, not imaginary. But is it?

Any basic investment training will tell you that there are very specific things to examine when making an investment, and they should be balanced to your needs, and you comfort with risk. Rule number one is that the return reflects the risk, i.e. te higher the risk, the higher the rate of return (earnings).

The reasons to buy stock are: ownership in the company, income stream, and increase in value.

Ownership in the company yields two benefits, a voice in running the company (voting stock selects the Board of Directors) and the security of owning assets if the company dissolves. In a publicly traded company it is unlikely that any individual you or I know will ever have enough stock to make a difference in who is on the Board. Corporations never dissolve when they are solvent, so it is almost a matter of definition that if a corporation doissolves you will see anything after creditors recover what they can from the dale of assets.

No one who works for a living buys stock for the business ownership.

The income stream from a company is found in the dividends. There are no large corporations that pa=y dividends anything like an number of other investments that ae much more secure.

Almost no one buys stick for the income stream.

That leaves capital gains when the stock is sold. In other words, I can sell the stock for more than I paid for it.

That is the reason virtually everyone who buys stock does so. The expectation that someone else will buy the stock for more than I paid.

But why will someone else pay me more that I paid?

For the same reason I did: They believe that they can sell it for more than they paid. To someone else who thinks they can sell it for more than they paid. And so on, and so on.

So how “real” is the stock. We have all owned the same shares of stock. Has the real value of the company increased over time? Ha the company increased production? Cut costs? Increased profits and therefore increased dividends?

A fun thing to do is listen to investment pundits predict what will happen in the market over the next few weeks or months, then scramble to explain what actually happened later.

Stock prices do not regularly reflect P/E ratios, profits, net worth of the company, or any other common predictor.

Stock prices are influenced primarily by belief – a truly faith-based investment.

Now do you see the similarity between the stock market and any other Ponzi scheme?

What do you think?

Learning from Life

I work a lot with young people. Primarily in gardens and on small farms. We grow food.

I regularly hear from observers and supporters how wonderful it is for the participants to learn to grow their own food, or to take care of the earth, or to learn good work habits, or to be responsible, or…

All of that is true, if course.

What I do not hear about is what I consider the most important lesson: for many “disadvantaged” youth (a disproportionate number of the participants), planting, tending, growing, harvesting and eating food plants is perhaps their first experience that undeniably demonstrates to them that what they do has real life consequences.

Let’s be honest. Most of the people we call “disadvantaged” are pretty much screwed from birth. They are born into poverty, and the poor are pretty much left out of the loop when it comes to opportunity in this country.

In addition, most “disadvantaged” people are not “white”, which is almost a crime in itself. Their access to education and resources is curtailed, their efforts are ignored or denigrated, their lives diminished at every turn.

All because they were born when the were, where they were, and in the society they were, NOT because of their actions or failure to act.

To be sure, many do things that are unacceptable to the rest of society. But when they do, they often suffer consequences that are disproportional to those who are “better off”. For instance, studies are replete with the details of longer and harsher sentences for non-whites in the United States for identical charges in similar circumstances.

In short, their life experiences show them, again and again, that how well they do in life is not related to their actions. How many Caucasian young men do you know who have been pulled over for being white? Yet every young man of color who drives has been hassled by the police for no other real reason than that he was a young man of color.

But nature doesn’t care.

The cycle of life responds to anyone who puts in the effort to plant and tend, yielding a harvest which reflects that care, as well as that of the soil and the season. Every time. No exception, no fast footwork, no evasion, no excuse.

For many of the people in these programs I am so happy to be involved in, this is the first time in their lives that they can proudly say, “I grew that! And it tastes GOOD!”

THAT’S the value from the effort that keeps me going.

What do you think?

Buy Local?

So buying local is the latest progressive thing to do. But what does it mean, to “buy local”?

Here’s what “buy local” means – not just buying from your locally owned store (which is very important), but buying stuff made locally – the closer to home the better, e.g if you live in Portland, in descending order of “goodness”: made in the Portland metro area, made in Oregon, made in the Pacific Northwest, made in the United States, then Canada, then Mexico.

Here is the real challenge: while it is true that there is much to be found that is made more or less locally, there is also much that is not to be found made anywhere in the West. For example, have you tried to buy a wind-up alarm clock not made in China lately? And sometimes the price of locally made things is higher than the alternatives.

I suggest some strategies here: paying more (at the counter) for locally made things is worth it – the benefit to the local economy (our neighbors) outweighs the additional price (at the counter) because when we do not buy locally we end up paying additional costs: higher unemployment, increased crime, poorer health, and declining neighborhoods.

But what to do when there is no local (say within the United States) article? Now the decision is, do I really need this? Is there a substitute I can get that is produced locally?

Please remember, if we want to be serious about sustainable societies we need to recognize that most of us have way too much stuff. There is a basic rule in sustainability: if you consume more than you produce you are being subsidized. The subsidy is always in some form of energy and natural resources. For most of the history of humankind that energy subsidy has been mainly slave labor/peons/indentured servants/peasants. That pretty much came to an end in the United States in the early part of the 20th century, when we shifted to petroleum energy – but now this abundance of high-density, easily portable energy is coming to an end.

Some years ago we began shifting our subsidies to cheap labor in distant economies. The cost has been the loss of control of our economy, which means that we have lost wealth, resources, productivity, key industrial capability and the skilled labor needed to be a productive society. The price we pay is not only at the cash register (which might be better called a “credit register”), but in the loss of the ability to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves. The question we must now face is “Who do we want to be dependent upon/subsidized by?”

How about ourselves? Buy local? Unquestionably, yes!

What do you think?

When Is A Child Not A Child?

We make a distinction in this country between children and adults. We do this in the belief that it takes a certain level of maturity to be able to make reasoned decisions, and before that maturity is reached a person is less responsible for their actions–that is the province of a responsible adult, typically a parent.

The principle is codified: rights come with responsibilities, responsibilities confer rights. It is this principle that is the basis for withholding some rights for society’s younger members when we do not hold them responsible. It is a matter of equity and a recognition of human development.

In our society, we set that legal milestone based on age, as basing it on “maturity” would be virtually impossible to implement.

But then we sometimes choose to prosecute underage defendants in criminal cases as adults. The presumption is that the crime was so abhorrent, or the attitude of the defendant so callous, that they must face the penalties that an adult would face.

Let me reiterate the principle in a different syntax: if you do not have the right, you cannot be held responsible. Conversely, if you have the responsibility you must have the right.

But, while we hold these youthful defendants to adult responsibilities, we do not then give them the rights of adults.

While we can certianly have spirited debates about what age the young become adults, and assume the responsibilities of adulthood along with the corresponding rights, is there really any basis for holding an individual responsible as an adult without granting them the rights that go with that level of responsibility?

What do you think?

An Open Letter to President Obama and the Democratic National Committee

(published on Blue Oregon 8/13/09 – www.blueoregon.com)

August 5, 2009

Mr. President (and Committee Members),

I recently received a mailing from you. You ask me to make a contribution “to help build grassroots support for action on the economy, health care, energy and education.” You ask if “you can count on me.”

Can you count on me? Yes, you can. You can count on me to hold you to your campaign promises and the party platform.

Will I make a contribution? Yes, I will. Here is my contribution:

It is time to stop trying to work with an opposition who is demonstrably unwilling to compromise, or even to have a conversation about the most important challenges of our time.

It is time to stand up and clearly state what needs to be done, how you are going to lead the country in doing those things, and who is helping and who is hindering.

We need to hear specific solutions, not vague generalities. We need you to voice those solutions clearly, and to invite the people and the legislators of this country to get behind you in achieving them. We need the Congress to stop fooling around and pass legislation that will implement serious change, and we need it now.

We know the problems.

The Economy
Our economy is in tatters, largely because of unregulated speculation by a relatively few individuals and corporations, supported by years of de-regulation by the federal government. In a field where one of the basic principles is “the reward reflects the risk”, those who invested in the riskiest instruments were happy to receive the rewards when times were good, and were relieved of the losses when unlimited speculation resulted in the inevitable failures. Congress eliminated the risk at the taxpayers’ expense. This is because most of our legislators and holders of high office have been sold to the highest bidder. It is time now for you exhibit leadership in bringing to the forefront of public discussion the need for massive campaign reform, and the clear delineation of corporations as business entities, not people, with the rights and obligations of business, not the rights (without the obligations) of people, as is the case now. We need to become a nation of producers, not importers. We need meaningful, productive jobs. We need to narrow the growing gap between the rich and poor in this country. We need to eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy, reestablish a truly progressive income tax system and re-institute an effective estate tax. We need to break up monopolies and business “too big to fail.” We need to regain control of our sovereignty by withdrawing from GATT, WTO and other international treaties and agreements that subjugate the will of the people to that of international corporations.

Health Care
Alone in the world of “developed” nations, we have millions of our people who cannot access health care, and the number is growing rapidly. We know that health insurance is NOT health care. We know that single-payer health care systems work, and they work well. It is long past time that we institute single-payer health care in the United States. This would establish an indisputable legacy of the Democratic Party as the party of the people. Instead we get a conversation that does not even include single-payer. You started with a compromise, perhaps to be more inclusive, particularly of the Republicans. What you got was wholesale rejection by Republicans, and a number of Democrats backpedaling as fast as they can. Present a real single-payer plan, fight for it, and let those in Congress who will not support it, do so publicly. Then see what the mid-term elections bring us. How would you like to run for re-election as “the candidate who voted to deny you health care?”

Energy
There is no clear and simple solution to our energy problems, nor the energy problems of the rest of the world, but we do know some basic facts: We are fast approaching the end of cheap and easy to use energy, and there are no reasonable alternatives. Calculating life cycle energy flows, nuclear energy is an energy sink, not an energy source. Coal is so environmentally destructive that it should be eliminated as a fuel source as soon as possible. Using any combination of source materials and processes, biofuels are totally inadequate in volume to replace our present energy use. Any possible sustainable energy use will be significantly lower than our current consumption. The only successful strategies will be based on significantly lower aggregate energy use. This means, at the very least, re-localizing economies and vastly reducing transportation.

Education
An educated public is essential to our democracy as well as to our economy. Full, free public education through college is the backbone of a productive and engaged populace.

You Asked, We Gave
The Democrats have, for years, asked for support “to regain a majority” in both houses of Congress and to take back the White House.

Well, now you have it all.

But the people of this country are seeing more of the same: more money to the wealthy, more control to the corporations, more caving in to radical conservatives, and the continuation of reprehensible policies of previous administrations that we were promised would end.

Now, It Is Your Turn
So far, Mr. President, you have continued to make great speeches, but you have not shown any leadership. If you want my help, or even my vote, both you and the Congress need to stand up for the principles and programs you promised. I speak only for myself, but I hear a multitude of others saying much the same things. And we all vote. I think we have seen an end to mass apathy among voters. The last election shows how many people can be connected with very little funding, without support from international corporations, and we have seen the results at the voting booths when we are.

Mr. President, now is the time for you and the Democratic leadership to lead. Make the changes needed, or at least fight for them. Stop trying to include those who have no wish to be included. Stop trying to compromise with those who will not compromise. Make the changes we need, and make them now. And do it very publicly. Let us see who is helping and who is not. Let us know what our representatives are actually doing, not just what they are saying.

And while you are at it, hold those in past administrations (and Members of Congress) accountable for their past actions at least to the same standards the average citizen would be. There should be indictments and trials going on.

Otherwise we will see another single-term President, a surge of ineffective third parties, another Republican controlled Congress, and even more devastation of our economy, our environment, and our democracy.

Stand up to big money! Stand up to corporate greed! Stand up for the principles the party once stood for! And do it now!

Yes, we can!

Computer Security

Recently, a Portland, Oregon, man had his computer repaired at a local factory-authorized dealer.

The first time he used the computer after he had it back he noticed that the screen looked different. A little exploration revealed that the information on his hard drive had been completely replaced with information from someone else’s computer. The information belonged to a professional, and contained confidential records about clients.

When asked, the dealer explained that the wrong data had been restored to the customer’s computer after the repair was done. Human error.

When asked why this kind of error had happened, and not been detected before the computer was released to the customer, no explanation was offered. When the manufacturer, who presumably has standards for it’s authorized dealers, was asked about this incident, they had no comment.

These are the folks who handle all our personal data. They provide the hardware and software that allows us to create records, and to transmit them to others, assuring us of the confidentiality of the data.

Gives you a warm feeling of security, doesn’t it?

This links to the practices of various companies that require you to give them a broad array of personal information before they will do business with you. They assure you that the information will be protected, and not released to anyone “not authorized” to have it.

In most cases they cannot tell you why they need it other than “it’s our policy.” On the rare occasions that they do supply a reason it is usually vague (e.g. “for continuing support”) or false (they do not need your social security number to run a credit check.)

They can’t usually tell you who is “authorized”, nor how they will protect the information, and they won’t agree to compensate you for any time or expenses needed to clean up the damage done by their failure to adequately protect the information.

Here comes that warm feeling of security again.

My usual response it to refuse to do business with these companies.

It works for me. If it works for enough of us, the companies will change their practices, or go out of business.

What do you think?

Child Neglect – It’s a Matter of Religion

Two Oregon events have recently come to my attention, and it set me thinking.

The first was the trial of two parents for the death of their child. They were charged with manslaughter when their child died, because, as members of a religious sect that believes in prayer, not Western medicine, as the way to restore health, they did not seek medical help for their child when they knew the child was ill.

I was not at the trial, and I do not know the facts presented to the jury. I do know that the jury found them not guilty of manslaughter, although they did find the father guilty of criminal mistreatment. As I understand it, the parents were not aware of the seriousness of the illness, and that was a factor in their acquittal.

But the point here is that they were prosecuted. They were prosecuted because law enforcement officials felt they had violated the law in not taking their child to the hospital because of their religious beliefs.

Keep in mind that there is no law that says that if your child is ill you must take your child to the hospital. There are numerous laws about being responsible for the welfare of your children.

Yesterday, another child was lost. A 5-year-old child was playing in a river, parents nearby. It appears that the child fell in “knee deep” water and was pulled into the current. The child drowned. At some point the parents noticed that their child was missing. An aunt recovered the child. Medical help arrived, but was unable to save the child. It is estimated that the child was underwater for 5 or 10 minutes. The child was not wearing a flotation device.

What are the chances that these parents will be charged with manslaughter?

After all, they allowed a 5-year-old child into open water without a flotation device, a practice that has led to a number of drownings in this area in just the last few weeks. Media stories regularly warn people of the danger of entering the water without a flotation device. In fact, there are laws about flotation devices for children in boats, although not, to my knowledge, for wading in rivers.

And they lost track of the child for at least 5 minutes, and perhaps 10, knowing the child was in the water.

In the first case, the child died when the parents did not call on medical help. This was considered so neglectful of the child’s welfare that they were tried for manslaughter. Let’s ignore for a moment the unstated assumption that if they had taken the child to the hospital the child would have recovered, an outcome that by no means is assured – children (and adults) die every day in hospitals, often from diseases they contracted in the hospital. In this case law enforcement officials chose to charge the parents with manslaughter. After all, seeking medical care for children who are ill is the common practice in this country – the norm.

In the second case, the child died when the parents allowed a 5-year old to play, unsupervised and unwatched, in a river, without a flotation device. There has been no call to see the parents charged with manslaughter. After all, letting children play unsupervised, and without floatation devices, is the common practice in this country – the norm.

It appears that the first child’s death is criminal. The second child’s death is just a terrible accident.

Kind of like when drunk drivers kill people.

What do you think?